[runnerup]

> No. The first page is the "fact sheet." The other 693 pages is the rule-making document.

You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.

Only the last two pages before the appendix is "the rule-making document", and the 4 pages of appendix A - just six pages in total. The rest is a dialogue on why the rules are needed and provide context to understand the intent of the rules. The rule starts at "X. ORDERING CLAUSES" on page 394 and is less than 2 pages long in total. It will also be necessary to fill in references made to "Appendix A" which is an additional 4 pages (397-401).

It's not surprising to me that both you and the other poster couldn't figure this out -- it's very easy to miss a section so small when it's titled similarly to sections like "IV. ORDER: FORBEARANCE FOR BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES" which are mostly discussion. That contains language like:

> Petitioners ask that the Commission reverse, vacate, or withdraw the RIF Remand Order, and request that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking to reclassify BIAS as a Title II service and reinstate the open Internet conduct rules. Collectively, petitioners make several procedural arguments for why the Commission should reconsider the RIF Remand Order. Common Cause et al. and Public Knowledge each assert that procedural deficiencies in the process the Commission used to adopt the RIF Remand Order are cause for reconsideration. Common Cause et al. argue that because the Commission failed to open the record to receive comment on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it failed to adequately consider harms of reclassifying BIAS as a Title I service on public safety, pole attachments, and the Lifeline program.

Which is clearly not an order - it is a discussion with a goal towards justifying parts of the order.

There are also only 434 pages. Not anywhere close to "693". It would be very rude of me to point out that you might be "unable to read past the table of contents". To the contrary, I understand that it's easy to misinterpret the indexing of the table of contents as pages rather than sections, and I have empathy for someone making that mistake, even if it does demonstrate that someone probably hasn't tried to use the table of contents to actually read the document.

[nobody9999]

>You are incredibly rude for someone who is also incredibly wrong. It is strange that whenever we are one of those, we all seem far more likely to be the other as well.

Yep. That's me. I smell bad and like jazz too.

The order is reclassifying ISPs (or as named in the document, Broadband Internet Access Services -- BIAS) under Title II of the FCC Act of 1934 (as amended repeatedly over the past 90 years). I believe the below is the pointy end of the stick and the first sentence (set apart for specific folks -- see below) is, in fact, the order.

Since I'm already rude, obnoxious and wrong, I'll wonder aloud at folks' reading comprehension skills as well.

Part III (section 25) states:

   We reinstate the telecommunications service    
   classification of BIAS under Title II of the
   Act.

   Reclassification will enhance the Commission’s 
   ability to ensure Internet openness, defend national
   security, promote cybersecurity, safeguard public safety, 
   monitor network resiliency and reliability,
   protect consumer privacy and data security, support 
   consumer access to BIAS, and improve disability
   access. We find that classification of BIAS as a 
   telecommunications service represents the best reading
   of the text of the Act in light of how the service is 
   offered and perceived today, as well as the factual and
   technical realities of how BIAS functions. Classifying 
   BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with 
   Commission and court precedent and is fully and 
   sufficiently justified under the Commission’s 
   longstanding authority and responsibility to classify 
   services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as 
   necessary. We also ensure that consumers receive the same    
   protections when using fixed and mobile BIAS by 
   reclassifying mobile BIAS as a commercial mobile service.

[reaperman]

Yes that section tells the audience what their new rules are doing, why they are doing it, and justification for how they’re allowed to do it. From your own quote choice:

> Classifying BIAS as a telecommunications service also accords with Commission and court precedent and is fully and sufficiently justified under the Commission’s longstanding authority and responsibility to classify services subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, as necessary.

This is clearly discussion about the rules in the section X and Appendix A. It’s clearly not an actual rule itself.

The actual rule relevant to your quote is the new Section 8.3 that they are adding to Part 20 of Title 47.

The current part 20 is here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B...

The new part 20 is given on page 398 of the document that you linked. This new section 8.3 is the actual action they take to specifically classify BIAS as a Title II telecommunications service.

> the first sentence is, in fact, the order.

No, it's a more-easily accessible description of the order in something approaching plain English. The new Section 8.3 in Appendix A is the "pointy end of the stick" of the Title II order, to use your terminology. The rest of the document is describing these changes (section X and Appendix A) in more plain English.

The actual order for what you quoted is on page 394:

> 693. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, and 602 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 153, 154(i)-(j), 160, 163, 201, 202, 206, 207, 208, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, 522, and 1302, that this Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration IS ADOPTED and that Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Parts 8, 20, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.

Specifically, the last little part:

> that Parts 8 and 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR Parts 8, 20, ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A.

That is the new rule. It is an actual change to Title 47. The rule is not what you quoted. What you quoted is not part of of any CFR. What you quoted is not federal code. Only Section X and Appendix A make actual changes to the "Code of Federal Regulations".

[nobody9999]

No. The "Rules" that apply are Title II of the FCC Act of 1934. The change being that ISPs are now regulated under Title II rather than Title I.

That's it. That's the rule change. Full stop.

If you'd like to understand what's different between Title I and Title II, I suggest checking out the law in question.

[pdabbadabba]

This is a reasonable supposition, but it's not true. The FCC can and has created a whole raft of specific rules that implement the m much broader Title II requirements as they apply to ISPs, including decisions not to impose certain Title II requirements (which is a power that the statute itself gives them).

If, say, you were an ISP, reading Title I and Title II would tell you very little about what you have to do to comply with the FCC's rules. You would have to read the actual FCC rules and the order to actually understand your legal obligations.

(Maybe you have in mind a quibble about what "rules" are. By "rules" I mean the U.S. government publications that tell you what you have to do in order to not be fined or punished in some other way by the U.S. government, and specifically the FCC.)

[reaperman]

> The change being that ISPs are now regulated under Title II rather than Title I.

That is a description of the change. The changes made to Title 47 are how ISP's are actually being regulated under Title II. A translation of what they are saying in the changes to section 8.3 is:

"Because Title II gives us the authority to do so, we choose to regulate them using that authority from Title II by making these specific changes to Title 47."

Again, what you quoted is not part of any CFR. What you quoted is not federal code.

What I quoted is an actual change to federal code which is what actually regulates ISP's "under" the authority given by title II. The actual federal code being changed is: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B... which has a note that "Title 47 was last amended 4/22/2024." but does not yet show the changes. The most recent version currently available is from changes enacted 12/06/2023. Within the next week or so it will show the changes made by Section X and Appendix A to CFR Title 47 "under" the authority granted by CFR Title II.

That is what it actually means "that ISPs are now regulated under Title II" (as you wrote). Saying "ISPs are now regulated under Title II" is just saying it. Changing Title 47 is actually doing it.