While we are disappointed with the inclination not to lean in favor of Title I regulation, we are prepared to work constructively with the Commission to determine whether there is a "third way" approach that allows the Commission to take limited but effective measures to preserve an open Internet and implement critical features of the National Broadband Plan, but does not cast the kind of regulatory cloud that would chill investment and innovation by ISPs.

We are generally very pleased with the FCC’s statement this morning. We have said for months that the right path for the Commission to take would be to examine all the possibilities for the best way to protect consumers and guarantee the expansion of broadband. The method the FCC is expected to propose should be on the table, and we are glad it is. "Having said that, we were not pleased to read that the Commission at the outset is foreclosing the possibility of requiring line sharing. As the Berkman report found, line sharing is a crucial method to ensuring the long-term vibrancy of the broadband market and to providing more choices for consumers.

By putting the FCC's regulatory framework back in harmony with congressional intent, Chairman Genachowski is reversing one of the worst deregulatory mistakes of the past decade. This is a step in the right direction that rejects the special interests of giant network owners. But he should be cautious about throwing out rules that would promote competition and affordability. The Chairman’s plan appears to preemptively abandon important provisions of the law that serve consumers.

We firmly believe that the case for new regulation of the Internet has not been made. Today’s competitive and dynamic broadband marketplace already operates according to openness principles that have broad industry consensus and serve consumers well. We support the goals and many recommendations of the National Broadband Plan. And, as we have repeatedly made clear, we are prepared to work constructively with the FCC, Congress and all policymakers to create an appropriate framework that preserves an open Internet and achieves the goals of the Broadband Plan.

While still reviewing the implications of the FCC's legal arguments, Sprint appreciates the FCC's statement that any regulation it may assert would be through a light regulatory touch. Sprint agrees the past decade has seen the rapid development of a competitive and innovative commercial mobile wireless communications marketplace under such a light regulatory touch. Sprint commends the FCC for the cautious approach it is taking toward this complex subject. The FCC can and should foster similar growth in broadband by focusing its energies on protecting consumers by promoting competition and placing checks and balances on providers with market power."

We are deeply disappointed that, in order to deal with an adverse court decision, the FCC chairman has decided to subject all broadband facilities, including Internet backbones, to common carriage regulation under Title II. We believe this is without legal basis. Make no mistake—when it regulates the networks that comprise the Internet, the FCC is in fact, and for the first time, regulating the Internet itself. There is no statutory basis for doing so—indeed it is directly contrary to Congress’s stated intentions—and is being done without any compelling evidence that would justify a reversal of the FCC’s prior decisions on this issue. If the FCC follows through with the chairman’s stated intent, it will have a direct impact on jobs and investment in one of the areas of the US economy that many hoped could help lead the recovery.

We are encouraged that the Chairman’s proposal does not go beyond previously articulated principles regarding regulation of the internet. However, we remain concerned about the view that there is something unique about last-mile broadband access providers that requires different regulation from other internet participants.

Additionally, we are concerned with reclassifying broadband service as a Title II service, which could create regulatory uncertainty that could dampen investment and innovation and ultimately, damage the consumer experience.