Posted By Elliot Volkman on May 19, 2014 | 1 comment

In regards to the recent notice of proposed rulemaking on Proposed Open Internet Rules

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Pai, Rosenworcel, and O’Rielly:

Much like when phones and common utilities became essential to our everyday living, the internet has become a necessity for US citizens and much of the world. As a nation, we rely on the internet for work, education, communication, entertainment, and innovation. After your initial vote to move forward with potentially adding tiered internet speeds, during your open comment period, Digital District respectfully suggests to remove this measure from the proposed open internet rules. By introducing tiered internet, it goes against the basic principle of Net Neutrality that all data on the Internet is equal. As an organization, we are for regulation that supports an open internet, Net Neutrality.

There are two specific issues we would like to highlight on GN Docket No. 14-28:

• First, a tiered internet with fast lanes* will reduce innovation and competition.
• Second, the FCC should move to include broadband in the Communications Act under Title II to ensure there is stronger competition and equality.

On a tiered internet: By introducing fast lanes to the internet, big companies such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and many cloud based providers such as SalesForce, Google Maps, or even data storage sites will be forced to pay a premium for faster service. The issue is not that these companies will have to pay or that the money will be passed onto consumers, but it will drastically affect startups and small businesses who want to compete in the space. Products from companies that receive speed priorities will become the norm for consumer use; small businesses will not be able to compete, regardless of how well their platform is developed. The proposed tiered internet can’t produce a faster infrastructure, so the result is in fact a slow lane that degrades or throttles non-premium paying companies. When YouTube was initially created, it was competing against Google’s streaming video service and many others. Due to the neutrality of internet speeds, YouTube was able to compete against large companies and won. As a result, they were purchased by Google, and consumers gained a better product. It was a win-win situation, and represents what many entrepreneurs strive for. Current ISPs did not develop the infrastructure that broadband runs on, and they should not be the ones to charge tolls for something that is already established.

On redefining broadband as Title II: Though it makes sense for providers to charge the heaviest consumers based on the amount of data streamed or consumed, the current guidelines are not well defined. Providers can pick and choose parts of the Web that generate the most money, and impose hypothetical tolls just for entering the internet highway. We need regulations that focuses on internet as a right. ISPs and cable companies don’t want regulation, because it means breaking up monopolies, being unable to force companies to pay more for faster service, and they can’t block or slow down specific services as they choose (which Netflix is complaining that Comcast is doing). The solution is to redefine broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.

Digital District works with community innovators to educate our peers, foster increased creativity, and encourage participation in the digital sphere. As one of the largest nonprofits that focuses on the digital space in Washington DC, we feel that Net Neutrality should be a priority, and not negatively affect competition and innovation.

*Fast lanes are a common term being used when reporting this situation; however, the premium cost involved won’t make anything faster. They will receive priority access, and everyone else will be placed in a slow lane.

Digital District’s opinions are decided by its board of directors, and separate from our members and leadership team. These views do not necessarily represent those of our members.

—–

Digital citizens of Washington DC,

If you would like the internet to remain open and neutral, please consider commenting on the . To publicly comment, , and make sure preceding number 14-28 (Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet) is entered. Please also consider sharing and reading the resources below. The resources contain pertinent information about both sides of the argument. Education is the most powerful tool we have for ensuring that Net Neutrality is achieved.

—–

What is Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. – via Wikipedia

The FCC asks the public several important question in this NPRM:

• Should the FCC bar paid prioritization completely?
• Should the FCC apply Open Internet rules to mobile broadband Internet service, not just fixed broadband Internet?
• Should the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act?

– via Alex Howard

The proposed change:

The current plan could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider can charge a website such as Netflix for faster video streaming. The proposal would; however, prohibit telecom firms from outright blocking Web sites.

Argument against implementing this change:

This particular issue is not so much about the large companies, but the smaller startups who would then be forced to compete in the same environment as those who can pay for faster speeds. There is an inherent issue with this, and highway express lanes are not an apt metaphor. If common consumer sites pay for the fast lane, speed expectations will rise, and small businesses will fail to compete as a result. When YouTube was first introduced, it was faster than Google’s streaming video service. The result was that users flocked to the fastest platform, and of course Google eventually purchased the service.

The argument is in two parts:

First, not to allow a pay to play system to be implemented. This will certainly create an unequal (non-neutral) Web environment that will negatively affect innovation and small businesses. Second, redefine broadband under title II of the Communications Act. This will allow the FCC to better regulate and retain the internets neutral status.

Title II of the Communications Act, does not prevent ISPs from charging for premium access; however, that could be part of the improved regulation. Title II regulations on the old phone systems are what allowed the internet to grow on top of the phone network, without discrimination from the telephone companies. ISPs have used Title II regulations to subsidize their physical wireline networks to offer internet service.

Title II is also not about regulating the entirety of the internet. ISPs have a terminating access monopoly for users, and can (and have, such as with Netflix) use that to discriminate, prioritize their own services, and cut special deals with favored companies.

Argument for implementing this change:

Treating broadband as a utility would “reverse years of settled precedent, dry up investment in broadband deployment and network upgrades, and result in protracted litigation and marketplace uncertainty,” said Michael Powell, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and former head of the FCC, in a statement. The telecom companies argue that without being able to charge tech firms for higher-speed connections, they will be unable to invest in faster connections for consumers. -via WAPO

“We are not sure we know what paid prioritization, or what a fast lane, is,” Comcast exec VP David L. Cohen said. “Fast lane sounds bad… (but) I believe that whatever it is, it has been completely legal for 15 or 20 years.” – via

(TL;DR – Lack of funds to invest in faster consumer connections, and it’s what we’ve been doing.)

The two sides:

Cable and broadband providers do not want increased regulation or to move towards placing the internet under Title II of the Communications act. They would like to self-manage the situation, prioritize partners speeds, and have the ability to restrict user access or degrade service to some parts of the internet.

Those who want Net Neutrality would like increased regulations that allow all things on the Web to remain equal, promote universal access to fast and affordable networks. Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate. Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies and don’t punish innovators for their users’ actions. Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used. [Source]

Resources:

ACLU’s Net Neutrality 101 paper: This highlights what could happen, what is happening, and what has happened.

FCC approves plan to consider paid priority on Internet: WAPO article on FCC’s approved vote to move forward

Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet NPRM: FCC’s commission document (long read)

FCC Launches Broad Rulemaking to Protect and Promote the Open Internet: FCC’s fact sheet announcing the public comment period regarding these changes

No potholes on the Internet: NTCA’s argument against moving towards a regulated

Comcast vs. Netflix: Is this really about Net neutrality?: This isn’t about Netflix or other streaming providers, it’s about the little guy and competition

Argument Against Regulation: Cable providers open letter to the FCC

Understanding the Communications Act of 1934: Specific attention and clearer description of what Title II currently means