FCC Network Neutrality Hearing Recap

NETWORK NEUTRALITY HEARING
FCC Network Neutrality Hearing Recap

_Statement/Testimony_
Commissioner Michael Copps
Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein
Commissioner Deborah Tate
Rep Anna Eshoo
Ben Scott, Free Press
Caroline Fredrickson, American Civil Liberties Union
Harold Feld, Media Access Project

FCC NETWORK NEUTRALITY HEARING RECAP
[SOURCE: Benton Foundation]
All five members of the Federal Communications Commission met at Stanford University Thursday to hear testimony on how to relieve increasing Internet traffic congestion. The Commissioners disagreed over whether government regulations are needed. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein called for the FCC to strengthen its power to prevent Comcast and its competitors from unfairly discriminating against some customers. But Commissioner Deborah Tate and Robert McDowell warned against burdening the industry with additional, costly regulations. The swing vote appears to be FCC Chairman Kevin Martin who argued that the FCC's current Internet policy is sufficient, appearing to side with the anti-regulation camp. But he said the FCC's policy needs to be enforced to guarantee that whatever actions Internet service providers are taking "is tailored to a legitimate purpose."
(see links to sources below)

_Statement/Testimony_

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Michael Copps]
Now we face a constitutive choice with the Internet -- a choice between closed networks where the network operators control the user experience and open networks that are controlled by end users. This is an issue in which you must engage, not just because you are innovators and business people, but because you are citizens. If I see what's happening accurately, I believe we will have an opportunity, before very long, to decide this issue of Internet Freedom. It will be a major fight, with powerful forces on the other side. We'll all have to work-and much as I know folks out here like to keep their focus on all the good entrepreneurial things they are doing, they-you-are going to have to focus on this issue, focus on Washington, and put your commitment and your resources into making sure the decision comes out right.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281625A1.doc

COMMISSIONER JONATHAN ADELSTEIN
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein]
I believe that it is time for the Commission to strengthen and enhance the Policy Statement. We need to add a "fifth principle" to our Policy Statement to address incentives for anti-competitive discrimination. Consumers want to be able to choose an independent VoIP provider, or to be able to access video clips, and not just video programming from the largest media companies. Consumers do not want the Internet to become another version of old media, dominated by a handful of corporate giants. We also need a strong commitment to monitoring and enforcing compliance on a case-by-case basis. These would be significant steps toward reaching the full promise of the Internet.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281626A1.doc

COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TATE
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: FCC Commissioner Deborah Tate]
We must remain vigilant against intrusive governmental action that could disrupt the progress of broadband deployment. We must choose a path that is carefully balanced, providing the appropriate regulatory relief which resolves a specific "harm," allowing networks and carriers to respond to marketplace demands efficiently and effectively, ensuring that consumers are informed and protected and competition is encouraged through the least intrusive and least costly regulatory action. Our decisions should fuel-inject the broadband turbines of the information economy. Freedom to innovate, not the shackles of regulation, drives productive solutions. I have consistently favored competition and market forces rather than government regulation across all platforms-- especially in this dynamic, highly technical marketplace.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-281629A1.doc

REP ANNA ESHOO
[SOURCE: US House of Representatives, AUTHOR: Rep. Anna Eshoo]
Even with all the rapid change we’ve seen in the development of the Internet, one thing hasn’t changed ­ most Americans have little choice over how they can get onto the Net. 98% of Americans have only their Bell or cable company as choices for broadband access. The failure of competition for high-speed broadband access permits broadband operators to take advantage of this chokepoint and dictate what content will be available to whom, and at what speeds. They want to control which sites consumers will be able to download music from, where they will be able to watch live video and which blogs will have full access to the best service. This threatens the very existence of today’s Internet. That’s why I believe that Net Neutrality legislation should be enacted.... The Congress has granted the F.C.C. expansive authority which it has used sparingly to promote openness. The Commission should closely examine network management practices. There are reasonable needs today relative to managing the network to address congestion caused by insufficient bandwidth. But such intercession into a user’s access to the Internet should not result in the outright blocking of content or applications that do not harm the network. Today’s debate is important because the value of sharing information taps into a deep human desire to communicate with one another.
http://eshoo.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=412&Itemid=206

BEN SCOTT, FREE PRESS
[SOURCE: Free Press, AUTHOR: Ben Scott]
This hearing is a pivotal moment in the short history of Internet policymaking. There are two competing visions for the future of the Internet -- open versus closed. Will we embrace the openness that has shaped the Internet to the present day? Or will we permit network owners to move to the closed systems of content control we have had with cable television and broadcasting? It is not hyperbole to say that few choices in the history of the FCC carry as much weight as this one does. Let's be clear: Openness does not mean an end to all network management. It does not mean every bit should be treated exactly alike on the Internet. Openness does not stop us from protecting children or copyright or security on the Internet. Openness simply means that Internet policy should promote free speech and commerce in the online marketplace. Openness means faithfully guarding against interference from the cable and telephone companies who have the power to become gatekeepers between consumers and producers of Internet content.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2008/04/17/ben-scott-speaks-at-stanford/
* Free Press Offers ‘Olive Branch’ to Cable
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6552424.html?rssid=193

CAROLINE FREDRICKSON, AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION
[SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union, AUTHOR: Caroline Fredrickson]
The "future of the Internet as a marketplace of ideas for all users” is at stake. ACLU’s comments “raise the broader question of whether the Internet is to be preserved as a bastion for the exchange of lawful content and ideas free of censorship by corporate gatekeepers." Fredrickson said that on the Internet, speakers exercising their First Amendment rights are forced to strike deals with network operators. She said that forcing speakers to negotiate for free speech rights is precisely what the FCC should seek to avoid, and that a genuine network neutrality policy would avert. Fredrickson said, “The Internet is too valuable a public conduit to allow it to fall prey to parochial business interests.” The ACLU comments make clear that Internet access is “not just any business; it involves the sacred role of making available to citizens a forum for speech and self-expression and access to the speech and self-expression of others.”
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/34931prs20080417.html?s_src=RSS

HAROLD FELD, MEDIA ACCESS PROJECT
I have personally been involved in this debate about the FCC’s proper role in broadband policy since 1999. At that time, of course, the only one of you at the commission was Chairman Martin in his capacity as an advisor to Commissioner Furchgott-Roth. So you may not recall how back then the FCC was considering whether to require cable operators to allow resale of their broadband capacity at wholesale rates – what we used to call “open access” and what the FCC at that time required of telephone. But I still remember when AT&T Broadband (later acquired by Comcast) announced a deal with Earthlink to allow Earthlink to resell their broadband service. Over our protests, the FCC breathed a sigh of relief that the “market was working” and the need for FCC action averted. Well, we all know what happened. As soon as the Commission made clear it had switched direction and no longer cared about open access, the deals stopped. Worse, we have moved from debating whether to allow competitors to have access bottleneck facilities, to whether subscribers will enjoy the freedom that the cable and DSL duopoly actively advertise but reserve the right not to provide. When this debate started almost ten years ago, the arguments that ISPs would block or degrade applications were dismissed as technologically impossible and we were accused of paranoia and fear mongering. Now, the worst case scenarios we predicted are proudly defended as “reasonable network management.” Worse, whereas in 1999 companies actually had to take action to appease the watchful eye of the Commission, it is enough now for Comcast to enter agreements to talk about doing something someday to begin a chorus of “Mission Accomplished. These Aren’t the Droids We’re Looking For. Move Along.”
http://www.wetmachine.com//item/1156