Press Release
Consumer Groups Champion Internet Freedom Preservation Act
Contact: Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838
WASHINGTON -- In testimony before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott urged lawmakers to protect consumers from Internet blocking by telephone and cable companies.
Scott testified at a hearing on the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353) on behalf of Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Public Knowledge. This bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), would firmly place consumer protections into the Communications Act to ensure that all broadband networks are open and free from gatekeepers.
Watch the hearing at http://www.c-span.org/
The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating allegations that Comcast is blocking and degrading consumer access to content on the Internet. Late last year, the Associated Press caught the nation's largest cable company secretly blocking legal Web applications that compete with Comcast's TV business.
"The Comcast case at the FCC demonstrates exactly why Congress should pass this bill," said Scott. "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act is the right bill at the right time."
Read his prepared testimony below:
Statement of Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press:
For years, the preservation of "Network Neutrality" has been a priority issue for consumer groups. That is because the consumer experience with the future of the Internet rides on this policy decision.
Two competing visions for that future stand before you. 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? It is a virtual clash of civilizations.
For consumers, this clash is about the rights of Internet users to seek and share the content of their choice online.
Of course, Net Neutrality has been hotly disputed by legions of lobbyists and millions of Americans. But, in the last three years, Republicans and Democrats in Congress and at the FCC have actually come together on a few basic points. I have analyzed this history in my written statement.
First, almost everyone agrees that consumers are entitled to access the lawful content, applications and devices of their choice; and second, that it is reasonable to establish these principles in the law. FCC put it in a policy statement that Congress has tried to codify in different ways.
This leads me to conclude that it is no longer a question of whether consumers will have laws guarding an open Internet, but how those laws will be crafted. We strongly support this bill for rising to the occasion.
This bill simply places these agreed-upon consumer rights at the base of the Communications Act. It clarifies the authority of the FCC to protect Internet users from discrimination. And it tells the agency what rights Congress wants consumers to expect in an open Internet marketplace. It is a modernization of the principles that have long been in the Act. Simple and clear.
However, as we've heard today, this debate is often muddied by issues that are legitimate but not germane to this bill.
First -- copyright. Network Neutrality does not protect online piracy on peer-to-peer networks or anywhere else on the Internet. Neither this bill nor any other bill in the history of this debate would in any way protect illegal activity online -- not piracy, not child pornography, not spam or viruses.
Second misunderstood topic: peer-to-peer users. A small percentage of peer-to-peer users have been vilified as "bandwidth hogs" that force network owners to block consumer choice. I have never heard of an industry complaining so loudly about people so eager to consume and buy their products.
Sure, networks should be able to manage heavy users -- but that doesn't excuse blocking every user from running a particular program. It is important to point out that P2P services do not use more bandwidth than consumers have already paid for. In fact, hefty monthly bills earned Comcast 80 percent profits on its cable modem service.
Actually lots of P2P programs are totally legitimate. They are used by ABC.com, PBS, and NASA -- to name a few. But the best example may be Skype -- a P2P program than allows Internet users to have voice conversations online for free with so little bandwidth that it works on a dial-up connection. Today, it has 308 million users worldwide that have had over 100 billion minutes of conversations in 28 languages. This is the kind of popular innovation that this bill is designed to promote.
The consequences of ignoring this bill are sharpening in clarity. Net Neutrality was supposedly a "solution in search of a problem." Yet over the last two years, the problems keep bubbling up. Right now, Comcast is under investigation at the FCC for blocking Internet applications. This is a bellwether case.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has said he will enforce his Net Neutrality principles. The cable industry says that although they have always supported FCC's principles, they reject the FCC's authority to enforce them. In other words, they were for Network Neutrality before they were against it. The Comcast case may well end up in Court, where the market will endure more years of uncertainty. It would be far better if Congress passed this bill and settled the question.
Make no mistake, this is a compromise bill. It is reasonable by almost any standard. While I would prefer something stronger -- this bill represents a very significant step in the right direction. What amazes me is that it has not attracted broader support. The middle ground that opponents of Net Neutrality once called for is right here -- but now they appear unwilling to stand on it.
Internet policymaking is premised on a simple idea: we will remove some regulations from the network operators, but we will draw a line to protect consumers' access to an open Internet. Today we test this theory. A duopoly market of phone and cable companies will not discipline itself. This is a clear moment for the Congress to act and pass the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act. The future of the Internet for everyone depends on it.
Read Ben Scott's written testimony at http://www.freepress.net/files/Scott_Testimony_FINAL_5-6-08.pdf
###
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net
Scott testified at a hearing on the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353) on behalf of Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America and Public Knowledge. This bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), would firmly place consumer protections into the Communications Act to ensure that all broadband networks are open and free from gatekeepers.
Watch the hearing at http://www.c-span.org/
The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating allegations that Comcast is blocking and degrading consumer access to content on the Internet. Late last year, the Associated Press caught the nation's largest cable company secretly blocking legal Web applications that compete with Comcast's TV business.
"The Comcast case at the FCC demonstrates exactly why Congress should pass this bill," said Scott. "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act is the right bill at the right time."
Read his prepared testimony below:
Statement of Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press:
For years, the preservation of "Network Neutrality" has been a priority issue for consumer groups. That is because the consumer experience with the future of the Internet rides on this policy decision.
Two competing visions for that future stand before you. 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? It is a virtual clash of civilizations.
For consumers, this clash is about the rights of Internet users to seek and share the content of their choice online.
Of course, Net Neutrality has been hotly disputed by legions of lobbyists and millions of Americans. But, in the last three years, Republicans and Democrats in Congress and at the FCC have actually come together on a few basic points. I have analyzed this history in my written statement.
First, almost everyone agrees that consumers are entitled to access the lawful content, applications and devices of their choice; and second, that it is reasonable to establish these principles in the law. FCC put it in a policy statement that Congress has tried to codify in different ways.
This leads me to conclude that it is no longer a question of whether consumers will have laws guarding an open Internet, but how those laws will be crafted. We strongly support this bill for rising to the occasion.
This bill simply places these agreed-upon consumer rights at the base of the Communications Act. It clarifies the authority of the FCC to protect Internet users from discrimination. And it tells the agency what rights Congress wants consumers to expect in an open Internet marketplace. It is a modernization of the principles that have long been in the Act. Simple and clear.
However, as we've heard today, this debate is often muddied by issues that are legitimate but not germane to this bill.
First -- copyright. Network Neutrality does not protect online piracy on peer-to-peer networks or anywhere else on the Internet. Neither this bill nor any other bill in the history of this debate would in any way protect illegal activity online -- not piracy, not child pornography, not spam or viruses.
Second misunderstood topic: peer-to-peer users. A small percentage of peer-to-peer users have been vilified as "bandwidth hogs" that force network owners to block consumer choice. I have never heard of an industry complaining so loudly about people so eager to consume and buy their products.
Sure, networks should be able to manage heavy users -- but that doesn't excuse blocking every user from running a particular program. It is important to point out that P2P services do not use more bandwidth than consumers have already paid for. In fact, hefty monthly bills earned Comcast 80 percent profits on its cable modem service.
Actually lots of P2P programs are totally legitimate. They are used by ABC.com, PBS, and NASA -- to name a few. But the best example may be Skype -- a P2P program than allows Internet users to have voice conversations online for free with so little bandwidth that it works on a dial-up connection. Today, it has 308 million users worldwide that have had over 100 billion minutes of conversations in 28 languages. This is the kind of popular innovation that this bill is designed to promote.
The consequences of ignoring this bill are sharpening in clarity. Net Neutrality was supposedly a "solution in search of a problem." Yet over the last two years, the problems keep bubbling up. Right now, Comcast is under investigation at the FCC for blocking Internet applications. This is a bellwether case.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has said he will enforce his Net Neutrality principles. The cable industry says that although they have always supported FCC's principles, they reject the FCC's authority to enforce them. In other words, they were for Network Neutrality before they were against it. The Comcast case may well end up in Court, where the market will endure more years of uncertainty. It would be far better if Congress passed this bill and settled the question.
Make no mistake, this is a compromise bill. It is reasonable by almost any standard. While I would prefer something stronger -- this bill represents a very significant step in the right direction. What amazes me is that it has not attracted broader support. The middle ground that opponents of Net Neutrality once called for is right here -- but now they appear unwilling to stand on it.
Internet policymaking is premised on a simple idea: we will remove some regulations from the network operators, but we will draw a line to protect consumers' access to an open Internet. Today we test this theory. A duopoly market of phone and cable companies will not discipline itself. This is a clear moment for the Congress to act and pass the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act. The future of the Internet for everyone depends on it.
Read Ben Scott's written testimony at http://www.freepress.net/files/Scott_Testimony_FINAL_5-6-08.pdf
###
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net
