Press Release
Consumer Groups Seek Clarity from FCC on Open Internet Rulemaking
Contact: Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838
WASHINGTON -- Today, four consumer and public interest groups sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission seeking clarity regarding Net Neutrality. In the letter, the groups express strong concern with a statement made last week by a senior commission official that the FCC would allow the speeding up or slowing down of applications like video or voice as part of "reasonable network management" -- a sentiment that appears to prejudge the outcome before the FCC completes its rulemaking process.
Communications Daily reported on Friday that Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, said at the Open Mobile Summit that reasonable network management would include giving voice and video special high priority and that the commission is specifically going after different treatment of comparable applications in the Net Neutrality rulemaking proceeding. Public interest groups disagree that application-based priority is necessary and argue that the harm this would do to the Internet would outweigh any unproven benefits, and most importantly, that the agency must wait for the rulemaking process to complete a full record before making any decisions.
The groups that signed on to the letter include Free Press, Media Access Project, Consumers Union, New America Foundation and New America Foundation’s Open Technologies Initiative.
Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, made the following statement:
"The intent of the FCC’s Open Internet rulemaking process is to help the agency make well-informed decisions, by seeking input without pre-judging. Premature conclusions on the merits of specific technical processes should be avoided at all costs."
"The FCC must make clear that no decisions are going to be made until all the facts are in. Permitting type-based prioritization would give away the game before any record can be established to indicate the real consequences of such actions."
Free Press and the Open Technologies Initiative also released a new policy brief today that lays out the case against explicit bias in favor of or against particular applications like video or voice. The Hidden Harms of Application Bias offers an engineering perspective on why prioritization by type would harm the Internet by decreasing performance and restricting consumer choice and innovation.
Read the report here: http://www.freepress.net/files/The_Hidden_Harms_of_Application_Bias.pdf
Full text of the letter:
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
November 9, 2009
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
We write today to request clarification regarding recent statements made by a senior Commission official at a public event in California, as reported in the issue of Communications Daily dated November 6, 2009. According to this press coverage of the event, the official stated that giving high priority treatment in a network to voice and video traffic is a reasonable network practice. It appears from this single press account that the official had concluded that voice and video "have special requirements" and that prioritization of such traffic is reasonable network management. The same report also cites the official as saying that the Commission will be focusing on "different treatment of comparable applications," a policy that would not seem to prohibit either deliberate prioritization or degradation of any broad class or category of applications.
We understand that such press reports can, at times, report statements out of context, or even unintentionally mischaracterize the substance or the nature of the speaker’s words. That said, we write because the statements attributed to Commission staff are surprising, insofar as any resolution of these issues must be based on answers to several questions raised in the Commission’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Preserving the Open Internet.
Specifically, paragraph 113 of the Notice asks whether "services such as VoIP, video conferencing, IP video, or telemedicine applications depend on discrimination." The same paragraph asks parties to "identify specifically the content, applications, and services" that require "enhanced" treatment. Similarly, in paragraph 137, the Commission notes some parties have suggested that "it would be beneficial" to prioritize VoIP, gaming, and streaming media traffic, and seeks comment on whether this approach is reasonable. Additionally, paragraph 141 of the Notice seeks comment on wording of the definition of reasonable network management, and on how to evaluate particular practices. Also, in your speech at the Brookings Institution, you stated that the nondiscrimination principle means that network operators "cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes."
Although the Notice raised these questions, the press report did not indicate that the prioritization of such traffic may or may not be found reasonable under certain circumstances on the basis of the full and transparent record to be developed here. And, although your speech established that nondiscrimination is intended to prevent network operators from preferring some applications over others, the press report sent signals to the contrary. We write for clarification of our understanding that the Commission, during the course of this proceeding, will make all such determinations based on an analysis of comments and data yet to be submitted by the public on these crucial issues, before reaching any conclusion regarding the need for special treatment for certain classes of traffic.
Sincerely,
Ben Scott
Chris Riley
Free Press
Andrew Jay Schwartzman
Media Access Project
Joel Kelsey
Consumers Union
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Robb Topolski
Sascha Meinrath
Open Technologies Initiative
New America Foundation
The letter is also available here: http://www.freepress.net/files/written_ex_parte_NN.pdf
Communications Daily reported on Friday that Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology, said at the Open Mobile Summit that reasonable network management would include giving voice and video special high priority and that the commission is specifically going after different treatment of comparable applications in the Net Neutrality rulemaking proceeding. Public interest groups disagree that application-based priority is necessary and argue that the harm this would do to the Internet would outweigh any unproven benefits, and most importantly, that the agency must wait for the rulemaking process to complete a full record before making any decisions.
The groups that signed on to the letter include Free Press, Media Access Project, Consumers Union, New America Foundation and New America Foundation’s Open Technologies Initiative.
Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, made the following statement:
"The intent of the FCC’s Open Internet rulemaking process is to help the agency make well-informed decisions, by seeking input without pre-judging. Premature conclusions on the merits of specific technical processes should be avoided at all costs."
"The FCC must make clear that no decisions are going to be made until all the facts are in. Permitting type-based prioritization would give away the game before any record can be established to indicate the real consequences of such actions."
Free Press and the Open Technologies Initiative also released a new policy brief today that lays out the case against explicit bias in favor of or against particular applications like video or voice. The Hidden Harms of Application Bias offers an engineering perspective on why prioritization by type would harm the Internet by decreasing performance and restricting consumer choice and innovation.
Read the report here: http://www.freepress.net/files/The_Hidden_Harms_of_Application_Bias.pdf
Full text of the letter:
Chairman Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
445 Twelfth Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
November 9, 2009
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
We write today to request clarification regarding recent statements made by a senior Commission official at a public event in California, as reported in the issue of Communications Daily dated November 6, 2009. According to this press coverage of the event, the official stated that giving high priority treatment in a network to voice and video traffic is a reasonable network practice. It appears from this single press account that the official had concluded that voice and video "have special requirements" and that prioritization of such traffic is reasonable network management. The same report also cites the official as saying that the Commission will be focusing on "different treatment of comparable applications," a policy that would not seem to prohibit either deliberate prioritization or degradation of any broad class or category of applications.
We understand that such press reports can, at times, report statements out of context, or even unintentionally mischaracterize the substance or the nature of the speaker’s words. That said, we write because the statements attributed to Commission staff are surprising, insofar as any resolution of these issues must be based on answers to several questions raised in the Commission’s recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Preserving the Open Internet.
Specifically, paragraph 113 of the Notice asks whether "services such as VoIP, video conferencing, IP video, or telemedicine applications depend on discrimination." The same paragraph asks parties to "identify specifically the content, applications, and services" that require "enhanced" treatment. Similarly, in paragraph 137, the Commission notes some parties have suggested that "it would be beneficial" to prioritize VoIP, gaming, and streaming media traffic, and seeks comment on whether this approach is reasonable. Additionally, paragraph 141 of the Notice seeks comment on wording of the definition of reasonable network management, and on how to evaluate particular practices. Also, in your speech at the Brookings Institution, you stated that the nondiscrimination principle means that network operators "cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over others in the connection to subscribers’ homes."
Although the Notice raised these questions, the press report did not indicate that the prioritization of such traffic may or may not be found reasonable under certain circumstances on the basis of the full and transparent record to be developed here. And, although your speech established that nondiscrimination is intended to prevent network operators from preferring some applications over others, the press report sent signals to the contrary. We write for clarification of our understanding that the Commission, during the course of this proceeding, will make all such determinations based on an analysis of comments and data yet to be submitted by the public on these crucial issues, before reaching any conclusion regarding the need for special treatment for certain classes of traffic.
Sincerely,
Ben Scott
Chris Riley
Free Press
Andrew Jay Schwartzman
Media Access Project
Joel Kelsey
Consumers Union
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Robb Topolski
Sascha Meinrath
Open Technologies Initiative
New America Foundation
The letter is also available here: http://www.freepress.net/files/written_ex_parte_NN.pdf
