Press Release
Free Press Urges Senate to Protect Internet Freedom
Contact: Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838
WASHINGTON -- Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott today represented a broad alliance of consumer and other groups from across the political spectrum at a hearing on Network Neutrality before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The summary of his prepared testimony follows:
Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. As consumer advocates, we strongly support policies that will bring more broadband competition to American households. However, we believe any legislation that reshapes critical elements of telecommunications law, such as video franchising and the Universal Service Fund, must necessarily reaffirm the commitment of Congress to the principle of nondiscrimination on the Internet.
Meaningful, enforceable Network Neutrality provisions must be a central element in the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. We strongly urge the adoption of The Internet Freedom Act, introduced by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), as part of S. 2686. Without it, S. 2686 cannot deliver on its promise for more competition and enhanced broadband access.
Network Neutrality protections have existed for the entire history of the Internet. Consumer advocates are not promoting new regulations. We are asking the Congress to preserve tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that have made the Internet the greatest engine of economic growth and democratic communication in modern memory.
Network Neutrality must continue to be a central component of 21st century communications policy. This Committee faces a clear policy choice. At its base, this is a decision about who will control the Internet -- consumers and producers in a competitive marketplace where innovators and entrepreneurs are rewarded by consumers, or network owners in a noncompetitive, gatekeeper-controlled marketplace dominated by the cable-telephone duopoly who have both the incentive and now the ability to exclude competitors.
The Internet has become a powerful economic and social force because long-standing principles of nondiscrimination have maintained the Internet as a neutral platform, protecting the free market and the democratic public sphere of online commerce and communication. To restructure communications law without restoring fundamental protections of Network Neutrality would stifle the tremendous economic growth and innovation that nondiscrimination rules have fostered.
Network discrimination through a "tiered Internet" will severely curtail consumer choice. In the wake of flawed FCC rulings deregulating broadband in 2005, network owners have publicly announced their intentions to scrap the neutral Internet and position themselves as gatekeepers of content, applications, and services. This has been and should remain the exclusive purview of consumers.
Consumers, not network operators, must be allowed to continue to choose winners and losers in the content and applications marketplace. Consumers can be offered a choice of different levels of network service, as they always have been. But then any content, application or service that can be delivered at the consumer's chosen network service level should be allowed without interference or additional charges imposed by the network operator. Without Network Neutrality, telephone and cable companies will have a strong financial incentive to distort the free market in favor of their own content and services. This activity will stifle entrepreneurship and abolish "innovation without permission."
Absent Network Neutrality protections, consumers will experience higher costs and fewer choices for broadband. The higher costs of a "tiered Internet" levied on millions of online content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. There is no "free ride" on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services. Moreover, a "tiered Internet" will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination. Alternative approaches to broadband policy and infrastructure development are both more competitive and economically efficient. There exists no compelling economic reason to eliminate consumer choice with a "tiered Internet."
Consumer support for Network Neutrality represents an unprecedented level of public involvement in communications policy. Supporters of Network Neutrality represent a broad, nonpartisan coalition that joins both the right and left, and commercial and noncommercial interests. The campaign to preserve Network Neutrality protections is perhaps the most diverse set of public and private interests backing any single policy issue in Washington today. Hundreds of groups and hundreds of thousands of individuals from across the political spectrum are joining together to save this cornerstone principle of consumer choice and Internet freedom. For consumers, this debate should not be about whether we should have nondiscrimination in 21st century communications policy. This debate should be about how best to accomplish this essential and long-standing policy principle of nondiscrimination.
To read Scott's full written testimony, visit http://www.freepress.net/docs/senate_nn_commerce_testimony.doc
Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. As consumer advocates, we strongly support policies that will bring more broadband competition to American households. However, we believe any legislation that reshapes critical elements of telecommunications law, such as video franchising and the Universal Service Fund, must necessarily reaffirm the commitment of Congress to the principle of nondiscrimination on the Internet.
Meaningful, enforceable Network Neutrality provisions must be a central element in the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. We strongly urge the adoption of The Internet Freedom Act, introduced by Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), as part of S. 2686. Without it, S. 2686 cannot deliver on its promise for more competition and enhanced broadband access.
Network Neutrality protections have existed for the entire history of the Internet. Consumer advocates are not promoting new regulations. We are asking the Congress to preserve tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that have made the Internet the greatest engine of economic growth and democratic communication in modern memory.
Network Neutrality must continue to be a central component of 21st century communications policy. This Committee faces a clear policy choice. At its base, this is a decision about who will control the Internet -- consumers and producers in a competitive marketplace where innovators and entrepreneurs are rewarded by consumers, or network owners in a noncompetitive, gatekeeper-controlled marketplace dominated by the cable-telephone duopoly who have both the incentive and now the ability to exclude competitors.
The Internet has become a powerful economic and social force because long-standing principles of nondiscrimination have maintained the Internet as a neutral platform, protecting the free market and the democratic public sphere of online commerce and communication. To restructure communications law without restoring fundamental protections of Network Neutrality would stifle the tremendous economic growth and innovation that nondiscrimination rules have fostered.
Network discrimination through a "tiered Internet" will severely curtail consumer choice. In the wake of flawed FCC rulings deregulating broadband in 2005, network owners have publicly announced their intentions to scrap the neutral Internet and position themselves as gatekeepers of content, applications, and services. This has been and should remain the exclusive purview of consumers.
Consumers, not network operators, must be allowed to continue to choose winners and losers in the content and applications marketplace. Consumers can be offered a choice of different levels of network service, as they always have been. But then any content, application or service that can be delivered at the consumer's chosen network service level should be allowed without interference or additional charges imposed by the network operator. Without Network Neutrality, telephone and cable companies will have a strong financial incentive to distort the free market in favor of their own content and services. This activity will stifle entrepreneurship and abolish "innovation without permission."
Absent Network Neutrality protections, consumers will experience higher costs and fewer choices for broadband. The higher costs of a "tiered Internet" levied on millions of online content providers will simply be passed on to consumers, directly or indirectly. There is no "free ride" on the network, and consumers will bear the costs of network development through higher access charges and higher prices for online goods and services. Moreover, a "tiered Internet" will further concentrate the market power of the cable modem and DSL duopoly, eliminating competition in the conduits and leaving consumers with no escape from content discrimination. Alternative approaches to broadband policy and infrastructure development are both more competitive and economically efficient. There exists no compelling economic reason to eliminate consumer choice with a "tiered Internet."
Consumer support for Network Neutrality represents an unprecedented level of public involvement in communications policy. Supporters of Network Neutrality represent a broad, nonpartisan coalition that joins both the right and left, and commercial and noncommercial interests. The campaign to preserve Network Neutrality protections is perhaps the most diverse set of public and private interests backing any single policy issue in Washington today. Hundreds of groups and hundreds of thousands of individuals from across the political spectrum are joining together to save this cornerstone principle of consumer choice and Internet freedom. For consumers, this debate should not be about whether we should have nondiscrimination in 21st century communications policy. This debate should be about how best to accomplish this essential and long-standing policy principle of nondiscrimination.
To read Scott's full written testimony, visit http://www.freepress.net/docs/senate_nn_commerce_testimony.doc
