Connect with us


FCC Wrestles With Depth, Breadth of Net Neutrality Comments

WASHINGTON, February 8, 2010 – The Federal Communications Commission has received thousands of comments both lauding and criticizing its proposed plan to address the controversial issue of network neutrality.



WASHINGTON, February 8, 2010 – The Federal Communications Commission has received thousands of comments both lauding and criticizing its proposed plan to address the controversial issue of network neutrality.

The media and communications communities spent hundreds if not thousands of hours carefully crafting their arguments as their members view net neutrality as a linchpin to the future of Internet innovation and economic growth.

Content distributors, consumers and parties concerned about limitations on free speech largely favor net neutrality in their filed comments.

Some content makers also support the concept, but the largest content makers appear to oppose it.

Net neutrality supporters argued that a free and open Internet is necessary for innovation and that a lack of competition among service providers removes market protection from infringement.

“The success of the open Internet as a tool for economic growth and expression belies the premise that service differentiation is necessary or desirable,” submitted the City of Philadelphia’s government.

Sony also believes an open, unfettered Internet is best for the nation’s future: “This investment has been predicated on consumers having unfettered access to the legal content, applications and services of their choice” the electronics giant wrote. “Future investment requires the preservation of this underlying principle to protect the common interests of consumers, network operators, content developers and application providers in the Internet ecosystem. Moreover, SEL believes that ultimately the commission’s proposed network neutrality rules, if implemented, would lead to more expansive broadband deployment and greater consumer uptake of broadband connectivity and services.”

Phone firm Vonage wants the FCC to go further: “It recommends that the commission modify each of the first three principles to clarify that a provider of broadband Internet access service ‘may not prevent or hinder’ users from obtaining lawful content or applications or attaching lawful devices to the network. This change will better capture the harm to consumers that the commission designed these principles to prevent: degradation of service as well as a complete loss of service.”

Skype chimed in with concerns about unfair Internet transmission blockage by carriers: “Evidence suggests that carriers have the incentive and ability to harm innovation in the communications application market either by outright blocking or more subtle forms of discrimination. Because these applications offer consumers additional choice and savings, they should not be delayed, obstructed or throttled by broadband access providers. The commission’s openness policies should apply in a competitively neutral way across all broadband platforms.”

Google also cautioned that lack of an open Internet could harm innovation: “The Internet has created unprecedented benefits and opportunity for every facet of our society.  For this reason, the FCC must take the broadest view when assessing how the assurance of open broadband networks affects risks, investment and innovations associated with broadband infrastructure, and the overlay services, content and applications that ride upon it. In brief, the open Internet drives overall investment and innovation in technology and in other sectors, maximizes free speech and civic participation, and engenders more sources to create the fastest and greatest innovations.”

The Internet search giant also touched on issues surrounding the use of deep packet inspection.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other commenters brought up the Madison River case: “Already, we have seen some troubling examples of protocol-based discrimination by ISPs. In 2005, Madison River Communications selectively blocked voice-over-IP (VoIP) services that could compete with its wireline telephone services.”

Many of these groups also expressed concern about possible content discrimination. For example, “EFF is also concerned that content-based discrimination may be looming on the horizon. The entertainment industry, for example, has been pressing ISPs to implement network-based measures to address the problem of online copyright infringement.”

DISH Network was one of the few content distributors to support network neutrality. It wrote that: “Nondiscrimination rules are necessary, because vertically-integrated broadband providers have the incentive and ability to discriminate against competitors like DISH. By favoring their own video services or degrading services of competitors, telco and cable providers can drive customers away from competitive direct broadcast satellite services.  Permitting such anticompetitive behavior does not serve the public interest.”

The opposition to network neutrality comes not only from internet service providers but also from those who seek firmer copyright enforcement. The following is a summary of the most common and unusual claims they make.

The Motion Picture Association of America claims to support the principles but pushes further with concerns about content piracy. It says that “to make clear that ISPs are not only permitted, but encouraged, to work with content owners to employ the best available tools and technologies to combat online content theft. Service providers also should be encouraged to work with content owners to implement consumer education programs that can help law-abiding Internet users find legitimate sources for online creative works, while simultaneously warning repeat infringers that they risk consequences if they continue to violate the law.”

AT&T uses some of the strongest language slamming a net neutrality plan, asserting that robust competition already exists: “Unfortunately, the commission’s [notice of proposed rule making] charts an unwise, unwarranted and unprecedented reversal in course.” The telecommunications firms says that “far from being a ‘cozy duopoly’ as some pundits claim, wired broadband Internet access services are robustly competitive, as evidenced by increased speeds, rapidly growing usage, significantly declining prices on a per-bits-consumed basis, and very substantial customer ‘churn’ rates for both cable and telco broadband providers.”

Most of the commenters also say the FCC is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. For example, AT&T adds that “new regulation, moreover, without any credible data-driven evidence of any market failure amid this robust competition.  Instead, it bases its hyper-regulatory proposals solely on the basis of speculation that a market failure might arise someday in the future.”

Verizon Communications and other firms claimed that the inability to manage their network properly would result in overcrowding and potentially a limit on innovation.

Verizon also claimed that net neutrality violates the First and Fifth amendments. “Contrary to claims of net neutrality proponents who assert that government regulations would promote First Amendment interests, the First Amendment protects against governmental restrictions on speech. Here, by restricting providers’ ability to offer their own differentiated services, whether by using their own content or innovative content and services offered in collaboration with others, the proposed rules would impose direct restraints on speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

It said net neutrality would impinge upon the Fifth Amendment by “requiring the compulsory dedication of private property to the use of others with no express statutory authorization and without compensation.”

Comcast, which some in the broadband community believe is the impetus for the FCC’s net neutrality rulemaking, said: “In light of these real risks, rules should only be adopted if a record is built that includes concrete facts and data demonstrating (1) actual – not conjectural – harms that would be remedied by the proposed rules; (2) actual – not hypothetical – benefits that would be gained by adoption of the proposed rules; and (3) that the harms and benefits outweigh the real risks to continued innovation and investment.  To date there is no such record.”

Comcast also finds the rules to do more harm than good: “(1) The proposed rules apply only to a narrow class of Internet service providers, ignoring whether the Internet is “open” at all of its layers; (2) The proposed “nondiscrimination” rule would prohibit network operators from adopting a number of reasonable practices that potentially could have significant benefits for consumers and the public interest; and  (3) The proposed “transparency” rule would create a new and burdensome legal duty for network operators while failing to impose corresponding duties on other key participants in the Internet ecosystem.”

Wireless providers also oppose network neutrality under network management grounds. Their main belief is that wireless networks operate differently from wired networks and so should receive the same regulation. They feel that they must deal with a lower amount of spectrum and must manage their networks more heavily. Additionally, the section on the connectivity of devices is truly something they feel their networks cannot handle. They also believe that their market — unlike the wireline market — is truly competitive with constant price drops and a wide variety of choices along with competition from WiFi hot spots and WiMax.

Pros and Cons Have Merit, But Is FCC Authority at Stake?

While the comments in support and opposition have merit, one of the biggest issues covered by the comments was whether or not the FCC has the authority to take these actions.

The FCC is using authority given it under Title I and II, which say, respectively, that the agency has ancillary authority and can regulate broadcast services. However, Time Warner disagrees: “Having appropriately classified broadband Internet access service as a Title I service, the commission cannot now seek to apply core aspects of Title II by regulatory fiat.”

Verizon said: “In 2005, when the commission confirmed that wireline broadband Internet access service is an information service outside the scope of Title II regulation, it found that such services were “offered by two established platform providers, which continue to expand rapidly, and by several existing and emerging platforms and providers.”

Google and Public Knowledge oppose this view and claim that the FCC does have the authority to provide this regulation. Google says the commission actually has authority under more than just Title I and II – it also can claim authority under Title’s II and VI. Google states: “Communications using last-mile broadband facilities – whether copper, fiber, or wireless – constitute “interstate… communication by wire or radio.” In the Wireline Broadband Order and Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling,  the commission held that it had ancillary jurisdiction over wireline and cable  broadband Internet access service providers, explaining that their “services are unquestionably ‘wire communications’ as defined in [the Act].”

The FCC also has determined in the Wireless Broadband Classification Order that wireless broadband Internet access service, offered using mobile, portable or fixed technologies, is “interstate . . . communications by radio.” Internet-based video programming is now significantly impacting both television broadcasting and cable, altering the economics  of these marketplaces and affecting local programming, diversity of viewpoints, service delivery, and the FCC’s overall regulation in these areas. Broadband Internet access services also enable consumers to place Internet-based VoIP calls to “traditional land-line telephone[s] connected to the public switched telephone network.” The widespread use of VoIP and related services as cheaper and more feature-rich alternatives to Title II services has significant effects on traditional telephone providers’ practices and pricing, as well on network interconnection between Title II and IP networks that consumers use to reach each other, going to the heart of  the Commission’s Title II responsibilities.  In light of the impact of these Internet-based services on services regulated under Titles II, III and VI, as well as the effect upon the FCC’s regulatory framework under those Titles, precedent confirms the FCC may exercise its ancillary jurisdiction to fulfill its explicit mandates. “

The issues surround net neutrality have been discussed for years in both official and unofficial capacities, but with the FCC’s recent proposal of a rulemaking, the concerns have a forum for further discussion and may actually be addressed.

Rahul Gaitonde has been writing for since the fall of 2009, and in May of 2010 he became Deputy Editor. He was a fellow at George Mason University’s Long Term Governance Project, a researcher at the International Center for Applied Studies in Information Technology and worked at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. He holds a Masters of Public Policy from George Mason University, where his research focused on the economic and social benefits of broadband expansion. He has written extensively about Universal Service Fund reform, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and the Broadband Data Improvement Act


Cable Group NCTA Says Deny Exclusive Multitenant Access, But Not Wiring, Agreements

NCTA said the FCC should deny exclusive access to these buildings, but not exclusive wiring agreements.



Michael Powell, president and CEO of NCTA

WASHINGTON, September 8, 2021 – The internet and television association NCTA is suggesting that the Federal Communications Commission deny all broadband providers exclusive access to multitenant buildings, but to continue allowing exclusive wiring agreements.

On Tuesday, the FCC opened a new round of comments into its examination of competitive broadband options for residents of apartments, multi-tenant and office buildings.

In a Tuesday ex parte notice to the commission, which follows a formal meeting with agency staff on September 2, the NCTA said the record shows that deployment, competition, and consumer choice in multiple tenant environments “are strong,” and that the FCC can “promote even greater deployment and competition by prohibiting not just cable operators, other covered [multiple video programming distributors], and telecommunications carriers, but all broadband providers from entering into MTE exclusive access agreements.

The organization, whose member companies include Comcast, Cox Communications and Charter Communications, also said it should continue to allow providers to enter into exclusive wiring agreements with MTE owners. Wiring just means that the provider can lay down its cables, like fiber, to connect residents.

“Exclusive wiring agreements do not deny new entrants access to MTEs. Rather, exclusive wiring agreements are pro-competitive and help ensure that state-of-the-art wiring will be deployed in MTEs to the benefit of consumers.”

The NCTA also told the FCC that there would be technical problems with simultaneous sharing of building wires by different providers and vouched for exclusive marketing arrangements, according to the notice.

The FCC’s new round of comments comes after a bill, introduced on July 30 by Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-New York, outlined plans to address exclusivity agreements between residential units and service providers, which sees providers lock out other carriers from buildings and leaving residents with only one option for internet.

Reached for comment on the filing, a spokesman for NCTA said they had nothing to add to the filing, which was signed by Mary Beth Murphy, deputy general counsel to the cable organization.

Continue Reading


Hytera’s Inclusion on FCC’s National Security Blacklist ‘Absurd,’ Client Says

Diversified Communications Group said the FCC flubbed on adding Hytera to blacklist.



Acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel

WASHINGTON, September 8, 2021 – A client of a company that has been included in a list of companies the Federal Communications Commission said pose threats to the security of the country’s networks is asking the agency to reconsider including the company.

In a letter to the commission on Tuesday, Diversified Communications Group, which installs and distributes two-way radio communications devices to large companies, said the inclusion of Hytera Communications Corporation, a Chinese manufacturer of radio equipment, on a list of national security threats is “absurd” because the hardware involved is not connected to the internet and “does not transmit any sensitive or proprietary data.

“It seems that Hytera has been lumped in with other Chinese companies on the Covered List simply because they happen to manufacture electronics in the same country,” Diversified’s CEO Ryan Holte said in the letter, adding Hytera’s products have helped Diversified’s business thrive.

“This is a wrong that should be righted. Hytera is not a national security risk. They are an essential business partner to radio companies throughout the U.S.,” the CEO added.

In March, the FCC announced that it had designated Hytera among other Chinese businesses with alleged links to the Communist government. Others included Huawei, ZTE, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology, and Dahua Technology.

List among a number of restrictions on Chinese companies

This list of companies was created in accordance with the Secure Networks Act, and the FCC indicated that it would continue to add companies to the list if they are deemed to “pose an unacceptable risk to national security or the security and safety of U.S. persons.”

Last month, the Senate commerce committee passed through legislation that would compel the FCC to no longer issue new equipment licenses to China-backed companies.

Last year the U.S. government took steps to ensure that federal agencies could not purchase goods or services from the aforementioned companies, and had previously added them to an economic blacklist.

In July, the FCC voted in favor of putting in place measures that would require U.S. carriers to rip and replace equipment by these alleged threat companies.

The Biden administration has been making moves to isolate alleged Chinese-linked threats to the country’s networks. In June, the White House signed an executive order limiting investments in predominantly Chinese companies that it said poses a threat to national security.

Continue Reading

Digital Inclusion

FCC Says 5 Million Households Now Enrolled in Emergency Broadband Benefit Program

The $3.2 billion program provides broadband and device subsidies to eligible low-income households.



Acting FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel

August 30, 2021—The Federal Communications Commission announced Friday that five million households have enrolled in the Emergency Broadband Benefit program.

The $3.2-billion program, which launched in May, provides a broadband subsidy of $50 per month to eligible low-income households and $75 per month for those living on native tribal lands, as well as a one-time reimbursement on a device. Over 1160 providers are participating, the FCC said, who are reimbursed the cost to provide the discounted services.

The agency has been updating the public on the number of participating households for the program. In June, the program was at just over three million and had passed four million last month. The program was part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.

“Enrolling five million households into the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program in a little over three months is no small feat,” said FCC Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. “This wouldn’t have been possible without the support of nearly 30,000 individuals and organizations who signed up as volunteer outreach partners.”

Rosenworcel added that conversations with partners and the FCC’s analysis shows the need for “more granular data” to bring these opportunities to more eligible families.

The program’s strong demand was seen as far back as March.

Continue Reading


Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field