AT&T, Gamers Among Latest to Weigh In on Net Neutrality

Acceptable rules could include measures to address “commercial arrangements in which an edge provider directs an Internet service provider to prioritize traffic over a consumer’s last-mile connection for fixed broadband Internet access service without the knowledge and consent of the consumer,” AT&T said. “AT&T has no intention of creating fast lanes and slow lanes or of using prioritization arrangements for discriminatory or anti-competitive ends, as some net neutrality proponents fear. And AT&T does not oppose reasonable rules designed to protect against such conduct.” The agency under Section 706 could ban paid prioritization outright, adopt additional safeguards like enhanced transparency, no-blocking, and nondiscrimination rules that would apply to those broadband providers that do not voluntarily agree not to engage in paid prioritization, it said. “Paid prioritization has been at the heart of the net neutrality debate since it began in earnest over a decade ago,” said Bob Quinn, AT&T senior vice president-federal regulatory, in a blog post (http://bit.ly/1pfJYww): “We disagree with those critics who claim that the Commission cannot ban paid prioritization under Section 706."

The benefits of an open Internet “must be balanced against the critical need to preserve sufficient flexibility to innovate,” CEA said. Instead of approving “heavy-handed” net neutrality regulations, the FCC should focus on forward-looking efforts such as deploying more spectrum and promoting competition, which would “lead naturally to continued Internet openness,” CEA said. If the agency goes forward, “it should rely on its court-approved Section 706 authority and adopt rules that are no more burdensome than the 2010 no-blocking and non-discrimination rules,” the filing said. Any new rules should permit individualized arrangements that are “commercially reasonable,” and the standard for “commercial reasonableness” must take into account market realities, the filing said.

U.S. Internet-enabled small businesses reach an average of more than 30 markets, while traditional U.S. exporters average on two or three, eBay said (http://bit.ly/1wAQ8KA). Smaller businesses may not be able to enter arrangements with ISPs, even under the use of a “commercially reasonable standard,” the company said. “If Internet-enabled small businesses are subject to different treatment than their larger competitors, it would restrict a major global growth opportunity.” The commission “should adopt a firm no-pay-to-play rule preventing broadband Internet access providers from attempting to levy charges on edge providers in addition to the hefty subscription fees they receive from consumers,” AOL said (http://bit.ly/1wAUEZD). Despite the debate over Section 706 versus Title II, the options are “not mutually-exclusive,” AOL said. It said the agency “can rely on Section 706 for the primary no-pay-to-play rule, and can use its Title II authority as a backstop that will be triggered in certain circumstances if the primary rule proves insufficient."

Based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision, “there is a very good chance” the no-blocking rule and the commercially reasonable standard under Section 706 will be vacated once again because they impose per se common carrier obligations and Section 706 does not grant that authority, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition said (http://bit.ly/WfvKDQ). The commission should reclassify broadband transmission as a Title II telecom service, the coalition said. Attempting to prevent local network operators from blocking or manipulating traffic under Section 706 “is rife with risk,” Mozilla said (http://bit.ly/1nBB9KS).

"Continuing down this path could produce failure on all fronts -- a standard for network practices that doesn’t protect the open Internet, an outcry from public interest organizations and technology companies citing promises that were broken, a separate outcry from the interests that oppose any rules in this space at all, and finally, a loss in court review sending the Commission backwards,” said Mozilla. The FCC should use Title II, it said. In contrast, “the new, controversial policy proposals articulated in the NPRM, which when coupled with uncertain legal footing, offer no real stability for Internet users or developers,” Mozilla said.

ESA Seeks Transparency

The agency should “foster a broadband marketplace free from discriminatory or anti-competitive practices that jeopardize the availability and quality of gamers’ online experiences,” said the Entertainment Software Association (http://bit.ly/1tX2a53). If the commission adopts the proposed “commercially reasonable” standard, or seeks to prohibit practices that constitute unreasonable discrimination under Title II, “the standard should prohibit ISP practices that increase latency to levels that impair consumers’ ability to play online games.” ESA said a minimal level of service “should be defined flexibly and in a generously inclusive manner, so that consumers are assured the service quality necessary to acquire and use their desired content, including games.” ISPs should also be required to disclose sufficient information about their network characteristics and management practices to ensure that consumers and game publishers can make informed decisions about their broadband service, the association said.

To be effective, efforts to preserve an open Internet “must explicitly apply to the exchange of traffic at the interconnection points where content requested by ISP subscribers is delivered to ISP networks by edge or transit providers,” Cogent Communications said (http://bit.ly/1qLhagG). “The discriminatory conduct the NPRM aims to address can and does occur just outside the last mile -- at the interconnection points where content requested by ISP subscribers is delivered to ISP networks by edge or transit providers.”

The commission should adopt rules ensuring that the largest mass-market ISPs interconnect with edge providers on reasonable terms, said Level 3 (http://bit.ly/1p0XdCW). “With Internet traffic continuing to grow, interconnection must keep pace.” The agency should require “large ‘eyeball’ ISPs -- those who provide mass-market retail broadband Internet access services to large numbers of residential and small business users -- act in a reasonable manner with respect to Internet interconnection and do not choke these interconnections in an attempt to extract oligopolistic rents, as some have done."

The commission should “limit its actions only to those necessary to promote competition, and foster the continued development of the Internet and the innovation it enables,” Akamai said (http://bit.ly/WfthJt). “This means avoiding the imposition of unnecessary regulatory overlays that risk adding uncertainty, limiting innovation, and creating counterproductive international consequences.” Title II broadband regulation would harm private-sector investment in broadband infrastructure, innovation, consumer choice, and job creation, said the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://bit.ly/1nBF6PO). “Old monopoly-era telephone rules should not be applied to broadband networks,” and could “potentially expose broadband providers to hundreds of pages of full-blown Title II regulation,” the chamber said. Examples include having to ask the commission permission for initiating, modifying or terminating service, rate and tariffing requirements, reporting and recording burdens, network oversight by the commission, and potential state regulation, it said.

The Information Technology Industry (ITI) Council, which represents some of the bigger high-technology players, said the growth of the Internet is possible in large part due to a “light regulatory touch” from the FCC. Imposing Title II regulations on broadband would “raise difficult definitional questions regarding the demarcation between information and telecommunications services, create investment disincentives from regulatory delay or uncertainty, and possibly encourage foreign governments to impose onerous regulation of even Internet services,” ITI said.

"The commission must ensure that its open Internet rules do not have the unintended consequence of dampening the private investment needed to build the next-generation broadband networks that will bring our nation’s broadband capability up to global standards and create and maintain jobs,” said the Communications Workers of America and NAACP (http://bit.ly/1nPZRvQ). They said the agency should instead “create incentives for investment” in high-capacity networks. “With enough capacity, people do not have to worry about “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” or degradation of nonpriority service,” the groups said.

There’s “no basis for the FCC to impose Title II public utility-type regulation on mobile,” Qualcomm said (http://bit.ly/1yy4ePR). It said the commission should “maintain mobile broadband operators’ current network management flexibility and freedom to support the exploding data demands of users on scarce spectrum.”