Net Neutrality Comments Crash FCC Website: Keep The Pressure On

Back in May, we sent a letter to the FCC signed by over 150 startups supporting net neutrality. Since then, we have thought a lot about the dangerous uncertainty the lack of real net neutrality will cause, and the FCC has received nearly 700,000 comments and counting on the subject -- including some from education startups, software companies, reddit, and Internet giants. In fact, so many people are filing today that the system crashed, prompting organizations (us included!) to file by hand, and forcing the FCC to extend today’s deadline to midnight (eastern time) on Friday.

This is great, because we have to keep the pressure on Chairman Tom Wheeler to make sure he does the right thing, and issues a strong, sensible rule that preserves the open Internet. If you still want to file comments, you can do so here.

There is still a strong wave of opposition from individuals and groups committed to letting telecommunications companies build fast lanes on the Internet for those who can pay. And unfortunately, those telecommunications companies, and their supporters, have targeted the U.S. Congress, and now we are anticipating amendments to the Appropriations bill currently being debated in the House. The Latta bill, for example, would gut the FCC’s ability to reclassify the Internet as a utility, and other similar telecom-favoring legislation like prohibiting communities from building their own broadband networks.

You can help preserve an open Internet by letting your representative in Congress know that any such bill is unacceptable. Our friends at Free Press have set up a call tool to contact your member of Congress today. It is especially important that Democratic members who have generally (though not entirely) been supportive of our goals stand strong against these tactics.

You can make that call here.

And if you can’t call, think about sending out a tweet. Here are some examples:

Stand up for an open Internet. Say no to a bill that would stop the FCC from issuing real #NetNeutrality rules! http://goo.gl/mH95YT

Startups need an open Internet. Say no to the Latta amendment and stand up for #NetNeutrality! http://goo.gl/mH95YT

#NetNeutrality supporters in Congress, please make your voices heard and say no to the Latta amendment. Preserve the open Internet!

It’s time for the telcos to stop messing with #NetNeutrality. Call Congress and tell them to stand up for innovation http://goo.gl/mH95YT

Finally, if you haven’t already done so, please sign up with http://www.startupsfornetneutrality.org/ to show your support and join the movement for an free and open Internet.

More Companies Comment on Net Neutrality

In our continuing series of filings with the FCC and their open docket on Net Neutrality rules, we have a series of comments this week from a broad range of companies and organizations, again focusing on one critical viewpoint: that the Chairman of the FCC has within his power the ability to reclassify the Internet as a utility under Title II, and that he should do so. From the web, Opera Software is one of the world’s leading web browsers with more than 350 million users worldwide, and comments have been written by Chief Technology Officer Haakon Wium Lie from their head office in Oslo, Norway in support of reclassification with a global perspective. 

Opera Software services many users in sub-optimal situations, mostly those with poor connectivity or lower-end devices, which is first among many reasons that in a marketplace designed for ease of switching with only marginal cost, speed is a key factor in retaining consumers. And with one of Opera Software’s key differentiators being their proprietary compression service, Lie points out they would “have to” secure fast lane agreements under the Chairman’s proposal in order to stay effective for their users. In a sense, Opera Software provides a service on the margin for those on the margins of our society, and the reason they do so is that the Internet is the great equalizer. Even those without the latest and most powerful devices, or the best connectivity and bandwidth, can still explore the vast recesses of information and connect with people around the globe.

And, as Lie points out, if other countries copy the FCC’s current proposal, we run the risk of continuing to chip away, not just at the innovative Internet which has brought us so many products and services to enrich our life, but the very fabric of the community built online by restricting access to those who may not be able to afford to connect. In that “undue bureaucratic burden” says Lie, we find the greatest cause for alarm, all of which can be averted, in his words, by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

We also hear from organizations in the global health space, including the Global Healthy Living Foundation, which creates disease-specific communities and networks to help many facing chronic illness get the support they need. And from the interactive world, Heyzap and TouchCast create new experiences online. Without rules that keep the Internet open for innovation, their businesses won’t reach their users.

In all of these cases, especially in the delivery of high-bandwidth content like YouTube videos or other interactive devices, user experience could be hamstrung to the point of dysfunction without clear rules keeping the Internet open for innovation. “If we aren’t in a fast lane, by definition we are in a slow lane,” says GHLF. According to Heyzap, “If we had pay a special fee to each phone company to get the same treatment as our competitors, we would have to slow our growth and our hiring,” and that even if litigation under commercial reasonableness standard were available, it wouldn’t help them with ISPs. And TouchCast points out, “When someone views a TouchCast, they not only stream video, but also download web pages and data from the Internet all at the same time. Any perceived delays in video streaming rates or the presentation of any other information within a TouchCast would result in high consumer abandonment rates.”

We have links to the full comments comments and some key quotes below. If, like any of these organizations, your business and customers will be adversely affected by the Chairman’s proposal, sign up with us at startupsfornetneutrality.org. And if you can file a comment, let us know at comms@engine.is.

---

Opera Software

“In the hyper-competitive market for web browsers, speed is key. Consumers will switch browsers to experience the web marginally. Competition would suffer if some browser vendors have fast lane arrangements, or if the non-fast lanes do not provide sufficient capacity. Under the Chairman’s proposal, in order to have a viable web compression service, we would have to secure agreements for a fast lane. “

“Our worst-case scenario is that other countries copy FCC’s proposal. The United States is not only influential with new technological innovations, but also Internet policy. Opera Software would never be able to provide web companies, including U.S. companies, with access to 350M end users if we had to negotiate Internet fast lane agreements with all network operators globally. If other countries follow the logic of the FCC proposal, we and other Internet companies would have to prioritize countries and regions.”

Global Healthy Living Foundation

“We are the first source of health-related news for thousands of people. When several contaminated vials of methotrexate (an arthritis medication) were recalled, we were one of the first organizations to reach out to the people in our community. Within two hours of disseminating the recall message through the Internet, we received two replies from members who were scheduled to take the contaminated medicine that afternoon. Our ability to quickly and efficiently reach a large number of people very likely saved lives. If we had slow or patchy service, we likely would have had a much smaller network that relied on us less often for information.”

Heyzap

“We could not have become the company we are today under the rules proposed by the FCC. We provide real-time recommendations of apps based on data gathered from users. This requires gathering a lot of data, bringing it to our computers, processing it, and sending recommendations and ads back to our users—all in fractions of a second. We need to process a lot of data, quickly. Any limitations in speed or consistency of our service would be noticeable to our users.

Meanwhile, under the Chairman’s proposed rules, broadband providers have strong incentives to make the differences between their standard and premium access options noticeable. If there were no noticeable differences, then no edge provider would feel the need to pay for premium access.”

TouchCast

“We are hoping to change the way people watch videos and TV. Established broadcast companies are wealthy and powerful, and they could easily forge exclusive agreements with broadband providers and lock us from those providers’ networks. While the Chairman’s proposal prevents NBC from forming an exclusive agreement with its affiliate, Comcast, it does nothing to prevent NBC from forming the same agreement with Verizon, or CBS with both Verizon and Comcast. These exclusive agreements could shut us out of the game entirely.”

Education Startups File Net Neutrality Comments with FCC

As you likely know by now, this summer is key in the fight for net neutrality and an open Internet. It is crucial for stakeholders to take this time to file comments at the Federal Communications Commission explaining why an open Internet is essential to their life and  businesses. Today, with our help, four startups in the education space -- who work directly with students to help them acquire the necessary skills to compete in the very global economy -- did just that.

The comments, filed by Codecademy, CodeCombat, General Assembly and OpenCurriculum, all make the central point that harm to net neutrality is harm to startups. In this case specifically, harm to education startups is harm to the pursuit of knowledge and America’s ability to compete in a global technological marketplace. And all four believe that harm can be mitigated by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

We’ll be working with more startups to file comments as the summer continues. We want to make sure that startups in every industry have a voice in this debate. If you are interested in filing comment for your business, and would like our help, email us at comms@engine.is for more information. We hope you’ll join the fight and help us preserve an Internet free and open for innovation.

The existing comments will be posted to the FCC’s comment intake page and are available below for you to read at length:

Overall, these education startups reflect a wider community belief that reclassification is the best (and only) way to achieve the necessary end goal of making sure the Internet does not devolve into a mess of paid prioritization -- or fast and slow lanes. Staying this result is critically important in the field of education, where margins are tight, business is seen as a service, and the outcomes may provide the best fix yet for our economy on the rebound.

From CodeCombat comments:

When CodeCombat first started, resources were scarce, and if we had to negotiate with and pay funds to ISPs, we would have been unable to do so. At that time, we also would not have been able to use the FCC’s standard of “commercial reasonableness” or even a public advocate provided by the FCC to protect our interests. We still may not be able to do so.

...

Almost a million people have learned to code using CodeCombat, including 343,000 students during Code.org’s Hour of Code, a campaign that both President Obama and Republicans encouraged and embraced.We’ve also helped thousands of more experienced programmers hone their skills with more advanced levels. In addition, we’ve translated our game into 40 languages so that students around the world can learn to program as well.

...

We firmly oppose the FCC proposal. We urge the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent technical discrimination, paid prioritization, interconnection disputes, and the host of other harmful issues which would arise as a result of the adoption of the proposal.

From General Assembly comments:

With national attention on the rising cost of higher education and the crippling debt for recent graduates, General Assembly offers an important outlet for students looking to receive a high return on investment from their education. Over 100,000 students have benefitted from our services, including our 10 - 12 week long immersive programs and our three-month apprenticeship program that provides students with a paid opportunity to further hone their newly-acquired skills on the job.

...

Clear rules are important in promoting innovative enterprise. The factors of the commercial reasonableness test are too vague to provide certainty. These standards include “harm to consumers” or “to competition” and evaluation of a totality-of-the- circumstances. Such a standard will only lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation that start-ups cannot afford and which will therefore curb entrepreneurial activity to the benefit incumbent players and their legal teams.

General Assembly believes we need strong network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, discrimination, and access fees. These require reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act. The Internet works well today; allowing ISPs to price discriminate will harm businesses like ours, the general public, and the economic well-being of our country.

From OpenCurriculum comments:

We want to spend our time and resources transforming education, changing the lives of teachers and students, with the awareness that such education will have lasting impact on today’s young people throughout their entire lives and benefit society in general. Asking us to negotiate for “commercially reasonable” deals in light of our larger competitors being willing to pay a premium to keep us out of the market is rigging the market so we (and other entrants) lose. “Comforting” us with the right to hire lawyers and expert witnesses, or wait years for an FCC Ombudsman to win or lose a case whose legal standards are also stacked against us, provides no comfort.

….

Even if we find ways to pay for premium tiers with different cable and phone companies, this is going to significantly eat into our capital ­ affecting the way we grow and our ability to allow more teachers in the United States and around the world to get access to better quality teaching materials for the future generations.

...

The FCC should instead reclassify access to the Internet as a common carrier service and forbid unreasonable technical discrimination, define pay­-for­-play deals as inherently unjust and unreasonable, define access fees as inherently unreasonable charges, and apply these rules to both mobile and fixed platforms.

From Codecademy comments:

Codecademy is an innovative solution for schools and students to save money. Our company also has an important impact on job creation. We're building the basic steps of competency to help people start their own companies, websites, apps, and products and get entry level jobs right now. The next big thing, or an innovative solution to a social problem, could be developed by someone who learned how to code using Codecademy.

But none of that may happen if the FCC adopts its fast-lanes proposal and abandons an open Internet.

Senator Markey: FCC Already Has Power to Save the Internet

UPDATE 7/15/14: Sen. Markey has rallied fellow Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Cardin, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Barbara Boxer, as well as independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, to sign his letter telling the FCC they already have the power to save the Internet and reclassify under Title II. Here is a draft of the letter. Sen. Ron Wyden also backed the push for Title II "common carriage" regulation in a comment to the FCC. Wyden wrote that the FCC should call the Internet what it is: a "telecommunications service."

The last time Congress took up the issue of how to regulate telecommunications (telephones, broadcasting etc.), the Internet was but a dream, haltingly emerging into reality. It was 1996. At the time, then-Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts was the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Telecommunications Act in the House of Representatives; he shepherded the bill through various committees and the floor of the House, ultimately becoming a leading champion for the Internet along the way before the bill was signed into law by President Clinton.

Fast forward to today, and the Internet as we know it, shaped in large part by the 1996 Act, is under direct assault. Now-Senator Markey is still an advocate for the power of the Internet and is working to protect the needs of consumers and businesses nationwide.

The Senator is asking his fellow Senators to sign a letter urging FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make use of the power they believe is already afforded to him by the Telecommunications Act to reclassify the Internet as a utility under Title II. Only with reclassification under Title II can the FCC ban paid prioritization (fast-lanes) on the Internet.

As we’ve documented extensively, we agree with this sentiment and urge the Chairman to do exactly that. You too can help by urging your Senators to contact Senator Markey’s office and sign the letter. This battle must be fought on a number of fronts, and this is one where we have an opportunity to exert pressure.

Call your Senator today, and tell them to sign on with Ed!  Tell Chairman Wheeler to do what he has the power to do: reclassify the Internet under Title II.

New Bill To Ban Paid Internet Fast Lanes

This morning, Rep. Matsui and Sen. Leahy introduced a bill that would direct the FCC to ban paid prioritization deals on what’s known as “the last mile" - the final distance web content travels to reach a consumer. The draft “Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act” would ban preferential treatment on the Internet, upholding the principle of net neutrality.

Paid prioritization deals, as we have already argued, are inherently anti-competitive and violate the principles of a truly free Internet ecosystem. So this bill should be applauded for promoting the interests of startups, content creators, and Internet users; we support this effort and hope it sends the FCC a strong message that paid fast lanes should not become a new Internet standard. They should instead be banned.

"A free and open Internet is essential for consumers," said Matsui. "Our country cannot afford ‘pay-for-play’ schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets."

But, it's worth noting here that there is no way to achieve these aims without first reclassifying broadband Internet under Title II.

This year’s Verizon v FCC decision makes relying on section 706 legally impossible. In that case, the DC circuit court actually went so far as to say that under Section 706 the FCC would have to permit exclusive access arrangements, e.g., paid prioritization, among edge providers and ISPs, and that it could even charge similarly situated edge providers very different prices for the same level of access.

Only under Title II can the FCC can eliminate certain classes of fees and discrimination, including banning paid prioritization (or “fast lanes”) on the Internet altogether. We applaud Rep. Matsui’s and Sen. Leahy’s efforts to ensure an open Internet, and we hope the FCC follows suit.

The Dangerous Uncertainty Over Net Neutrality

Last month, the FCC released a proposal for new rules concerning the open Internet, and now the public has four months to provide comment. Those proposed rules pay a lip service to an open Internet -- something we strongly support -- but their substance tells a different story. One of the most dangerous aspects of the proposal is the resulting uncertainty that startups and investors would face. Unfortunately, until and unless we have real net neutrality rules in place, that uncertainty is unavoidable.

As any business owner will understand, when you’re trying get a startup off the ground, any uncertainty can be dangerous -- enough to spook investors and stunt growth. In this way, startups and other business owners are already feeling the impact of the net neutrality debate.

Jamie Wilkinson is the co-founder and CEO of VHX, an online video distribution company that helps artists connect directly with their audience. Watch Jamie explain how the uncertainty over net neutrality is already affecting his business.

So, a speedy solution is required here. But it must also be the right solution.

FCC Chairman Wheeler’s current proposal is not the right solution. The Chairman has stated his preference to rely on Section 706 to implement so-called open Internet rules. While this sounds fine, this year’s Verizon v FCC decision makes that legally impossible. As a result, the Chairman’s proposed rules would result in years of litigation. Likely to be overturned, we’d be left exactly where we are today

Instead, the Internet needs to be reclassified under Title II as a “common carrier” (like telephone lines, roads, highways, and trains). Only once the FCC has done that can it ensure a true open Internet and deliver the certainty startups need.

In a recent letter to the FCC, Venture Capitalist Brad Burnham explained that without the certainly Title II reclassification brings, Union Square Ventures (and other VC firms) will not invest in Internet startups like they have been to this point:

“Investors like us will need to extract a risk premium before supporting an unproven service, which will hurt the creators who are ultimately responsible for innovation. Worse, investors like us will decide not to risk our partners' capital at all to back an applications layer start-up, because an incumbent could easily copy the basic elements of a new service and beat them in the market by paying for a faster connection to consumers. We will also be very reluctant to fund companies building services that compete with current or future offerings of the cable or telecommunications companies that can directly impact a consumer's experience of a new service.”

Not only would the proposed rules allow for pay-to-play schemes, but they would allow ISPs to make “commercially reasonable” deals to prioritize certain content. This violates the concept of net neutrality, and -- potentially even worse -- determining what is and is not “commercially reasonable” would require the kind of legal budgets and lawyers on staff that startups just don’t have. If you’re a startup and can ISP proposed a “commercially unreasonable” deal, would you have the time and resources to bring a case at the FCC? This added layer of uncertainty is another reason we cannot support Chairman Wheeler’s proposal.

Engine to Wheeler: We Look Forward to Continued Discussion

In response to this morning's FCC hearing on preserving an open Internet, we offer the following statement:

We are again encouraged by Chairman Wheeler’s commitment to protecting the open and free exchange of information on the Internet, and to inviting comment on various paths to preserve an open Internet. We agree that network neutrality is essential for consumers, startups, and economic growth, and that “squeezing out smaller voices [and new ideas] is unacceptable”.

While we can echo the Chairman’s sentiments, he has not explained how the authority of Section 706 will achieve the lofty goals as outlined. Based on the Verizon v FCC decision, we believe that the Chairman’s proposal to rely on the Commission’s secondary authority cannot lead to rules that can both be upheld in Court and preserve the open Internet to give startups the certainty they need.

We look forward to discussing specific approaches to reaching the goal of an open Internet, and will continue to advise that Title II reclassification is the only route to preventing paid prioritization and an Internet of haves and have-nots.

Yes, The FCC Has Acted to Protect Net Neutrality

The cable and phone companies are telling people in DC that the Internet has benefited from “no” net neutrality rules. They claim, since there were no rules for a decade, that we don’t need them now. They’ve got the story exactly backwards: we have had active FCC interventions on net neutrality. That’s one reason we have had a neutral Internet until now. Indeed, since 2004 we have had enforcement actions, policy statements, merger conditions, spectrum conditions, and a rule. The first time we have had the FCC announce that it would not ensure neutrality but would instead authorize fast lanes … was with Chairman Wheeler’s comments earlier this year.  

I explain that here. This post was originally part of the comments Engine Advocacy filed with the FCC. 

While often imperfect, the FCC has done much to ensure an open internet. Carriers have not historically engaged in rampant discrimination partly due to the threat of FCC action. In 2004, the FCC’s Chairman issued a speech about the “Four Freedoms” online, which promised to keep the Internet an open platform. In 2005, the FCC punished Madison River, a small telephone company that was blocking Vonage, an application that powered online phone calls competing with Madison River’s own service. In 2005, the FCC adopted an Internet Policy Statement and pledged to respond to any violations of the statement with swift action. In 2008, after it was discovered that Comcast, the largest ISP in the nation, was interfering with some of the internet’s most popular technologies—a set of five peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies—the FCC enjoined Comcast in a bipartisan decision. Much of the cable industry was engaging in such actions, so this wasn’t a small exception. In 2010, the FCC adopted the Open Internet Order that was only recently struck down.

Additionally, in the years since 2005 the FCC has conditioned spectrum assignments and mergers on net neutrality rules. The largest three broadband providers have been (or remain) subject to net neutrality for many years. AT&T accepted two-year net neutrality conditions in its merger with BellSouth, and SBC accepted a two-year condition in its merger with AT&T. Verizon accepted a similar condition in its merger with MCI. Verizon purchased a 22MHz band of spectrum (the C block) in the FCC’s 2008 700MHz auction for $4.7 billion dollars, and did so subject to open internet conditions modeled on the Internet Policy Statement. Comcast has been subject to network neutrality rules since its merger with NBC in 2011, and the merger condition extends for seven years. Both Verizon and Comcast’s conditions still apply today. Moreover, Congress imposed contractual obligations on internet networks built with stimulus funds—nondiscrimination and interconnection obligations that, at a minimum, adhered to the internet Policy Statement, among other obligations.

In light of these merger obligations, license conditions, FCC adjudications and rulemaking, stimulus conditions, and consistent threats of FCC action, startups have enjoyed a generally neutral network that is conducive to, and necessary for, innovation. These actions provided some certainty that startups would not be arbitrarily blocked, subject to technical or economic discrimination, or forced to pay carriers so that the carriers’ consumers can access all the innovation online. 

Following the Verizon v. FCC decision, and under the Chairman’s proposal, that will likely change, in ways that harm entrepreneurship and the public interest.

The last decade of tech innovation may not have been possible in an environment where carriers could discriminate technically, and could set and charge exorbitant and discriminatory prices for running internet applications. Without the FCC, established tech players could have paid for preferences, sharing their revenues with carriers in order to receive better service (or exclusive deals) and to crush new competitors and disruptive innovators. Venture investors would have moved their money elsewhere, away from tech startups who would be unable to compete with incumbents. Would-be entrepreneurs would have taken jobs at established companies or started companies in other nations. The FCC played an important role. The Chairman and this FCC shouldn’t break that. 

Net Neutrality's Legal Binary: An Either/Or With No "Third Way"

People working on net neutrality wish for a “third way”– a clever compromise giving us both network neutrality and no blowback from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others. That dream is delusional because the carriers will oppose network neutrality in any real form; they want paid fast lanes. They have expressed particular opposition to “Title II” of the Communications Act—something telecom lawyers mention the same way normal people might reference the First or Second Amendments. Title II is the one essential law to ban paid fast lanes.

All legal “third way” proposals have struck me as legally flawed and too clever by half. Let me explain why: current law sets up an either/or, without much possibility of a third way. We have two very different paths and have to pick one.

Laws usually include a definition of something and then apply rules to that thing. Drug laws, for example, might define what “drugs”, insurance, or securities laws define “insurance” and “securities,” then they apply rules to things defined as drugs, insurance, or securities. You can look at the legal definition of drugs and know that peanut butter and automobiles aren’t drugs. Therefore, the legal requirements on drugs don’t apply. If an agency has authority over both food and drugs, and decided both peanut butter and Viagra are not “drugs” but “foods,” then the agency could not apply drug laws to either of them. But it would likely have to declare Viagra a drug to regulate it as a drug, and peanut butter a food to regulate it as a food.

In January, a court in a decision called Verizon v FCC struck down the network neutrality rules adopted by the FCC in 2010. The court said that Title II of the Communications Act regulated some companies as “common carriers.” What is a common carrier? A common carrier is a company “forced to offer service indiscriminately and on general terms.” Common carriers cannot engage in “individualized bargaining.” Think about cabs, which are generally common carriers. For example, according to most state laws, cabs are not permitted to refuse to drive anyone and must charge the same prices, instead of discriminating and deviating from their uniform meter. Common carriers have included landline phone companies, mobile phone companies, DSL service (until 2005), also railroads, and grain elevators.

These are the parts of Title II that require common carriers in communications to serve everyone and not discriminate among users. (The full provisions provide even more detail.)

Serve everyone on fair terms: “It shall be the duty of every common carrier engaged in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio to furnish such communication service upon reasonable request therefor; … All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable.”

No unreasonable discrimination: “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device.”

According to the court decision in January, services subject to Title II are subject to these provisions.

But service not subject to Title II cannot be treated as common carriers. That is the key holding of the Verizon decision: “We think it obvious that the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate [companies that are not subject to Title II] as common carriers.”

Here’s how the Court got there in plain English: its just like the Viagra example above. Ten years ago, the FCC said that ISPs aren’t common carriers. Therefore, the FCC can’t regulate them as if they were..

Here’s the legal jargon version. The Communications Act defines something called “telecommunications services,” and says those services must be offered on a common carrier basis under Title II. Telecommunications services are generally networks that carry data between two points without changing it. Other services, that provide and change information, like Facebook or Yahoo, are “information services.” They are not subject to common carrier obligations in Title II. The FCC (oddly) decided ten years ago to treat Verizon, AT&T, and others as information services, not as telecommunications services, even when they carry traffic from point A to point B, merely because they also offer things like email and domain name service.

Because the FCC decided that ISPs are not “telecommunications services” by law, Title II’s common carrier requirements of reasonable charges and nondiscrimination etcetera do not apply to Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast right now.

According to the court in January, the operative legal language making it a binary decision is this:

A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this [Act] only to the extent that it is engaged in providing telecommunications services. (Page 41).

The court interpreted this language as an either/or. Either a service is a telecommunications service (therefore a common carrier) or not a telecommunications service (and therefore not a common carrier).. It’s binary.

So, unless ISPs are reclassified as Title II common carriers, then common carrier laws simply cannot apply.

Said another way, if the FCC relies on any other provision then common carrier concepts cannot apply. It doesn’t matter if that other provision is one known as Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, one known as Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, or one known as Mary Poppins. According to the decision, there is Title II, and then there is everything else, when it comes to network neutrality.

The court’s decision on this point is a really important development. Four years ago, when the FCC adopted its 2010 Order, the FCC didn’t know this binary existed. All it knew was that a few provisions of the law (such as Section 230) could not sustain network neutrality. In 2010, the FCC could believe that perhaps many provisions could work (other than 230 and a few others). It could treat “Title II” as the “big guns.” After the Verizon decisionthis January, we realize no provisions other than Title II would work. They’re the only guns.

So we know that (a) Title II services are regulated as common carriers and (b) other services cannot be. A simple binary.

And to finish off the analysis: is network neutrality a common carrier regulation?

Yes, by law. The court in January made that clear: network neutrality is a common carrier regulation. It is common carrier regulation because it requires ISPs to offer indiscriminate and general treatment for all websites. No paid fast lanes and slow lanes. The court said that, with the FCC’s 2010 language on fast lanes, “we see no room at all for ‘individualized bargaining.’”

Unless the FCC relies on Title II, it must permit fast lanes, slow lanes, discriminatory exemptions to bandwidth caps and all the other stuff AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon always wanted.

Still, the FCC Chairman keeps suggesting that the FCC can force the carriers to offer the same terms to everyone and can ban fast lanes under Section 706, without relying on Title II. It’s obvious from the January decision that forcing them to offer the same terms would be common carriage and therefore illegal. Any rules not adopted under Title II will either authorize massive network discrimination and “individualized bargaining” between ISPs and all websites—or be struck down.

If we want a rule against discrimination and against new access fees, we need Title II. There is no legal third way.

Title II and Banning Paid Prioritization

I keep hearing net neutrality opponents arguing that paid prioritization – “fast lanes” on the Internet – and discriminatory exemptions to bandwidth caps, etc. cannot be banned under Title II of the Communications Act.* They also argue that the FCC can’t ban access fees under Title II because Title II only bans “unreasonable” discrimination and unreasonable charges. Therefore, they argue that at least some discrimination and fees are reasonable.

That’s not true. Title II has a few key provisions.

The key language of the very first section in Title II is:

All charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with such communication service, shall be just and reasonable, and any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful …. The Commission may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

This is a pretty broad authority. The FCC can determine that the ISPs are imposing unjust and unreasonable charges on web companies and applications if they impose a tax to reach the ISPs’ customers. (To my knowledge, such charges are rare, new, and unusual.) The FCC could determine that all such charges are unreasonable. It can define a class of charges and make those charges illegal.

The key language of the second provision is:

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.

The FCC can determine that paid prioritization is inherently unreasonable. (See Harold Feld’s ex parte for some history, particularly relying on the Carterfone case)

Indeed, previous FCCs understand that they can ban certain classes of actions as inherently unreasonable. In the 2010 Order itself, the FCC “effectively banned paid prioritization.” Verizon sued the FCC over the order and wrote this in its brief: “The Order effectively banned certain potential commercial services—including any ‘commercial arrangement between a broadband provider and a third party to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic’—by stating that ‘it is unlikely’ that such services ‘would satisfy the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard.’” (Page 9 of the brief.) The decision throwing out the 2010 Order, called Verizon v FCC, agreed with Verizon’s brief and the court interpreted the quoted language to leave “no room at all for ‘individualized bargaining.’” No room at all sounds like an effective ban. (Page 60-61).

The point is that under Title II, the FCC can eliminate certain classes of fees and discrimination, including banning paid prioritization (aka fast lanes) on the Internet altogether.

The FCC cannot do that under Section 706, as the Court already decided.

*The net neutrality debate is complicated by a question of whether the FCC should use its main authority that is found in Title II of the Communications Act or a new and very different authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Net neutrality advocates prefer Title II because under Title II the FCC has the power to ban “unreasonable” discrimination and require “reasonable” charges and practices. A court in January has already decided that the FCC cannot ban unreasonable discrimination or eliminate (at least certain) unreasonable fees under Section 706. Indeed, the January case struck down the FCC’s 2010 net neutrality rules simply because Section 706 doesn’t give the FCC power to ban unreasonable discrimination.

Picture courtesy of Atul Nulkar

Large and Small Internet Companies call for the FCC to Keep the Internet Open - Join Them

On May 15th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will officially propose rules regarding the Open Internet. The proposal would authorize phone and cable ISPs to create two-tiered internet “fast lanes” for those who can pay, and slow lanes for everyone else, destroying the current level playing field and threatening innovation and entrepreneurship.

Yesterday, Engine and The Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation filed a letter, signed by over 100 internet companies, calling for the FCC to rethink these proposed rules and instead recommit to protecting and preserving an open, equal internet.

From our statement, “the signers -- a diverse group including tiny start­ups, household names, and industry giants -- called for Open Internet Rules that afford companies and entrepreneurs strong protections against online discrimination and individualized bargaining.”

Today, over one hundred leading Venture Capitalists from across the country joined us in asking the FCC to reconsider. As Nick Grossman from Union Square Ventures writes, “it’s undeniably clear that the Internet has been an insanely fertile platform for innovation and investment over the past ten years...so today’s letter states our hope that the FCC will weigh all available options when considering how to maintain the most competitive, vibrant market possible for internet applications.”

If you still want to sign-on to our company letter, email your name, your job title, and your company name to eva@engine.is

AND, if you want to take part in our Startups Speak video series to show your support, email dan@engine.is for more information

New FCC Proposal on Net Neutrality is Disastrous for Startups, Consumers and the Economy

“According to recent news reports, the Commission is considering adopting a rule that authorizes discrimination by ISPs and permits them to charge terminating access fees to technology companies. We believe such a rule, if adopted, would crush startups,and therefore undermine American technology entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation.”

This is the first paragraph of comments we filed with the FCC today. The FCC’s widely reported net neutrality proposal authorizes web-content discrimination by enabling companies to pay Internet Service Providers for access to a faster lane, whole relegating those without the ability to pay to the slow lane.

This proposal marks a significant departure from the principle of Net Neutrality, which grants all content providers the equal ability to provide their offerings to consumers, and gives Internet users the equal ability to see any content they choose.

This proposal would place an incredible burden on small, high-growth companies. In so many ways, the deck is already stacked in favor or larger, well-funded business, and this is yet another barrier to entry. This framework will unequivocally empower the companies that can pay, at the expense of the next generation of disrupters.

As Fred Wilson pointed out back in January, in this new world order “telcos will pick their preferred partners, subsidize the data costs for those apps, and make it much harder for new entrants to compete with the incumbents.”

The innovation ecosystem -- so essential to job creation and economic growth -- benefits from low costs of innovation, not an environment where multiple ISPs can impose above-cost, unconstrained access fees on startups. Entrepreneurs rely on an open internet to build their companies, and investors rely on the certainty of an open internet to invest billions of dollars in edge providers to power the innovation ecosystem.

Startups rely on not being blocked, discriminated against, or subject to fees for access and preference. If some or all ISPs block a startup, the startup would be unable to reach a portion of users in the market. This is a particular problem for startups whose products rely on network effects -- those that become more valuable with more users -- such as social networks, e-commerce platforms connecting buyers and sellers (or drivers and riders), sites for user-generated content (including reviews, photos, or micro-blogs), and payment networks. If blocked by some ISPs, these companies will be less likely to win in the market, even if consumers would otherwise prefer their services.

Any arguments that suggest startups welcome the “right” to negotiate to pay fees for access or outbid giant incumbent edge providers for special preferences are divorced from the reality of entrepreneurship

For the last decade, the largest cable and phone companies have argued that network neutrality is “a solution in search of a problem.” That assertion is false.

We know that net neutrality solves a real problem. In countries without net neutrality, including several European nations, there has been widespread discrimination and blocking for many years. And even in the US, where the FCC has to this point supported net neutrality in principle, there have been violations. These include:

• Comcast interfering with peer-to-peer technologies, including some of the most popular technologies online;
• Apple blocking the application Skype on the iPhone, which was subject to a contract with AT&T, a carrier that competes with Skype;
• Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile blocking Google Wallet, while all three companies are part of a competing mobile payments joint venture called Isis; and
• Comcast’s disputes with Level 3 and Netflix over termination fees and congested transit.

We cannot overstate how devastating this pay-to-play model will be for startups, the innovation economy, the open internet, and for consumers.

In our comments to the FCC, we support the Chairman’s previously stated desire to adopt strong rules on disclosure, blocking, and discrimination, but we believe the Chairman cannot adopt such rules under the jurisdictional theory he favors: Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act that grants the FCC jurisdiction over “deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”

We now know the obvious: he cannot pursue real nondiscrimination rules under Section 706.

Rather than permit widespread discrimination and fees that would crush entrepreneurship, he should choose a different jurisdictional theory known to legal eagles as Title II. Title II would reclassify Internet service as a public utility much like phone lines. Reclassification must be remain on the table and be seriously considered.

We are following this issue closely, so sign-up for our newsletter (it’s just below the fold!), and follow us on Twitter and Facebook to stay up to date. And if you want to take action now, visit Free Press for how to make your voice heard.

Keep APIs Open

Last week, Engine joined software innovators, startups, and investors as a signatory on an amicus brief in Oracle v. Google -- a case centered on how far copyright should be extended with regards to Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). We are in favor of limiting copyright on APIs in order to protect innovation and investment.

In 2012, district courts ruled in favor of Google, concluding that Java APIs used by Android are not subject to copyright. The Federal Circuit is now reviewing the case on appeal.

We are proud to put our name on the brief because we recognize the need for software startups to innovate and the drive economy forward. Startup innovation requires interoperability (ie. open exchange of information) between systems and programs, and this is fostered by APIs.

Our interest is in “preserving the deliberate balance Congress and the courts have established for software copyright.” This balance is integral to maintaining a competitive marketplace and investment landscape. Should copyright restrictions on API’s be tightened, the real-world implications could be significant -- could decrease competition in software innovation and chill investment.

We’d like to recognize Engine member startups who also signed this brief, including: Bright Funds, Hattery, Hipiti, and Vessel. We are also thankful that prominent investors and technology industry veterans lent their voices, including Engine Advisory Board Member Brad Feld, and his partner at Foundry Group, Jason Mendelson. You can find a full list of signatories here.

We encourage you to check out the abstract and full brief.

Related articles:

• Computer Scientists Urge Court to Block Copyright Claims in Oracle v. Google

  API Fight