Archives: Internet

February 7, 2006

The Honorable Ted Stevens     

Chair

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

U.S. Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Daniel Inouye

Co-Chair

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

U.S. Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Co-Chairs Stevens and Inouye:

Thank you for your leadership in tackling the important issue of network neutrality. The principle of network neutrality is simple, but crucial to innovation and commerce over the Internet. It is a policy of nondiscrimination toward all data flowing over the network. It lies in the DNA of the Internet as we have always known it. We see no compelling reason to waver from a commitment to network neutrality, an idea that has catalyzed enormous social opportunity and economic growth in technology.

Recent media reports describe operators’ plans to create pay-for-play "tiers" of premium service. They propose to charge content, service, and applications providers for access to a "fast lane" or "premium tier." This will split the Internet into first and second class services:  a pay-for-play fast lane for the privileged few and a congested dirt road for everyone else. The result will be a cartel of super-fast websites that pay for the privilege of speedy consumer downloads, relegating the equal-opportunity Internet to the dustbin of history. 

Though fast-downloads for selected sites may sound like a short term boon for consumers, it is a long term disaster. The fees charged to content and service providers would inevitably find their way down to consumer wallets that have already paid for access. Though double-charging may be rational market behavior for network owners seeking a short-term return on investment, it is patently discriminatory and reflects a fundamental change in the nature of the Internet. It is a practice that will stifle innovation, foster anti-competitive practices in the marketplace, thwart the global competitiveness of our technology sector, and ultimately cost consumers more money.

Under this pay-for-play approach, the network operators will have an ideal opportunity to discriminate, particularly when they sell the same services for which they are imposing access charges on competitors. Imagine the network owner develops its own search engine, streaming video service, blog engine, and news aggregator. Absent network neutrality, there is a strong incentive to stifle competition and control innovation that might compete against these in-house applications.  In the end, we will move toward the "cable-ization of the Internet," a system where the owner of the network is the ultimate gatekeeper of all content, services, and applications on the Internet (just like cable TV). Nothing could be farther from the original intent and catalyzing engine of today’s Internet

We strongly urge the Committee to build any future policies on the foundation of a neutral network that empowers consumers, not network operators, to decide winners and losers in the online marketplace. Without interference by network owners, Internet users should be able to:

• Access Internet content of their choice;
• Run online applications and services of their choice;
• Connect their choice of devices to the network; and
• Have fair competition among network, application, service and content providers.

Ultimately, what network neutrality represents is a fundamental policy of non-discrimination. The Internet must remain an open platform for free competition on equal terms and conditions, regardless of market power or network ownership. Any services or applications that touch the Internet must retain this network freedom.

As the Committee considers how to facilitate the further development of the Internet as a source of economic growth and social opportunity, we urge the Members to take a strong stand on network neutrality.

Sincerely

Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America

Jeannine Kenney, Consumers Union

Ben Scott, Free Press