By Ten to One, Public Urges FCC to Protect Net Neutrality
June 18th, 2007 by tkarrAmerica can return to the forefront of Internet services by restoring the fundamental principles of open and neutral networks, SavetheInternet.com members told the FCC in a filing submitted to the agency on Friday.
Dear FCC: The Public Wants a Neutral Net
|
But if we abandon open networks and let phone and cable companies dictate broadband policies in America, the country will become a broadband backwater, with slower speeds at far higher prices than the rest of the developed world.
The 141-page filing, compiled by the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Free Press, Media Access Project and U.S.Pirg, is one of thousands of comments that poured into the FCC over the last several weeks — including people from all walks of life who filed using SavetheInternet.com’s tools.
Ten to One in Favor of a Neutral Net
By a factor of more than 10 to 1, people spoke out in favor of restoring strong Net Neutrality protections. It’s now up to the FCC to represent the overwhelming support for open and neutral networks in future decisions concerning the Internet.
The comments by the coalition groups demonstrate how previous decisions to abandon open access cleared the way for the emergence a “cozy duopoly” of phone and cable companies. These companies have dominated America’s Internet marketplace while failing the 1996 Telecommunications Act’s goal “to make available to all people of the United States… adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”
If the agency allows companies to continue to close systems, and implement discriminatory practices, the vibrant Internet that Congress sought to preserve in the 1996 Act will be imaginary, according to the filing.
‘Root Cause’ of America’s Broadband Decline
When Congress passed the 1996 Act, virtually all Internet traffic traveled via telecommunications networks that were obligated to provide nondiscriminatory interconnection and carriage under its Title II. At that time, the U.S. was the global Internet leader by far. But the FCC has since abandoned the principles of nondiscrimination, first for broadband provided by cable companies, then for telephone companies.
Today, we have fallen far behind dozens of other nations in providing fast and affordable access to citizens. The “root cause” of this decline: The U.S. has stripped neutrality and open access from the system while most of these other nations strengthened their commitments to these basic principles.
For example, the Netherlands have embraced open access on both their phone and cable systems. Now they are atop the OECD rankings in both per capita broadband penetration and growth.
In their comment filing, the groups state:
“With inadequate competition and little public obligation, the cozy duopoly dribbles out capacity at high prices and restricts the uses of the network, chilling innovation in applications and services and causing a much lower rate of penetration of broadband in the U.S. than abroad.”
Cozy Duopoly = High Prices for a Slow Internet
The comment highlights other ways that broadband services controlled by the phone and cable duopoly have failed in the U.S:
- Compared to citizens in other developed nations, Americans now pay 10 to 20 times as much for far slower Internet services.
- Due to duopoly control of markets (96 percent of residential broadband services are either cable or DSL) a full 37 percent of ZIP codes have one or fewer choices of a wired broadband provider.
- Phone and cable’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices have stifled innovation in both wired and wireless Internet applications, leaving U.S. services generations behind those available in other developed nations.
Breaking Out of our Broadband Quagmire
The Internet’s successes “have been built upon an open architecture, and only in recent years have we considered reverting back to the gatekeeper model of operator control. This would be a tragic error that would cripple the most democratic means of mass media since the printing press,” according to the filing.
The FCC should declare that discrimination violates the basic elements that have fueled the Internet’s growth until now, the groups’ conclude:
“The best way to break out of this quagmire is to return to the success policies of open communications that made the Internet possible and allowed the U.S. to be the world leader in the first generation of the digital age.”
To read the full comment, click here.




June 30th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
[…] lobbied by phone and cable companies — failed to pass in 2006. Part of the reason was the overwhelming number of American citizens in support of net neutrality who found a voice with the help of internet-based coalitions like Free Press and […]
July 17th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I have participated in the action to tell the FCC to save the Internet and asked a few friends to do so as well. One of the stories was posted Monday night itself — the night of the final day to post — was concerned at first what if it was rejected as being sent after the deadline — it was still Monday for me but was almost Midnight — it was sent a few minutes before Tuesday began saying to not forget that Microsoft should not control the Internet either. They had tried to monopolize the Interne thru the browser with Internet Explorer years earlier when they unfairly bundled it with Windows to thwart Netscape — calling it an innovation of their OS. Fortunately today the browser war has resurfaced although Microsoft is paying more attention to search now — and Microsoft has begun innovating IE with launch of IE 7 to safeguard its market share as more users switch to Mozilla Firefox and Apple’s Safari browser now for Mac and Windows users — or other third party browsers like Opera and the relaunched Netscape.
If I had to use a browser similar to MSN Internet software I would go with the AOL browser — just to avoid browsing with Microsoft software.
No one company not even Apple should dominate the Internet — I’m glad Safari is available though since it offers more choice. When Apple helps increase choice that’s good.