The
full comments are available in PDF format.

Before the Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
DC
GN Docket No. 09-51

Public Knowledge (PK), the Media Access Project (MAP) the New America
Foundation (NAF), and U.S. PIRG (collectively “PK, et
al.”) submit the following comments in the above captioned
proceeding.

We approach the National Broadband Plan with a new, fundamental
understanding of the role of broadband in our economy and in our society.
Plainly put, access to broadband has become an essential utility, as much
as water and electricity are essential utilities. Broadband fits into
that category because through a broadband connection to the Internet,
businesses large and small can reach new markets and make their
enterprises more efficient. Students have at their fingertips educational
resources not conceivable a few years ago. Some sources of news and
information, once confined to the printed page, are to be found online
only. For far too long, however, policymakers treated broadband as a
service available for the privileged, much like a high-priced model
vehicle.

In short, broadband is not a luxury, and the policy of the United States,
particularly the National Broadband Plan, should reflect that reality.
Every aspect of U.S. telecommunications policy needs not only to be
re-examined and revised, but in some cases done away with in favor of
policies that are appropriate to the reality of not only the broadband
market of today, but to make sure that the broadband market of tomorrow
will exist to serve the needs of ordinary citizens and businesses.

To that end, PK, et al., believe that the foundation of the
National Broadband Plan must rest on the belief that certain fundamental
principles are too important to be left to the marketplace, as the
government has done. As a result, broadband policy has strayed
significantly from the Communications Act principles which are based not
on the good works of “market forces,” but on the rights of
Americans to receive telecommunications services without discrimination
at reasonable rates.

To correct the failures of our recent broadband policy, we suggest
several elements that should be part of a new policy:

• An open Internet should be the foundation of the National Broadband
  Plan. The FCC should move quickly to adopt a non-discrimination
  principle, which will allow the Internet to operate as an open system
  as it has from the start. Activities such as monitoring Internet
  connections for copyrighted materials must not be allowed, just as
  opening of mail is not allowed to be part of a widespread fishing
  expedition on behalf of a private industry.

• User privacy must be protected in areas of content and customer
  records.

• Consumer rights must be rigorously enforced, with Internet Service
  Providers required to provide the services they advertise, without
  hidden charges or unfair practices.

• The Universal Service Fund and Lifeline programs must be restructured
  to aid in the deployment of broadband networks. Broadband, not voice
  communications, is the “must have” utility of the
  21^st century, and a broadband plan should address continuing
  funding needs for upgrades of networks and demand-side outreach and
  training.

The regulatory regime should reflect the failures of the marketplace,
which have resulted in minimal competition, and higher rates for lower
speeds than in many other industrialized nations. Our lack of competition
can be traced to the reclassification of high-speed broadband services
into Title I. As a result, we propose a range of options for the
Commission to consider. Among them:

• The FCC should reclassify broadband services into Title II; impose
  structural separations on the offering of wholesale and retail
  broadband services; impose functional separations or divestiture on the
  companies offering wholesale and retail broadband services.

• The FCC should conduct a thorough review of competition and prices in
  the special access market, with the goal of making certain that
  incumbents make bandwidth available at reasonable and
  non-discriminatory rates. The absence of competition for this crucial
  building-block of the broadband economy makes its regulation necessary.

• Spectrum reform is essential, starting with an inventory of what
  spectrum is being used, and continuing through reallocation of unused
  spectrum. In addition, the Commission should reimpose spectrum caps,
  which are necessary to further competition. As part of the spectrum
  issue, the Commission must make certain consumers have no restrictions
  on the devices they can use, while examining the anti-competitive
  aspects of handsets tied to one or two carriers.

Outside of the regulatory realm, the National Broadband Plan must examine
the nature of demand for services, and the nature of traffic on the
Internet. A complete broadband map, including “middle mile”
facilities is essential. We must also study the nature of broadband
traffic, to find out not only where the service is available, but how it
is used. This data will ensure that we invest in networks that can
withstand the needs of the future, and that all Americans enjoy the
benefits of our national broadband infrastructure. We must also better
understand the crucial role that non-commercial providers can play in the
provision of services, and make certain there are no barriers to their
entry to provide service to their residents.

These are wide-ranging and comprehensive proposals. They are certainly
controversial. But at this stage of our economic and technological
development, we can suggest no less, as the challenges to our economy
become greater and our capacity for innovation shrinks due to the failure
of the market to provide a vibrant, competitive and open market for the
broadband services essential to our economic survival.