Testimony of Art Brodsky; New York City Council Technology in Govt Committee Hearing on Net Neutrality Principles; Res 712-A

This testimony is also available in PDF format.

Testimony of Arthur Brodsky
Communications Director, Public Knowledge

Before the New York City Council Committee on Technology in Government
Hearing on Net Neutrality Principles and Resolution 712-A

November 20, 2009

Chairman Brewer and members of the Committee,

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before the Committee this morning. I am Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge, a public interest advocacy group in Washington that represents consumer rights in the digital age. We specialize in issues surrounding the Internet, broadband and intellectual property. I have been involved with telecommunications policy since just before the breakup of the old AT&T happened in 1984 as journalist, government official, non-profit advocate.

I am here this morning to encourage you in the strongest possible terms to adopt resolution 712-A in favor of a neutral, non-discriminatory Internet. This policy is important for the economy of the City of New York. It is important for the economy of the country. This Committee and the whole Council are important, crucial voices in the debate now going on in Washington and around the country. That debate will determine whether the Internet will be dominated and controlled by the companies which provide the access to the Internet or whether the Internet will continue to be the open, innovation-without-permission, entrepreneur-driven medium with which we’re familiar.

All over this city, people are going online. They want to do research, send messages, check out museums, update their social networks, check out videos. Consumers make the choices of what service they want and how much they want to pay for it.

All over this city, people are going online for a different reason. They want to create a business. Whether it’s a new blog, or new application or web site, every developer needs the certainty that he or she can reach an audience. The developers need the certainty that the customers make the decision to see their videos or hear their music, not that the telephone, cable or wireless company makes the decision for them by favoring one company over another with special deals. The developers, particularly those starting out, don’t have the money to be forced into the so-called “managed” lanes that the carriers want to establish. They can’t afford the protection money. An Internet governed by customer choice, not by carrier favoritism, gives everyone the shot to create a business.

From the beginning of today’s online world, the behavior of the Internet has been largely governed by consumers and by information/services providers. The consumer asks for data to download, or to upload. The information or service providers send back or receive information from the consumer. That is how the Internet was structured, in engineering and in philosophy. This simple structure is called the “end-to-end” principle. In the middle, the network companies provide access to the Internet by routing the traffic in the most efficient manner possible.

Now, telephone, wireless and cable companies (and those are at times the same companies) want to disrupt that traditional relationship, one which has helped the Internet to grow and to flourish, creating billions of dollars in spending and untold thousands of jobs, from small software developers to equipment manufacturers to large online service companies. They want to cut special deals that take the fundamental equality out of the Internet.

They already make money from the use of the network. Everyone who uses the Internet, from one person at a laptop to multinational companies, pays for access. They want to charge extra fees so that the content from one company will be transmitted more quickly and efficiently than another.

If that happens, the Internet quickly changes from the one we know to one the telephone, cable and wireless companies control based on which company can afford the extra money. Let’s look at some basic concepts.

What Net Neutrality Is and Isn’t

The consumer is in control. Consumers of any size can pay a lot, or they can pay a little, for their Internet access. There is no room in the middle for special deals based on source, ownership or destination of information. My movie company shouldn’t download faster than yours because I paid extra money to the telephone, cable or wireless company.
Network companies manage their networks. The telephone, wireless and cable companies make sure the traffic flows. They block spam for their email customers. They can respond to the needs of law enforcement. Nothing in proposed Net Neutrality rules, or in the concept, would prevent that.
Net Neutrality will not cost jobs or restrict investment. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that playing fair with Internet users will either restrict telephone company investment or result in a loss of jobs. To the contrary, having telephone, wireless and cable company control over what flows over the Internet will harm the vitality of the Internet. The evidence shows that companies invest according to general economic conditions and in response to demand.

In addition that idea doesn’t take into account investment by the thousands of companies, large and small, which do business on the Internet.
Net Neutrality does not regulate ‘the Internet.’ Net Neutrality is a concept that goes back to the beginnings of telecommunications law in the U.S. Net Neutrality deals with telephone, wireless and cable company networks, which are already regulated.

It deals with the very specific question of how companies that, in many cases are the only high-speed Internet choices for consumers, should play fair with their customers. AT&T already agreed, in its takeover of BellSouth, to merger conditions that stopped it from playing favorites based on “source, ownership or destination” of data traffic. AT&T and Verizon in other takeovers agreed to abide by FCC principles protecting consumers.
Net Neutrality is not the final answer. Net Neutrality governs how traffic travels over one network. It guarantees fairness for all users, large and small. It is not a solution to the digital divide. It will not expand broadband deployment to unserved or underserved areas.