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.

Thank you for your time today. I urge you to approve the resolution.