Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom WC Docket No. 17-108 COMMENTS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND COMMON CAUSE Ryan Clough Todd O’Boyle John Bergmayer Phillip Berenbroick Common Cause Sara Kamal 805 15th Street NW Yosef Getachew Suite 800 Washington, DC 20007 Public Knowledge (202) 833-1200 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 861-0020 July 17, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1 I. The Core Transmission Function of Broadband Internet Access Service, and its “Factual Particulars" .......................................................................................................................... 1 A. How Broadband Service Provides Internet Connectivity and IP-Based Transmission 2 B. How Broadband Service is Actually Used in 2017 ...................................................... 8 C. How Broadband Providers Represent the Service they Offer to End User ................ 15 II. Broadband Internet Access Service Is a Telecommunications Service ............................ 15 A. Broadband Service Transmits Information of the User’s Choosing, Without Change in its Form or Content ................................................................................................. 15 B. Broadband Service Transmits Between or Among Points Specified by the User ...... 19 C. Broadband Service Offers Telecommunications for a Fee Directly to the Public ...... 23 III. Broadband Internet Access Service Is Not an Information Service ................................. 27 A. The NPRM’s Interpretation of “Information Service” is Untenable .......................... 27 B. The NPRM Misinterprets Sections 230 and 231 ........................................................ 32 C. Add-on Applications Bundled With Broadband Service Do Not Transform It into an Information Service .................................................................................................... 38 D. Other Incidental Provider Activities Fall Within the Telecommunications Management Exception and/or Do Not Otherwise Transform Broadband Service into an Information Service ................................................................................................ 42 IV. The NPRM Distorts and Misinterprets Commission Precedent ....................................... 53 A. The NPRM Proposes the Abandonment of the Commission’s Longstanding Commitment to Protecting Internet Openness ............................................................ 53 B. The NPRM Proposes that the Commission Effectively Abandon Its Fundamental Consumer Protection and Other Policy Goals for Broadband Networks ................... 57 C. The NPRM Misrepresents the Regulatory History of Internet Access Service .......... 59 V. Section 706 Is Not Merely “Hortatory” ............................................................................ 62 VI. The Economic Rationales for Reclassification of Broadband as an Information Service are Fundamentally Flawed ................................................................................................ 63 A. The NPRM puts forth claims about broadband investment that are untrue, immaterial, and incomplete. ........................................................................................................... 63 B. ISPs Possess Gatekeeper, or Bottleneck, Power Due to Their Unique Position in the Network....................................................................................................................... 73 1 C. The Poor State of Broadband Competition Provides Additional Justification for the Open Internet Rules .................................................................................................... 77 D. ISPs Have an Incentive to Discriminate ..................................................................... 82 E. In Contrast to the Previous FCC, the NPRM Appears Determined to Catalog Only the Costs, and None of the Benefits, of the Existing Rules .............................................. 84 VII. The Commission Must Consider the Consequences of Title I Classification to Consumer Protection, Universal Service, and Competition in the Broadband Marketplace ............ 87 A. The Commission Must Address How Consumer Privacy and Disability Access on Broadband Networks Will Be Protected Without Title II .......................................... 88 B. The Commission’s Authority To Ensure Consumers With Disabilities Can Access Broadband Networks is Found Within Title II ........................................................... 95 C. The Commission Must Address How Broadband-Only Providers Can Receive Universal Service Lifeline Support Without Title II .................................................. 95 D. The Commission Must Consider The Effect of Competition in the Broadband Marketplace Without Title II ...................................................................................... 99 VIII. Strong Net Neutrality Rules Are Necessary To Protect And Promote The Value Of An Open Internet .................................................................................................................. 101 A. The Current Rules Are Essential To The Continued Ability To Access A Free And Open Internet For All Consumers And Have Resulted In Clear Benefits To The Internet Ecosystem .................................................................................................... 101 B. The No Blocking Rule Is Necessary To Protect Consumers From The Harm Caused By Broadband Providers ........................................................................................... 105 C. The No Throttling Rule Is Necessary To Give Full Effect To The No Blocking Rule And Further Protect Consumers From Degraded Content ........................................ 111 D. The Ban On Paid Prioritization Is Necessary To Protect Consumers From Anti- Competitive Practices By Large Broadband Providers Who Have Both The Incentive And The Means To Distort The Market ................................................................... 112 E. There Is a Continued Need For The General Conduct Rule ..................................... 123 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 127 ii INTRODUCTION Public Knowledge and Common Cause1 hereby submit the following comments in the above-captioned proceeding. ARGUMENT I. The Core Transmission Function of Broadband Internet Access Service, and its “Factual Particulars” The Commission’s 2015 classification decision was “derive[d] from the characteristics of [broadband] service as it exists and is offered today,” which showed that broadband service is “offered on a common carriage basis by virtue of its functions.”2 This focus on “the nature of the functions the end user is offered”3 was entirely correct, reflecting longstanding judicial and Commission precedent.4 Fundamentally, broadband service offers a modular transmission conduit. As the Commission found in 2015, this is its primary and essential function. Broadband providers transmit information sent and received by their customers, to and from other internet end users. 1 Common Cause is a nationwide, nonpartisan grassroots network dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. On behalf of its more than 900,000 members in all 50 states, Common Cause works to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; and to empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process. 2 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 F.C.C. Rcd. 5601 at 5776, para. 384 (2015) [hereinafter 2015 Open Internet Order], available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1_Rcd.pdf; id. at 5763, para 363. 3 Nat’l Cable & Telecomm’s Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967, 969 (2005). 4 E.g., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 F.C.C. Rcd. 11501 at 11530, para. 59 (1998) (Stevens Report); See Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable & Other Facilities; Internet Over Cable Declaratory Ruling; Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Cable Facilities, GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 F.C.C. Rcd. 4798, 4822 para. 38 (2002) (Cable Modem Order). 1 They operate and provide this service through a combination of physical transmission mediums, switching and routing hardware, and software that follows switching and routing protocols. Customers use the resulting conduit in combination with the devices, applications, and content of their own choosing. In other words, broadband access networks and internet applications are essentially agnostic to each other. Customers can mix and match the former with the latter, and do not expect broadband providers to alter information they send to and receive from other Internet endpoints. This core transmission function is readily apparent from the “factual particulars”5 of broadband service and how it is offered to and perceived by end users. As detailed below, these factual