(Washington, D.C.) - Today, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that Comcast’s actions toward the BitTorrent P2P application violated one of the Commission’s Net neutrality policies. The following statement may be attributed to Chris Wolf and Mike McCurry, co-chairs of the Hands Off the Internet coalition (HandsOff.org):

“Federal policy should protect Net users’ access to the open Internet in a way that doesn’t bog down enforcement in red tape or hinder investments that will improve the Internet for all consumers. Today’s action demonstrates why we do not need a cumbersome new set of federal mandates enacted into law.”

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Qwest, 3M, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

Today, the Federal Communications Commission held a public hearing at Stanford University on the Internet and network management. In response, the Hands Off the Internet coalition (HandsOff.org) released the following statement:

“Network management is indispensable to make the Internet safer and more enjoyable and that point seemed to resonate with the Commissioners. The Commissioners also seemed receptive to evidence that smart networks are crucial to the continued deployment of affordable broadband.

“Hopefully, today’s hearing helped better focus the policy debate on a more realistic appreciation of the expense and complexity necessary for today’s Internet.”

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Qwest, 3M, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

Yesterday HOTI filed its FCC reply comments (PDF) on the Vuze petition. A tip of our hat and a case of Diet Coke to our Legal Eagles, who read through virtually all the filings in the Vuze matter. Their conclusions:

Net Neutrality would legally undercut the very “smart network” technology driving our faster, less expensive communication.

Despite all the sound and fury, there wasn’t a single explanation in any pro-Net Neutrality filing on why current FCC authority is insufficient to protect consumers. That’s a key point because, as we’ve said all along, until the courts tell us otherwise, consumers are already protected and a new federal law would just add unnecessary legal uncertainty to the Internet.

Did you know that….

… current federal law already protects the open internet?

… federal rules against unfair competition guarantee net users’ access to the legal online content of their choice?

… states such as California have pro-consumer laws that protect net users’ access to content?

… today’s high-speed Internet routers can process 15 terabytes per second – enough to stream 15 million DVD-quality streams simultaneously?

If any of these are new to you, please read FCC comments filed by Hands Off the Internet [PDF] with the FCC. You’ll see why net neutrality is an expensive and unnecessary burden.

It’s been widely reported that Chairman Edward Markey and Rep. Charles “Chip” Pickering have introduced a bill which includes a requirement that the Federal Communications Commission study how broadband providers are coping with the exploding growth of data sent over their networks. The FCC would also have to hold eight conferences to assess broadband service competition.

We have a great respect for Chairman Markey and we’re certainly pleased that today’s bill doesn’t try to revive what Congress decisively rejected two years ago — government Internet regulation. Regarding the study specifically, there’s no question that a reasoned examination of the facts will demonstrate the folly of net neutrality. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently examined the issues that the Markey bill proposes be studied. Neither study found evidence of any problem warranting regulation. Both agencies have also clearly affirmed their ability to monitor and deal with any problems that may arise.

On its face we agree with the concept; Hands Off the Internet has always supported efforts to gather public opinion. However, we are concerned that an effort to seek public input is intended to be a stalking horse for federal Internet regulation. The continued push by special interests to regulate Internet neutrality undercuts the best hope Net users have for faster, more affordable broadband. Network innovation and deployment free from federal regulation are the keys to meet consumers’ rapidly growing bandwidth demands. More importantly efforts behind Net Neutrality regulations will create uncertainty for investors and internet service providers that must build the infrastructure to meet consumer demands.

Consumers cannot afford the cost or delays created by Net Neutrality; now is the time to clear the way for investment and innovation. Vigorous competition, not net neutrality bills and arbitrary decisions by lawyers and bureaucrats, is the best way to guarantee that open, affordable Internet.

Below is the letter sent to the FCC today by the Hands Off the Internet coalition:

November 7, 2007

The Honorable Kevin J. Martin
Chairman
The Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Request for FCC Review of Comcast actions involving BitTorrent

Dear Mr. Chairman:

During your tenure as FCC chairman, you have supported the free market over government regulation as the best way to preserve free expression and speech while also bringing new benefits to Internet users.

The Hands Off the Internet coalition has supported this view, as we believe it is consistent with America’s traditional “light regulatory touch” Internet policies that have enjoyed strong bipartisan support for more than a decade.

As you know, the cornerstones of today’s open Internet are the four principles embedded in the FCC’s August 2005 net neutrality policy statement:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

These principles are the necessary safety net to protect consumers and the openness and freedom of the Internet.
(more…)

“The FCC should be highly skeptical of calls to substitute special economic regulation of the Internet for free and open competition enforced by the antitrust laws. Marketplace restrictions proposed by some proponents of ‘net neutrality’ could in fact prevent, rather than promote, optimal investment and innovation in the Internet, with significant negative effects for the economy and consumers [emphasis ours].”

–-U.S. Justice Department ex parte filing on broadband practices, September 6, 2007

Today’s Justice Department filing [PDF] blasting net neutrality is notable for several reasons:

First, it shines much-needed light on an overlooked issue in this debate: the rights consumers already have that guarantee an open Internet. The DoJ filing is clear on the legal guarantees that already ensure consumers’ unfettered access to their choice of content.

Second, the filing highlights the utter inability of those pushing net neutrality to come up with even a shred of evidence of that the Internet is anything other than fully open. It cites “scant evidence” (p. 3) from this summer’s FCC filings on the issue.

Yes, there were thousands of letters complaining that the open Internet was about to be subverted but as the saying goes, If ten thousand people call a duck a horse, it doesn’t turn the duck into a horse.

Third, add DoJ’s voice to the growing chorus of independent analysts who have noted the pricing impact from net neutrality. As the report states, net neutrality “could shift the entire burden of implementing costly network expansions and improvements onto consumers.” (p. 4)

Finally, DoJ should be commended for recognizing the reality of today’s non-neutral Internet: “[C]ommercial content distribution networks, such as Akamai, Limelight Networks, and Internap Network Services, operate thousands of servers throughout the world that cache content and services to provide faster and more reliable access to specific Internet websites. Even though these arrangements allow participating content and access providers to pay for a higher quality of service, and thus create unequal treatment vis-à-vis other content providers, proponents of ‘net neutrality’ do not allege that such services need to be prohibited.” (p. 8)

In short, the web is already non-neutral and net users are benefiting through faster access speeds and more bandwidth to do what they want.

As Judge Judy would say, “The time to change was yesterday. The time to wake up is now.”