President Obama Reiterates Support for Strong Net Neutrality

Yesterday, President Barack Obama unequivocally stated his support for real net neutrality, putting to rest any doubts about where he stands on the issue, emphatically opposing any rules that would allow ISPs to enter into paid prioritization agreements and create fast and slow lanes on the Internet:

"I know that one of the things people are most concerned about is paid prioritization, the notion that somehow some folks can pay a little more money and get better service, more exclusive access to customers through the Internet: that is something I’m opposed to," Obama said.

The President’s latest comments come as the FCC begins the process of sorting through the 3.7 million comments filed in response to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposed rules to replace the Commission’s Open Internet Order that was vacated by a court ruling in January. President Obama’s position is consistent with the vast majority of those commenters, over 99% of whom want the FCC to institute strong net neutrality rules.

This is not the first time the President has publicly supported net neutrality. As recently as this summer, he trumpeted the importance of an open Internet. Yet the President’s strong words yesterday left no room for doubt: it is clear the Administration supports Title II reclassification.

Which is why, in opposing Internet regulations that would permit companies to pay ISPs for priority access, President Obama voiced his opposition to the FCC Chairman’s proposed net neutrality rules. Under the Chairman’s proposal, the FCC would permit any paid prioritization deals that were “commercially reasonable.” While it is entirely unclear what “commercially reasonable” paid prioritization deals would entail (one of many major problems with the proposal), the Court of Appeals that vacated the FCC’s prior rules made clear that, unless the FCC reclassifies broadband under Title II, any new rules will have to permit paid prioritization. If, as the President said, he wishes the FCC to refrain from promulgating rules “creating two or three or four tiers of Internet,” the FCC must act in accordance with the overwhelming tide of public opinion and reclassify broadband as a common carrier service under TItle II. Having the President reiterate his strong commitment to net neutrality rules should remind the FCC of the importance of its decision and the widespread desire for meaningful rules preventing ISP discrimination.

Speak Up—or Slow Down: Why We Need A Day of Action for Net Neutrality

Internet users, advocates, and major tech companies will come together next week to make their voices heard: the time for real net neutrality is now. A long-awaited decision from the FCC on the future of net neutrality is imminent, and we’re excited to see companies that depend on an open Internet rallying together to let the FCC know once and for all that an Internet with fast lanes and slow lanes is unacceptable.

On September 10, major Internet companies—including Automattic, Cheezburger, Dwolla, Etsy, Foursquare, General Assembly, Kickstarter, Meetup, Mozilla, Namecheap, Reddit, and Vimeo—will join Engine and other tech advocacy organizations for a Day of Action that will give a glimpse at what the Internet might look like if the FCC’s proposed rules go into effect, and net neutrality as we know it is left by the wayside. Under the FCC’s proposal, Internet providers will be free to charge for access to special Internet “fast lanes,” leaving startups and others unable to pay these new tolls in slow lanes. In such a world, startups that can’t pay for fast lane access could see their sites slow down, their traffic vanish, and their funding dry up, harming the Internet and the economy.

For the Internet Slowdown on September 10, many participating companies will install widgets on their sites displaying a revolving icon (a common signal of slowly loading content) to symbolize how the Internet would function in a world without net neutrality. Others, including Engine, will direct their users to call or email policymakers. With over one million public comments already filed with the FCC, much has been written about why the FCC’s proposed rules would damage the Internet, but the FCC needs to see firsthand how Internet fast lanes would devastate startups.

To help make sure the FCC gets the message, join Engine and companies like Automattic, Cheezburger, Dwolla, Etsy, Foursquare, General Assembly, Kickstarter, Meetup, Mozilla, Namecheap, Reddit, and Vimeo on September 10 to show why real net neutrality rules are necessary to the future of an open Internet. For more information on the Day of Action and to learn about other ways to get involved, visit Battle for the Net or email evan@engine.is.

Engine's Response to Today's FCC Hearing on Net Neutrality Economics

We at Engine watched with interest as the FCC held a hearing today on economic questions related to its proposed net neutrality rules, focusing on “incentives to provide high quality open Internet access service and the relevance of market power.” Distressingly, though the hearing tackled many important questions about the economic incentives new rules would affect, relatively little time was spent addressing the immense negative impact on investment in startups that would follow from an abandonment of strong net neutrality rules. Too many witnesses—with Professor Nicholas Economides of NYU and Professor Jonathan Baker of American University as notable exceptions—failed to grasp the chilling effect on innovation that the paid prioritization model would cause.

Contrary to Hal Singer from the Progressive Policy Institute’s stunning claim at the hearing that allowing paid prioritization schemes would have no negative impact on companies that could not afford to pay for priority access unless ISPs actively degraded all non-prioritized traffic in absolute terms, paid prioritization unquestionably harms startups. Even with a so-called “baseline” service requirement, startups will be disadvantaged if their Internet speeds drop relative to established companies. Myriad studies show that consumers respond to even the most minute changes in website speeds. Millisecond differences in loading times can be a huge detriment to a startup’s growing business.

Simply put, allowing paid prioritization would greatly increase the cost of application development. In turn, higher costs would discourage entrepreneurs from starting risky companies and dissuade investors from putting money into startups that operate in such an imbalanced marketplace where wealthier incumbents pay for priority access.

The threat to innovation isn’t hypothetical. More than 100 of the world’s most prominent venture capitalists explicitly said in a letter to the FCC that they would be less likely to invest in startups that compete in established markets if the FCC permitted paid prioritization. If the FCC fails to understand that allowing ISPs to create and profit from Internet slow lanes will necessarily disincentivize investment in the next wave of startups, it will be putting the future of these companies and the Internet economy in grave danger.

It's Time to Talk Net Neutrality for Mobile

Last week, two of the FCC’s five commissioners came to Sacramento for a public hearing on the future of net neutrality regulation. While most of the debate regarding the FCC’s proposed rules issued earlier this year centered on how and if the Commission should implement net neutrality rules, the Sacramento hearing—organized by California Congresswoman Doris Matsui, a vocal proponent of net neutrality rules—took a step back from arguments over Title II vs. Section 706 (the main legal debate surrounding net neutrality) to think about the broader policy goals that the FCC should focus on in deciding on rules to replace the now-vacated Open Internet Order, regardless of what regulatory mechanism they decide to use.

We praise Rep. Matsui and the commissioners who joined her. Considering how important net neutrality is to citizens and businesses throughout the country, it’s necessary that policymakers tasked with charting a path for the future of the open Internet take the time to discuss these issues with people outside of the Beltway who will be impacted by the FCC’s decision.

In her opening remarks, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn addressed a key net neutrality issue—one that has received short shrift in the debate thus far: the need for net neutrality regulations that apply to wireless Internet service. Under the 2010 Open Internet Order that was vacated in January by the D.C. Circuit Court, the FCC’s rules against ISP blocking and discrimination applied only to wired Internet service, leaving wireless Internet service outside the scope of the rules. While, as Commissioner Clyburn correctly noted, non-neutral wireless broadband presents significant problems for low-income Americans and communities of color (many of whom rely exclusively on wireless broadband for access to the Internet), the lack of any net neutrality rules impacting wireless threatens every community of Internet users, especially the startup community, much of which heavily relies on wireless to connect to new customers and users.

In 2010, when the FCC issued its Open Internet Order, the FCC decided not to apply to wireless carriers the full anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules it created to regulate wired broadband. The FCC justified this action on the grounds that the mobile broadband industry was still rather young in 2010; there was more competition amongst mobile carriers than their wireline counterparts; and operational constraints on mobile networks necessitated a more lenient notion of “reasonable network management” practices. These arguments were weak in 2010, and as the mobile broadband marketplace has changed, the FCC’s logic for exempting mobile from its net neutrality rules makes even less sense today.

As Commissioner Clyburn noted, the mobile broadband market has grown significantly in recent years, with LTE deployed to more than 120 million subscribers today, up from just 200,000 when the Commission issued its 2010 order. Not surprisingly, this increased mobile access has spurred a tremendous boom in the mobile application market. The global market for mobile apps and advertising was worth $38 billion in 2013, up from about $6.8 billion in 2010.

Some may point to these encouraging figures and conclude that there is no need for net neutrality rules in the mobile space. But, part of the reason the application market has boomed so much is because mobile ISPs have not yet engaged in widespread discriminatory activity—a norm that is beginning to change. Recently, mobile carriers have been entering into deals with some edge providers whereby use of these edge providers’ services does not count against a consumer’s data caps. While this may look like a great deal to consumers who are finding themselves being pushed into capped data plans, it will have the same crippling effect on startups that the creation of fast and slow lanes on the Internet would. Upstart companies will find it difficult or impossible to compete with large incumbent applications that consumers can use without incurring data charges, discouraging entrepreneurs from entering the market and investors from funding new application startups. Consumers may initially like having low cost access to popular apps, but consumer popularity alone isn’t synonymous with sound policy. Consumers also probably like the low prices a monopolist can charge to undercut new entrants and stave off competition, but permitting monopolistic behavior will ultimately ruin markets and consumer choice, threatening—as President Obama said—“the next Google and the next Facebook.”

Whether the FCC goes forward with its currently proposed ill-advised “net neutrality” regulations or uses Title II to enact meaningful non-discrimination rules, it must apply such rules equally to wired and wireless service. Failure to enact rules governing mobile broadband carrier discrimination—including zero-rating schemes—will stifle the booming market for mobile applications and allow mobile carriers to serve as gatekeepers for the millions of Americans who rely on wireless Internet access.

Startups Head to Washington to Petition for Net Neutrality

After a week that saw a nationwide day of action prompt more than 300,000 phone calls to Congress regarding net neutrality and more than 3 million comments filed with the FCC in response to the Chairman’s problematic net neutrality rules, startups from around the country came to Washington to make the case for meaningful net neutrality rules in person. With all the attention paid to net neutrality in recent days, we had to make sure that voices from the startup community—including and especially the small businesses who need an open Internet—were being heard in the debate. Representatives from Etsy, Imgur, Meetup, Kickstarter, General Assembly, Dwolla, Vimeo, and Distinc.tt spent the day on September 17 meeting with key lawmakers and officials, explaining to policymakers why an open Internet is so important to their businesses and why the FCC needs to protect the innovative landscape of the Internet by enacting real net neutrality rules.

The startups began the day with a meeting at the White House, discussing their concerns about the Chairman’s proposed rules with key members of the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, including an appearance from newly-named CTO Megan Smith and Deputy CTO Alex Macgillivray.

While the President has already publicly expressed support for net neutrality rules that prevent ISPs from creating fast and slow lanes, the startups made clear to the White House that such rules are only possible through Title II reclassification. Having the President publicly support strong net neutrality rules earlier this summer was an encouraging development, and we are hopeful that the President will continue to pressure the FCC to make the correct decision on Title II reclassification.

The startups next made their way to the Capitol, where they participated in a press conference with Sen. Ed Markey—one of the most prominent and longstanding supporters of Title II reclassification—to further educate the public on the importance of the FCC’s decision. Sen. Markey was joined by Kickstarter’s Michal Rosenn, Dwolla’s Jordan Lampe, and Vimeo’s Michael Chea, each of whom eloquently made the case for Title II reclassification as the only way to preserve an open Internet for future innovators. The afternoon was spent in meetings with key members of Congress and staff, including representatives from both parties’ telecom subcommittees, net neutrality supporters like Sen. Markey and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, along with members like Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Joe Crowley.

The eventful day was capped with a meeting with Leader Pelosi, who—in between coordinating her delegation’s voting on significant foreign policy issues—sat down with us to discuss her strong support of net neutrality. Her recent letter in support of Title II reclassification showed her willingness to stand up to the powerful cable company lobby and do the right thing to keep the Internet open and competitive for startups in her district and throughout the country.

We are incredibly grateful to the participating startups for taking the time out of running their businesses to let Washington know that, despite not having an army of lobbyists constantly campaigning on their behalf like the ISPs, startups throughout the country are committed to doing what it takes to ensure the FCC enacts meaningful net neutrality rules.  

Net Neutrality Reply Comments: Startups Unified in Support of Title II

With the reply comment period on the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules closed as of last Monday and over 3 million comments filed with the FCC, it has become clear that protecting an open Internet is a massively important issue for the public at large. Just as citizens everywhere expressed unified support for Title II reclassification, startups from around the country made their voices heard this past week, calling on the FCC to pass real net neutrality rules.

On Monday, Engine filed reply comments with the FCC highlighting how the startup community has been clear and consistent in their demand that the FCC reclassify broadband as a common carrier service to protect the future of the open Internet. Startups of all sizes, from all parts of the country, and in all sectors understand that rules that allow ISPs to charge new access fees to Internet companies for preferential speeds and the ability to reach ISP customers will disrupt the essential character of the Internet and drastically curtail the innovation and economic growth the Internet has provided.

In their own comments with the FCC, larger companies like Tumblr, Kickstarter, and Etsy shared the same concerns as smaller startups like Lendup, Distinc.tt, and General Assembly, noting that the Chairman’s proposal would facilitate the creation of fast and slow lanes that would diminish investment in future startups, drive fledgling companies out of business, and make it impossible for companies being discriminated against to challenge improper ISP practices.

As the FCC reviews the millions of comments on its proposed rules, it’s crucial that the Commission understands that the startup community is aligned in its support of strong net neutrality rules. Startups throughout the country have demanded the FCC reclassify broadband as a Title II service; it’s time for the FCC to take their concerns to heart.

A Free and Open Internet Needs Some Regulation: Why Even Free Market Advocates Should Agree

We’ve heard a lot of good arguments by now in favor of net neutrality, including those from the 40,000 unique websites who participated in last week’s Internet Slowdown day, the millions of people who have filed comments with the FCC, comedian John Oliver on his show, “Last Week Tonight,” and members of Congress like Senator Angus King, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Leader Nancy Pelosi. By the deadline this Monday, the FCC had received a record 3 million public comments. And we’re hoping they’re taking these calls to protect the free and open Internet seriously.

Of course, those opposed to the FCC implementing rules to protect the Internet from discrimination have their own arguments. And these naysayers include not only the the obvious ISPs, but also many groups who claim that Title II option amounts to “dangerous” regulation.

But, as we’ve said before, they have it all wrong, at least from a free market perspective.

We caught wind of a remarkably well-argued and well-researched piece by blogger and software developer James J. Heaney. He makes a free-market defense of net neutrality, which indeed requires the“R” word—regulation. While regulation can occasionally be heavy-handed and overbroad, regulating ISPs under Title II doesn’t necessarily implicate these concerns. So as complicated as the laws surrounding net neutrality are, it may come as no surprise that the assumption that net neutrality guaranteed under Title II is in opposition to free market principles doesn’t quite add up.

If you have the time (and an interest in a short lesson on the invisible hand), we recommend reading the post for yourself, but in short, Heaney explains why an open Internet that operates within our notions of a free market should be protected by the FCC from monopoly takeover—under Title II.

He points out that nearly every believer in the free market system understands the importance of government’s role in reigning in monopolies, the mega-companies that stifle any and all competitors. And whether they’ve meant to or not, the ISPs we depend on every day have become natural monopolies. This gives them an unfair amount of power over consumers, not to mention every startup in the nation in need of an Internet connection (which we’re pretty sure is every startup).

Reclassifying ISPs under Title II as common carriers would make the Verizons and Comcasts subject to some government regulation, but what free marketers and any entrepreneur trying to create the next technological sensation should recognize is that such regulation would reduce the further monopolization of the Internet and, in fact, keep the marketplace open.

The FCC has broad flexibility to implement only the Title II regulations that make sense in the context of the broadband market. And applying Title II with sensible forbearance will actually give the FCC less discretion to regulate at its whims than what it could do under the rules the Commissioner proposed this spring. 

Startups seeking cost-effective ways to store data, fast channels to reach new customers, and open access to tools that will help them build their businesses deserve to operate in an environment protected from favoritism and the exploitation of power, a power that would allow ISPs to create fast lanes and arbitrarily raise prices.

We enjoyed Heaney’s important take on the issue, but whatever your ideology or however strong your feelings about the free market, supporting the Title II option, and with that, some regulation, is a necessity for the Internet—and our economy—to continue as we know it.

Make the Call for Net Neutrality

As you’ve likely heard, the Internet Slowdown, an Internet-wide Day of Action in support of net neutrality, begins tomorrow. Companies including Kickstarter, Netflix, Mozilla, Etsy, and Foursquare will have banners on their sites calling attention to the devastating Internet slowdown that will happen if net neutrality isn’t protected.

Support for real net neutrality rules is gaining momentum, with major political leaders like Nancy Pelosi joining millions of citizens in demanding that the FCC reclassify broadband as a Title II common carrier service. But, if we have any hope of protecting an open Internet, policymakers need to hear from startups about how important net neutrality is to their businesses. Net neutrality is more than a free speech issue—it’s also an economic issue. Contrary to cable company assertions, net neutrality has been the norm on the Internet for most of its existence, and it’s because of this openness that the Internet has been such a hotbed of economic innovation.

Without net neutrality, the next Google or Facebook may be throttled out of existence. We need you to take action to make sure the Internet is open for the next wave of innovators. Join us tomorrow by making a phone call to your senators asking that they encourage the FCC to reclassify broadband to protect net neutrality. Or, help spread the word by tweeting about the Day of Action and the need for an open Internet.

We hope you’re all planning to join! If you’d like more information, shoot me an email at evan@engine.is.

Speak Up—or Slow Down: Why We Need A Day of Action for Net Neutrality

Internet users, advocates, and major tech companies will come together next week to make their voices heard: the time for real net neutrality is now. A long-awaited decision from the FCC on the future of net neutrality is imminent, and we’re excited to see companies that depend on an open Internet rallying together to let the FCC know once and for all that an Internet with fast lanes and slow lanes is unacceptable.

On September 10, major Internet companies—including Automattic, Cheezburger, Dwolla, Etsy, Foursquare, General Assembly, Kickstarter, Meetup, Mozilla, Namecheap, Reddit, and Vimeo—will join Engine and other tech advocacy organizations for a Day of Action that will give a glimpse at what the Internet might look like if the FCC’s proposed rules go into effect, and net neutrality as we know it is left by the wayside. Under the FCC’s proposal, Internet providers will be free to charge for access to special Internet “fast lanes,” leaving startups and others unable to pay these new tolls in slow lanes. In such a world, startups that can’t pay for fast lane access could see their sites slow down, their traffic vanish, and their funding dry up, harming the Internet and the economy.

For the Internet Slowdown on September 10, many participating companies will install widgets on their sites displaying a revolving icon (a common signal of slowly loading content) to symbolize how the Internet would function in a world without net neutrality. Others, including Engine, will direct their users to call or email policymakers. With over one million public comments already filed with the FCC, much has been written about why the FCC’s proposed rules would damage the Internet, but the FCC needs to see firsthand how Internet fast lanes would devastate startups.

To help make sure the FCC gets the message, join Engine and companies like Automattic, Cheezburger, Dwolla, Etsy, Foursquare, General Assembly, Kickstarter, Meetup, Mozilla, Namecheap, Reddit, and Vimeo on September 10 to show why real net neutrality rules are necessary to the future of an open Internet. For more information on the Day of Action and to learn about other ways to get involved, visit Battle for the Net or email evan@engine.is.

Thanks, President Obama: President Speaks Out Against Slow Lanes

The latest politician to add his voice to the growing coalition supporting Title II reclassification and strong net neutrality rules is none other than U.S. President Barack Obama. The President, in remarks given at this week’s U.S.-Africa Summit in Washington, made a strong statement in favor of real net neutrality, saying, “I personally, the position of my administration, as well as a lot of the companies here, is that you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.”

Here’s the thing: the only way to ensure there is no “differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users” is to reclassify the Internet as a “common carrier” under Title II. The crux of the current debate surrounds under what legal authority the FCC can protect an open Internet, one without paid prioritization and fast lanes. The FCC Chairman, in public statements, has signaled his intent to work under the current legal structure--called Section 706--but, simply, the law will not allow that.

The D.C. Appellate Court has made it abundantly clear that the FCC must reclassify broadband as a “telecommunications service” under Title II if it wants to ban the type of behavior President Obama spoke out against.  According to that Court, the FCC’s prior rules preventing ISPs from discriminating against or blocking access to disfavored companies were “per se common carrier obligations,” and only services subject to Title II can be treated as common carriers. Quite simple, in fact.

Which is why the President’s statements are so important. It’s now clear that the President must support reclassification. And those comments came at a particularly important time. As you likely know, the FCC, and its Chairman, Tom Wheeler, are currently evaluating a number of proposals dedicated to protecting the Internet, and keeping it free for innovation.

In making his comments, President Obama joins with hundreds of our country’s leading startup companies, Fortune 500 corporations, technologists, advocacy organizations, Internet users and supporters across the world in calling for the Internet to be reclassified under Title II. We look forward to continuing our work with the Administration to protect and “leave open” the Internet to ensure that all startups, especially the “next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.”

The Drumbeat Continues: More Startups Call for Title II Reclassification

Today, 10 more startup companies across the United States called on the FCC to reclassify the Internet and keep it free and open for innovation. While Congress has gone home for the August Recess, the process on Internet rulemaking continues at the FCC, where startup companies continue to make their voices heard. The companies, which represent a broad swath of growing businesses all across the country, once again focused on the only real choice available for Chairman Wheeler to preserve the ability for these companies to hatch, grow, and scale in the marketplace, and that is reclassification under Title II.

Take, for example, the story of San Francisco-based microfinance startup LendUp. Their story, according to co-founder Sasha Orloff in the filing, is only possible because the rules governing the Internet allowed for free and fair competition. As Orloff writes, “Competition within this industry is fierce and, if we were founded under the rules laid down in the Chairman’s proposal, our initial cost projections could have proven prohibitive. We would have needed to pay a substantial premium in order to ensure customers could find and access us within a crowded marketplace.” Instead, LendUp is now able to provide financial assistance to people in need, while also educating their customers about the positive benefits of responsible financial behavior, all because of technology they could build on an open Internet.

We get a bit of a global influence in this batch of comments as well, because despite Europe’s having recently fought -- and won -- its’ own battle for Net Neutrality, the FCC’s proposal could have deleterious effects on global companies doing business in the United States. Publitas, an Amsterdam-based company working to optimize and present digital content in the retail space, writes that not only would the company never have been gotten off the ground in the world envisioned by the current proposal, their future is under threat as well. U.S. influence on the Internet has global reach, and because of that, Publitas Founder and CEO Guillermo Sanchez warns that “[i]f the FCC had enacted policies which infringed upon net neutrality, the Netherlands might have enacted similar ones” which would have put the original idea under threat. But also, with a “data intensive” business like Publitas, “our business would be seriously hobbled if we were in a slow lane.”

The current proposal could also have negative influences on new marketplaces, writes Shapeways, a New York-based leading marketplace for 3D Printing images and blueprints. They are responsible for 18,000 Shapeways shops already, and with 3D Printing continuing its massive growth curve, the market they empower is continuing to foment further entrepreneurial gains in the economy on the whole. But that future is uncertain because of the proposal which Shapeways says, undermines “the great equalizer.” Everyone has the same access, anyone can float their own “crazy idea.” By creating two-tier access, you sacrifice this core tenet, throttle the spirit of freedom, and ultimately kill the power of wild innovation this nation is founded upon.” They lay out their proposed solution plainly, asking the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility, “which it is.”

These comments and more are available on our site, and we have again extracted multiple key quotes below. For more like this, sign up at startupsfornetneutrality.org and our work to reclassify the Internet continues over the course of the summer, we’ll keep you updated with all the news and views you need to help support a better proposal and a solution that keeps the Internet free and open for innovation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Distinc.tt

We currently spend considerable resources ensuring that our users can quickly access the content that they need. They view high-resolution photos of restaurants, events, and people; as well as geolocation data to help with coordination. They find out what places around them are most popular and who is currently there. These tools help LGBT people stay connected and maintain a sense of community in this rapidly changing environment. As you can imagine, the amount of bandwidth that this takes up is exponentially related to our growth and success. Having to negotiate with ISPs for the same access that our competitors would enjoy is simply not an option at our stage as a startup, we neither have the time nor the money.

Badger Maps, Inc.

There are a lot of costs to starting a business, and investors and venture capitalists are only interested in funding certain types of businesses. An entrepreneur needs to pay peoples' salaries, pay for servers, buy software, pay for space to house workers, buy Ramen and peanut butter, etc. So by adding another cost — paying off Internet service providers, to keep them from putting a gun to companies’ heads — you will get less innovation in the American economy.

LendUp

Beyond competition, core aspects of our business depend on Internet speed and efficiency. From underwriting to transaction processing, we rely on large amounts of data flowing quickly to meet customer needs and ensure accuracy and security. Speed also enables our value proposition as no customer is going to sit through a credit education video that takes too long to load. Again, with competition so intense and the alternative lenders so lacking our benefits, the consequences of a borrower abandoning us for a less compliant lender that could pay more for bandwidth are high. Furthermore, as investors evaluated the potential of our business, if these would-be risks had been a reality, I am confident conversations would have been different.

Linear Air

I am a serial networking entrepreneur and inventor.  I have four Internet patents, and prior to Linear Air, I spent a decade as the CTO of a networking company (Ipanema Technologies) whose product was designed to guarantee good performance across the Internet. That makes me, as it happens, one of the world’s foremost technical experts on Internet performance, the matter at the heart of this proposal, and I can state definitively that the only way to create a “fast lane” on the Internet is to slow everything else down. Anyone who claims differently is either mistaken, or lying.

MobileWorks

We need strong network neutrality rules that keep the Internet as a level playing field. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler should not preside over the transformation of the Internet from a level playing field that has been the greatest engine of innovation and growth the world has ever seen to being a discriminatory, heavily tolled platform controlled by an largely uncompetitive ISP industry. The Chairman’s proposal would allow ISPs to create new barriers to innovation that would harm startups like ours—and all those who may benefit for our services. It harms consumer choice, entrepreneurship, and will kill jobs.

Publitas

We need the protection of bright-line rules. We cannot make do with the FCC’s vague commercial reasonableness standard. We have no telecommunications lawyers on staff; big ISPs have hundreds at their disposal. We simply don’t have the resources to fight a legal battle on the basis of presumptions. We urge the FCC to enact bright-line rules which prohibit blocking, technical discrimination, paid prioritization, and access fees, applicable to both fixed and mobile connections, and to reclassify broadband providers under Title II of the Communications Act.

RebelMouse

The FCC’s proposal will parch the Internet ecosystem, constricting our revenues. It will also force us to pay whatever we must to put ourselves in the fast lane, and to negotiate individual deals with multiple ISPs. That is time and money that we could have spent on hiring, innovation, and growth. We also face the threat of exclusive deals, hammered out between our competitors and ISPs, giving them and them alone the right to a fast lane. We could not afford to purchase such a right, which undoubtedly would be very expensive. If any of our competitors bought the exclusive right to a fast lane, we might have to go out of business.

Shapeways

Over the past twenty years, American innovators have created countless Internet-based applications, content offerings, and services that are used around the world. These innovations have created enormous value for Internet users, fueled economic growth, and made our Internet companies global leaders. This innovation happened in a world without discrimination. An open Internet has also been a platform for free speech and opportunity for billions of users. Shapeways would not have come to life without the Internet, and the FCC’s proposal threatens our future to provide an open platform for independent businesses to flourish, even those with an inventory of one product. The proposal will further harm competition by quelling innovation among small businesses in all sectors by creating financial barriers to entry.

Fred Trotter

The Digital Divide is getting narrower but steeper, there are fewer on the ‘wrong’ side but life is getting worse and worse for those few. Our country is betting on digital health interventions working to rescue our economy but this model relies on consistent connectivity between consumer grade doctor ISP connections and consumer grade patient ISP connections. If we allow for the creation of Internet “fast lanes” we will force at least some patients and doctors into the slow lane. This will deepen the Digital Divide and significantly damage the healthcare reform efforts that are designed to rescue our country’s economy.

Poll Everywhere

Many of the concerns we would have had at our founding remain problematic today. We still run on a tight budget, and we’re not sure whether we could afford to put ourselves in a fast lane. Even if we could, that would only mean diverting money away from hiring and growth.

Meanwhile, we are terrified by the threat of an exclusive deal, forged between ISPs and a giant producer of clickers. We certainly could not afford such a deal, which would come at a great cost. If that deal forced us to the slow lane, it would be hard for us to draw in new users. We might even lose our current ones, frustrated as they would be with our slow and patchy service.

Net Neutrality Comments Crash FCC Website: Keep The Pressure On

Back in May, we sent a letter to the FCC signed by over 150 startups supporting net neutrality. Since then, we have thought a lot about the dangerous uncertainty the lack of real net neutrality will cause, and the FCC has received nearly 700,000 comments and counting on the subject -- including some from education startups, software companies, reddit, and Internet giants. In fact, so many people are filing today that the system crashed, prompting organizations (us included!) to file by hand, and forcing the FCC to extend today’s deadline to midnight (eastern time) on Friday.

This is great, because we have to keep the pressure on Chairman Tom Wheeler to make sure he does the right thing, and issues a strong, sensible rule that preserves the open Internet. If you still want to file comments, you can do so here.

There is still a strong wave of opposition from individuals and groups committed to letting telecommunications companies build fast lanes on the Internet for those who can pay. And unfortunately, those telecommunications companies, and their supporters, have targeted the U.S. Congress, and now we are anticipating amendments to the Appropriations bill currently being debated in the House. The Latta bill, for example, would gut the FCC’s ability to reclassify the Internet as a utility, and other similar telecom-favoring legislation like prohibiting communities from building their own broadband networks.

You can help preserve an open Internet by letting your representative in Congress know that any such bill is unacceptable. Our friends at Free Press have set up a call tool to contact your member of Congress today. It is especially important that Democratic members who have generally (though not entirely) been supportive of our goals stand strong against these tactics.

You can make that call here.

And if you can’t call, think about sending out a tweet. Here are some examples:

Stand up for an open Internet. Say no to a bill that would stop the FCC from issuing real #NetNeutrality rules! http://goo.gl/mH95YT

Startups need an open Internet. Say no to the Latta amendment and stand up for #NetNeutrality! http://goo.gl/mH95YT

#NetNeutrality supporters in Congress, please make your voices heard and say no to the Latta amendment. Preserve the open Internet!

It’s time for the telcos to stop messing with #NetNeutrality. Call Congress and tell them to stand up for innovation http://goo.gl/mH95YT

Finally, if you haven’t already done so, please sign up with http://www.startupsfornetneutrality.org/ to show your support and join the movement for an free and open Internet.

More Companies Comment on Net Neutrality

In our continuing series of filings with the FCC and their open docket on Net Neutrality rules, we have a series of comments this week from a broad range of companies and organizations, again focusing on one critical viewpoint: that the Chairman of the FCC has within his power the ability to reclassify the Internet as a utility under Title II, and that he should do so. From the web, Opera Software is one of the world’s leading web browsers with more than 350 million users worldwide, and comments have been written by Chief Technology Officer Haakon Wium Lie from their head office in Oslo, Norway in support of reclassification with a global perspective. 

Opera Software services many users in sub-optimal situations, mostly those with poor connectivity or lower-end devices, which is first among many reasons that in a marketplace designed for ease of switching with only marginal cost, speed is a key factor in retaining consumers. And with one of Opera Software’s key differentiators being their proprietary compression service, Lie points out they would “have to” secure fast lane agreements under the Chairman’s proposal in order to stay effective for their users. In a sense, Opera Software provides a service on the margin for those on the margins of our society, and the reason they do so is that the Internet is the great equalizer. Even those without the latest and most powerful devices, or the best connectivity and bandwidth, can still explore the vast recesses of information and connect with people around the globe.

And, as Lie points out, if other countries copy the FCC’s current proposal, we run the risk of continuing to chip away, not just at the innovative Internet which has brought us so many products and services to enrich our life, but the very fabric of the community built online by restricting access to those who may not be able to afford to connect. In that “undue bureaucratic burden” says Lie, we find the greatest cause for alarm, all of which can be averted, in his words, by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

We also hear from organizations in the global health space, including the Global Healthy Living Foundation, which creates disease-specific communities and networks to help many facing chronic illness get the support they need. And from the interactive world, Heyzap and TouchCast create new experiences online. Without rules that keep the Internet open for innovation, their businesses won’t reach their users.

In all of these cases, especially in the delivery of high-bandwidth content like YouTube videos or other interactive devices, user experience could be hamstrung to the point of dysfunction without clear rules keeping the Internet open for innovation. “If we aren’t in a fast lane, by definition we are in a slow lane,” says GHLF. According to Heyzap, “If we had pay a special fee to each phone company to get the same treatment as our competitors, we would have to slow our growth and our hiring,” and that even if litigation under commercial reasonableness standard were available, it wouldn’t help them with ISPs. And TouchCast points out, “When someone views a TouchCast, they not only stream video, but also download web pages and data from the Internet all at the same time. Any perceived delays in video streaming rates or the presentation of any other information within a TouchCast would result in high consumer abandonment rates.”

We have links to the full comments comments and some key quotes below. If, like any of these organizations, your business and customers will be adversely affected by the Chairman’s proposal, sign up with us at startupsfornetneutrality.org. And if you can file a comment, let us know at comms@engine.is.

---

Opera Software

“In the hyper-competitive market for web browsers, speed is key. Consumers will switch browsers to experience the web marginally. Competition would suffer if some browser vendors have fast lane arrangements, or if the non-fast lanes do not provide sufficient capacity. Under the Chairman’s proposal, in order to have a viable web compression service, we would have to secure agreements for a fast lane. “

“Our worst-case scenario is that other countries copy FCC’s proposal. The United States is not only influential with new technological innovations, but also Internet policy. Opera Software would never be able to provide web companies, including U.S. companies, with access to 350M end users if we had to negotiate Internet fast lane agreements with all network operators globally. If other countries follow the logic of the FCC proposal, we and other Internet companies would have to prioritize countries and regions.”

Global Healthy Living Foundation

“We are the first source of health-related news for thousands of people. When several contaminated vials of methotrexate (an arthritis medication) were recalled, we were one of the first organizations to reach out to the people in our community. Within two hours of disseminating the recall message through the Internet, we received two replies from members who were scheduled to take the contaminated medicine that afternoon. Our ability to quickly and efficiently reach a large number of people very likely saved lives. If we had slow or patchy service, we likely would have had a much smaller network that relied on us less often for information.”

Heyzap

“We could not have become the company we are today under the rules proposed by the FCC. We provide real-time recommendations of apps based on data gathered from users. This requires gathering a lot of data, bringing it to our computers, processing it, and sending recommendations and ads back to our users—all in fractions of a second. We need to process a lot of data, quickly. Any limitations in speed or consistency of our service would be noticeable to our users.

Meanwhile, under the Chairman’s proposed rules, broadband providers have strong incentives to make the differences between their standard and premium access options noticeable. If there were no noticeable differences, then no edge provider would feel the need to pay for premium access.”

TouchCast

“We are hoping to change the way people watch videos and TV. Established broadcast companies are wealthy and powerful, and they could easily forge exclusive agreements with broadband providers and lock us from those providers’ networks. While the Chairman’s proposal prevents NBC from forming an exclusive agreement with its affiliate, Comcast, it does nothing to prevent NBC from forming the same agreement with Verizon, or CBS with both Verizon and Comcast. These exclusive agreements could shut us out of the game entirely.”

Education Startups File Net Neutrality Comments with FCC

As you likely know by now, this summer is key in the fight for net neutrality and an open Internet. It is crucial for stakeholders to take this time to file comments at the Federal Communications Commission explaining why an open Internet is essential to their life and  businesses. Today, with our help, four startups in the education space -- who work directly with students to help them acquire the necessary skills to compete in the very global economy -- did just that.

The comments, filed by Codecademy, CodeCombat, General Assembly and OpenCurriculum, all make the central point that harm to net neutrality is harm to startups. In this case specifically, harm to education startups is harm to the pursuit of knowledge and America’s ability to compete in a global technological marketplace. And all four believe that harm can be mitigated by reclassifying the Internet as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

We’ll be working with more startups to file comments as the summer continues. We want to make sure that startups in every industry have a voice in this debate. If you are interested in filing comment for your business, and would like our help, email us at comms@engine.is for more information. We hope you’ll join the fight and help us preserve an Internet free and open for innovation.

The existing comments will be posted to the FCC’s comment intake page and are available below for you to read at length:

Overall, these education startups reflect a wider community belief that reclassification is the best (and only) way to achieve the necessary end goal of making sure the Internet does not devolve into a mess of paid prioritization -- or fast and slow lanes. Staying this result is critically important in the field of education, where margins are tight, business is seen as a service, and the outcomes may provide the best fix yet for our economy on the rebound.

From CodeCombat comments:

When CodeCombat first started, resources were scarce, and if we had to negotiate with and pay funds to ISPs, we would have been unable to do so. At that time, we also would not have been able to use the FCC’s standard of “commercial reasonableness” or even a public advocate provided by the FCC to protect our interests. We still may not be able to do so.

...

Almost a million people have learned to code using CodeCombat, including 343,000 students during Code.org’s Hour of Code, a campaign that both President Obama and Republicans encouraged and embraced.We’ve also helped thousands of more experienced programmers hone their skills with more advanced levels. In addition, we’ve translated our game into 40 languages so that students around the world can learn to program as well.

...

We firmly oppose the FCC proposal. We urge the FCC to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to prevent technical discrimination, paid prioritization, interconnection disputes, and the host of other harmful issues which would arise as a result of the adoption of the proposal.

From General Assembly comments:

With national attention on the rising cost of higher education and the crippling debt for recent graduates, General Assembly offers an important outlet for students looking to receive a high return on investment from their education. Over 100,000 students have benefitted from our services, including our 10 - 12 week long immersive programs and our three-month apprenticeship program that provides students with a paid opportunity to further hone their newly-acquired skills on the job.

...

Clear rules are important in promoting innovative enterprise. The factors of the commercial reasonableness test are too vague to provide certainty. These standards include “harm to consumers” or “to competition” and evaluation of a totality-of-the- circumstances. Such a standard will only lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation that start-ups cannot afford and which will therefore curb entrepreneurial activity to the benefit incumbent players and their legal teams.

General Assembly believes we need strong network neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, discrimination, and access fees. These require reclassification under Title II of the Communications Act. The Internet works well today; allowing ISPs to price discriminate will harm businesses like ours, the general public, and the economic well-being of our country.

From OpenCurriculum comments:

We want to spend our time and resources transforming education, changing the lives of teachers and students, with the awareness that such education will have lasting impact on today’s young people throughout their entire lives and benefit society in general. Asking us to negotiate for “commercially reasonable” deals in light of our larger competitors being willing to pay a premium to keep us out of the market is rigging the market so we (and other entrants) lose. “Comforting” us with the right to hire lawyers and expert witnesses, or wait years for an FCC Ombudsman to win or lose a case whose legal standards are also stacked against us, provides no comfort.

….

Even if we find ways to pay for premium tiers with different cable and phone companies, this is going to significantly eat into our capital ­ affecting the way we grow and our ability to allow more teachers in the United States and around the world to get access to better quality teaching materials for the future generations.

...

The FCC should instead reclassify access to the Internet as a common carrier service and forbid unreasonable technical discrimination, define pay­-for­-play deals as inherently unjust and unreasonable, define access fees as inherently unreasonable charges, and apply these rules to both mobile and fixed platforms.

From Codecademy comments:

Codecademy is an innovative solution for schools and students to save money. Our company also has an important impact on job creation. We're building the basic steps of competency to help people start their own companies, websites, apps, and products and get entry level jobs right now. The next big thing, or an innovative solution to a social problem, could be developed by someone who learned how to code using Codecademy.

But none of that may happen if the FCC adopts its fast-lanes proposal and abandons an open Internet.

Senator Markey: FCC Already Has Power to Save the Internet

UPDATE 7/15/14: Sen. Markey has rallied fellow Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Ron Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Jeff Merkley, Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ben Cardin, Kristen Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Barbara Boxer, as well as independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, to sign his letter telling the FCC they already have the power to save the Internet and reclassify under Title II. Here is a draft of the letter. Sen. Ron Wyden also backed the push for Title II "common carriage" regulation in a comment to the FCC. Wyden wrote that the FCC should call the Internet what it is: a "telecommunications service."

The last time Congress took up the issue of how to regulate telecommunications (telephones, broadcasting etc.), the Internet was but a dream, haltingly emerging into reality. It was 1996. At the time, then-Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts was the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Telecommunications Act in the House of Representatives; he shepherded the bill through various committees and the floor of the House, ultimately becoming a leading champion for the Internet along the way before the bill was signed into law by President Clinton.

Fast forward to today, and the Internet as we know it, shaped in large part by the 1996 Act, is under direct assault. Now-Senator Markey is still an advocate for the power of the Internet and is working to protect the needs of consumers and businesses nationwide.

The Senator is asking his fellow Senators to sign a letter urging FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to make use of the power they believe is already afforded to him by the Telecommunications Act to reclassify the Internet as a utility under Title II. Only with reclassification under Title II can the FCC ban paid prioritization (fast-lanes) on the Internet.

As we’ve documented extensively, we agree with this sentiment and urge the Chairman to do exactly that. You too can help by urging your Senators to contact Senator Markey’s office and sign the letter. This battle must be fought on a number of fronts, and this is one where we have an opportunity to exert pressure.

Call your Senator today, and tell them to sign on with Ed!  Tell Chairman Wheeler to do what he has the power to do: reclassify the Internet under Title II.

New Bill To Ban Paid Internet Fast Lanes

This morning, Rep. Matsui and Sen. Leahy introduced a bill that would direct the FCC to ban paid prioritization deals on what’s known as “the last mile" - the final distance web content travels to reach a consumer. The draft “Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act” would ban preferential treatment on the Internet, upholding the principle of net neutrality.

Paid prioritization deals, as we have already argued, are inherently anti-competitive and violate the principles of a truly free Internet ecosystem. So this bill should be applauded for promoting the interests of startups, content creators, and Internet users; we support this effort and hope it sends the FCC a strong message that paid fast lanes should not become a new Internet standard. They should instead be banned.

"A free and open Internet is essential for consumers," said Matsui. "Our country cannot afford ‘pay-for-play’ schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets."

But, it's worth noting here that there is no way to achieve these aims without first reclassifying broadband Internet under Title II.

This year’s Verizon v FCC decision makes relying on section 706 legally impossible. In that case, the DC circuit court actually went so far as to say that under Section 706 the FCC would have to permit exclusive access arrangements, e.g., paid prioritization, among edge providers and ISPs, and that it could even charge similarly situated edge providers very different prices for the same level of access.

Only under Title II can the FCC can eliminate certain classes of fees and discrimination, including banning paid prioritization (or “fast lanes”) on the Internet altogether. We applaud Rep. Matsui’s and Sen. Leahy’s efforts to ensure an open Internet, and we hope the FCC follows suit.

The Dangerous Uncertainty Over Net Neutrality

Last month, the FCC released a proposal for new rules concerning the open Internet, and now the public has four months to provide comment. Those proposed rules pay a lip service to an open Internet -- something we strongly support -- but their substance tells a different story. One of the most dangerous aspects of the proposal is the resulting uncertainty that startups and investors would face. Unfortunately, until and unless we have real net neutrality rules in place, that uncertainty is unavoidable.

As any business owner will understand, when you’re trying get a startup off the ground, any uncertainty can be dangerous -- enough to spook investors and stunt growth. In this way, startups and other business owners are already feeling the impact of the net neutrality debate.

Jamie Wilkinson is the co-founder and CEO of VHX, an online video distribution company that helps artists connect directly with their audience. Watch Jamie explain how the uncertainty over net neutrality is already affecting his business.

So, a speedy solution is required here. But it must also be the right solution.

FCC Chairman Wheeler’s current proposal is not the right solution. The Chairman has stated his preference to rely on Section 706 to implement so-called open Internet rules. While this sounds fine, this year’s Verizon v FCC decision makes that legally impossible. As a result, the Chairman’s proposed rules would result in years of litigation. Likely to be overturned, we’d be left exactly where we are today

Instead, the Internet needs to be reclassified under Title II as a “common carrier” (like telephone lines, roads, highways, and trains). Only once the FCC has done that can it ensure a true open Internet and deliver the certainty startups need.

In a recent letter to the FCC, Venture Capitalist Brad Burnham explained that without the certainly Title II reclassification brings, Union Square Ventures (and other VC firms) will not invest in Internet startups like they have been to this point:

“Investors like us will need to extract a risk premium before supporting an unproven service, which will hurt the creators who are ultimately responsible for innovation. Worse, investors like us will decide not to risk our partners' capital at all to back an applications layer start-up, because an incumbent could easily copy the basic elements of a new service and beat them in the market by paying for a faster connection to consumers. We will also be very reluctant to fund companies building services that compete with current or future offerings of the cable or telecommunications companies that can directly impact a consumer's experience of a new service.”

Not only would the proposed rules allow for pay-to-play schemes, but they would allow ISPs to make “commercially reasonable” deals to prioritize certain content. This violates the concept of net neutrality, and -- potentially even worse -- determining what is and is not “commercially reasonable” would require the kind of legal budgets and lawyers on staff that startups just don’t have. If you’re a startup and can ISP proposed a “commercially unreasonable” deal, would you have the time and resources to bring a case at the FCC? This added layer of uncertainty is another reason we cannot support Chairman Wheeler’s proposal.

Engine to Wheeler: We Look Forward to Continued Discussion

In response to this morning's FCC hearing on preserving an open Internet, we offer the following statement:

We are again encouraged by Chairman Wheeler’s commitment to protecting the open and free exchange of information on the Internet, and to inviting comment on various paths to preserve an open Internet. We agree that network neutrality is essential for consumers, startups, and economic growth, and that “squeezing out smaller voices [and new ideas] is unacceptable”.

While we can echo the Chairman’s sentiments, he has not explained how the authority of Section 706 will achieve the lofty goals as outlined. Based on the Verizon v FCC decision, we believe that the Chairman’s proposal to rely on the Commission’s secondary authority cannot lead to rules that can both be upheld in Court and preserve the open Internet to give startups the certainty they need.

We look forward to discussing specific approaches to reaching the goal of an open Internet, and will continue to advise that Title II reclassification is the only route to preventing paid prioritization and an Internet of haves and have-nots.

Yes, The FCC Has Acted to Protect Net Neutrality

The cable and phone companies are telling people in DC that the Internet has benefited from “no” net neutrality rules. They claim, since there were no rules for a decade, that we don’t need them now. They’ve got the story exactly backwards: we have had active FCC interventions on net neutrality. That’s one reason we have had a neutral Internet until now. Indeed, since 2004 we have had enforcement actions, policy statements, merger conditions, spectrum conditions, and a rule. The first time we have had the FCC announce that it would not ensure neutrality but would instead authorize fast lanes … was with Chairman Wheeler’s comments earlier this year.  

I explain that here. This post was originally part of the comments Engine Advocacy filed with the FCC. 

While often imperfect, the FCC has done much to ensure an open internet. Carriers have not historically engaged in rampant discrimination partly due to the threat of FCC action. In 2004, the FCC’s Chairman issued a speech about the “Four Freedoms” online, which promised to keep the Internet an open platform. In 2005, the FCC punished Madison River, a small telephone company that was blocking Vonage, an application that powered online phone calls competing with Madison River’s own service. In 2005, the FCC adopted an Internet Policy Statement and pledged to respond to any violations of the statement with swift action. In 2008, after it was discovered that Comcast, the largest ISP in the nation, was interfering with some of the internet’s most popular technologies—a set of five peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies—the FCC enjoined Comcast in a bipartisan decision. Much of the cable industry was engaging in such actions, so this wasn’t a small exception. In 2010, the FCC adopted the Open Internet Order that was only recently struck down.

Additionally, in the years since 2005 the FCC has conditioned spectrum assignments and mergers on net neutrality rules. The largest three broadband providers have been (or remain) subject to net neutrality for many years. AT&T accepted two-year net neutrality conditions in its merger with BellSouth, and SBC accepted a two-year condition in its merger with AT&T. Verizon accepted a similar condition in its merger with MCI. Verizon purchased a 22MHz band of spectrum (the C block) in the FCC’s 2008 700MHz auction for $4.7 billion dollars, and did so subject to open internet conditions modeled on the Internet Policy Statement. Comcast has been subject to network neutrality rules since its merger with NBC in 2011, and the merger condition extends for seven years. Both Verizon and Comcast’s conditions still apply today. Moreover, Congress imposed contractual obligations on internet networks built with stimulus funds—nondiscrimination and interconnection obligations that, at a minimum, adhered to the internet Policy Statement, among other obligations.

In light of these merger obligations, license conditions, FCC adjudications and rulemaking, stimulus conditions, and consistent threats of FCC action, startups have enjoyed a generally neutral network that is conducive to, and necessary for, innovation. These actions provided some certainty that startups would not be arbitrarily blocked, subject to technical or economic discrimination, or forced to pay carriers so that the carriers’ consumers can access all the innovation online. 

Following the Verizon v. FCC decision, and under the Chairman’s proposal, that will likely change, in ways that harm entrepreneurship and the public interest.

The last decade of tech innovation may not have been possible in an environment where carriers could discriminate technically, and could set and charge exorbitant and discriminatory prices for running internet applications. Without the FCC, established tech players could have paid for preferences, sharing their revenues with carriers in order to receive better service (or exclusive deals) and to crush new competitors and disruptive innovators. Venture investors would have moved their money elsewhere, away from tech startups who would be unable to compete with incumbents. Would-be entrepreneurs would have taken jobs at established companies or started companies in other nations. The FCC played an important role. The Chairman and this FCC shouldn’t break that.