U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–393 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

FROM EDGE TO CORE: PERSPECTIVE ON 

INTERNET PRIORITIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 17, 2018 

Serial No. 115–120 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES

Richard Bennett, Founder, High Tech Forum ....................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 181 

Peter Rysavy, President, Rysavy Research ........................................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Paul W. Schroeder, Director, Public Policy and Strategic Alliances, Aira Tech 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Matthew F. Wood, Policy Director, Free Press and the Free Press Action 

Fund ...................................................................................................................... 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of April 16, 2018, from Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate and General 

Counsel, INCOMPAS, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle, submitted by 

Mr. Doyle .............................................................................................................. 143 

Statement of American Academy of Pediatrics by Colleen A. Kraft, President, 

April 16, 2018, submitted by Mr. Doyle ............................................................. 150 

Letter of April 16, 2018, from Elizabeth Mendenhall, President, National 

Association of Realtors, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle, submitted by 

Mr. Doyle .............................................................................................................. 153 

Letter of April 16, 2018, from Mei Wa Kwong, Executive Director, Center 

for Connected Health Policy, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle, submitted 

by Mr. Doyle ......................................................................................................... 155 

Letter of April 26, 2017, from Engine, et al., to Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal 

Communications Commission,1 submitted by Ms. Clarke 

Article of April 17, 2018, ‘‘Prioritization: Moving past prejudice to make 

internet policy based on fact,’’ by Roslyn Layton, AEI, submitted by Mr. 

Flores ..................................................................................................................... 159

Letter of April 16, 2018 from Jeffrey R.L. Smith, Vice President of Public 

Policy, American Medical Informatics Association, to Mrs. Blackburn and 

Mr. Doyle, submitted by Mr. Ruiz ...................................................................... 163 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168. 

Page

IV 

Letter of April 17, 2018, from Jonathan Schwantes, Senior Policy Counsel, 

Consumers Union, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle, submitted by Mr. 

Doyle ..................................................................................................................... 167 

CloudFlare tweets, November 22, 2017, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .............. 170 

Report of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, ‘‘Designed 

for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate,’’ September 2009, by Richard Bennett,1 submitted by Mrs. 

Blackburn 

Report of the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, ‘‘Differentiated 

Treatment of Internet Traffic,’’ October 2015,1 submitted by Mrs. Blackburn 

Article of April 2, 2018, ‘‘Paid prioritization: Debunking the myth of fast 

and slow lanes,’’ by Daniel Lyons, AEI, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ........... 171 

Declaration of Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, July 17, 2017,1 submitted 

by Mrs. Blackburn 

Report of Rysavy Research and Mobile Future, ‘‘How Wireless is Different: 

Considerations for the Open Internet Rulemaking,’’ September 12, 2014,1

submitted by Mrs. Blackburn 

Article of May 22, 2017, ‘‘Reclassification and Investment: An Analysis of 

Free Press’ ‘It’s Working’ Report,’’ by Dr. George S. Ford, Phoenix Center 

Perspectives, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ...................................................... 175 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168. 

(1) 

FROM EDGE TO CORE: PERSPECTIVE ON 

INTERNET PRIORITIZATION 

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, 

Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, 

Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch, Clarke, 

Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator, Communications 

and Technology; Daniel Butler, Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, 

Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Kristine 

Fargotstein, Detailee, Communications and Technology; Sean 

Farrell, Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; Elena 

Hernandez, Press Secretary; Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel, 

Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant; 

Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology; 

Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jennifer Epperson, Minority FCC Detailee; 

David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and 

Technology; Jerry Leverich III, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, 

Minority Staff Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and 

Member Services; and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology will now come to order. 

You notice that we are starting just a couple of minutes late. We 

understand that the Environment hearing downstairs started a 

couple of minutes late, and we are trying to accommodate the 

chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full 

committee to get up here for their opening statements. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Good morning, everyone, and to our witnesses, thank you for 

being here, and welcome. We are here to talk about prioritization. 

Not just paid prioritization—all prioritization online. 

Despite what some of my colleagues sometimes seem to think, 

prioritization is not a dirty word. The internet, in fact, is based on 

it. 

In the net neutrality conversation, there is a common misconception that the internet is one big highway where all the cars travel 

at the same speed and we cannot allow for any fast lanes to exist 

without causing a big traffic jam for everybody else. 

It is something like the picture that we are going to put up on 

the screen. It ran into a jam. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, we are in need of some prioritization here. 

OK. No, that’s the wrong picture. See if we can—OK. 

Our witnesses today know that this could not be further from the 

truth, and the next picture we are going to put up in fact is probably a lot closer to reality, but it is still an oversimplified idea of 

the internet: different connections, agreements, prioritization, depending on the needs. 

And the amazing new capabilities that we will experience on 

next-generation networks will be realized not only through innovation in the chips and the servers and the infrastructure, but also 

through even more efficient and effective prioritization. 

I would also point out that, in real life, all sorts of interactions 

are prioritized every day. Many of you sitting in this room right 

now paid a line-sitter to get priority access to this hearing. 

In fact, it is commonplace for the Government itself to offer priority access to services. If you have ever used Priority Mail, you 

know this to be the case. 

And what about TSA pre-check? It just might have saved you 

time as you traveled today. If you define paid prioritization as simply the act of paying to get your own content in front of the consumer faster, prioritized ads or sponsored content are the basis of 

many business models online, as many of our Members pointed out 

during the Facebook hearing last week. 

Prioritization is sometimes crucial from a public policy standpoint. Just as we all want the ambulance and the fire truck to be 

prioritized over the rest of the traffic on the highway, there is a 

need for voice packets to be prioritized over data packets to make 

sure that your 9-1-1 calls get through first, and there are lots of 

other examples where we can all agree that certain data and certain applications should be prioritized on the network. 

One of our witnesses is pioneering a technology to provide realtime audio support to the visually impaired, describing the surroundings and the nonverbal interactions taking place around the 

user. 

Other examples that our witnesses will discuss today include 

telemedicine and autonomous vehicles. Prioritization of data on the 

network is not unique or uniquely harmful. 

3 

It may be an uphill climb, but what we are trying to do with this 

hearing is to leave aside the simplistic ‘‘fast lane’’ talking points 

and kick off a more realistic discussion on the subject. 

My net neutrality bill left out the old language banning all paid 

prioritization because I believe that we need a more nuanced approach and a more thorough and thoughtful discussion. 

For the Government to consider a ban on any prioritization on 

the internet, paid or unpaid, we need a better understanding of 

what specific harmful conduct we are trying to address and a better understanding of how to leave the door open for the beneficial 

prioritization that’s necessary to keep the internet as we know it 

working and to bring even more benefits to consumers. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our witnesses. We are here to talk about 

prioritization. Not just paid prioritization—all prioritization online. Despite what 

some of my colleagues sometimes seem to think, prioritization is not a dirty word. 

The Internet is based on it. 

In the net neutrality conversation there is a common misconception that the 

Internet is one big highway, where all the cars travel at the same speed and we 

cannot allow for any fast lanes or toll lanes to exist without causing a big traffic 

jam for everybody else. Something like this picture: 

*Picture of traffic jam* 

Our witnesses today know that this could not be further from the truth. This picture is a lot closer to reality, in fact it probably still gives you an oversimplified idea 

of the internet. Different connections, different agreements, and different 

prioritization, depending on needs. 

*Picture of mixing bowl interchange* 

And the amazing new capabilities that we will experience on next generation networks will be realized not only through innovation in the chips and the servers and 

the infrastructure, but also through even more efficient and effective prioritization. 

I would also point out that in real life, all sorts of interactions are prioritized 

every day. Many of you sitting in this room right now paid a line-sitter to get priority access to this hearing. In fact, it is commonplace for the Government itself to 

offer priority access to services. If you have ever used Priority Mail, you know this 

to be the case. And what about TSA pre-check? It just might have saved you time 

as you traveled here today. If you define paid prioritization as simply the act of paying to get your own content in front of the consumer faster, prioritized ads or sponsored content are the basis of many business models online, as many of our Members pointed out at the Facebook hearing last week. 

Prioritization is sometimes crucial from a public policy standpoint. Just as we all 

want the ambulance and the fire truck to be prioritized over the rest of the traffic 

on the highway, there is a need for voice packets to be prioritized over data packets 

to make sure that your 9-1-1 call gets through first. And there are lots of other examples where we can all agree that certain data and certain applications should be 

prioritized on the network. One of our witnesses is pioneering a technology to provide real-time audio support to the visually impaired, describing the surroundings 

and the nonverbal interactions taking place around the user. Other examples that 

our witnesses will discuss today include telemedicine and autonomous vehicles. 

Prioritization of data on the network is not unique, or uniquely harmful. It may 

be an uphill climb, but what we are trying to do with this hearing is to leave aside 

the simplistic ‘‘fast lane’’ talking points and kick off a more realistic discussion on 

the subject. My net neutrality bill left out the old language banning all paid 

prioritization because I believe that we need a more nuanced approach, and a more 

thorough and thoughtful discussion. For the Government to consider a ban on any 

prioritization on the Internet, paid or unpaid, we need a better understanding of 

what specific harmful conduct we are trying to address, and a better understanding 

of how to leave the door open for the beneficial prioritization that’s necessary to 

keep the Internet as we know it working, and to bring even more benefits to consumers. 

4 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Now I recognize the ranking member, Mr. 

Doyle, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing 

and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us. I’d like to 

in particular thank Matt Wood, a proud Pittsburgher, for being 

here today. 

This subcommittee is once again discussing net neutrality and 

the fallout from Chairman Pai’s repeal of the 2015 Open Internet 

Order. 

This short-sighted act has created an uncertain landscape where 

innovators and entrepreneurs trying to develop new services, applications, and devices can be taxed, tolled, or blocked at any time by 

an ISP. 

Prioritization practices that were once required to meet the 

standard of reasonable network management as judged by Federal 

experts and network engineering, telecommunications, and competition policy at the FCC will now be determined by an ISP’s bottom line. 

As I’ve talked to companies large and small that developed and 

deployed new applications in the wake of the 2015 net neutrality 

rules, their message was clear: that the certainty created by the 

rules was stoking investment and giving certainty to investors and 

that consumers were benefitting from these new offerings. 

A number of companies I talked with were working to deploy 

services that directly competed with ISPs’ own offering at lower 

prices, bringing what we can all agree is a much needed competition to a stagnant marketplace. 

I am deeply concerned that, as we move forward in a world without the open internet rules, ISPs will once again act in anticompetitive ways intended to tamp down competition and consolidate their hold over their consumers. 

We have already seen ISPs zero-rate data from their own services and their affiliates while forcing users to either limit usage on 

competing apps or pay costly overage fees. 

If we look at the history of the internet before net neutrality, we 

find a number of instances where ISPs used their market position 

to stifle innovation and prevent competitors from bringing new 

products to market, all while coming to Congress and the Government arguing that they were only thinking about the consumer. 

Today, it seems we are adding another chapter to that book. 

Today, we are talking about the prioritization of the internet content. 

If the testimony of a number of our witnesses is to be believed, 

paid prioritization can bring great benefits to the internet. They 

claim that the coming flood of data can only be dealt with by 

prioritizing it and creating incentives and opportunities for Web 

sites and edge providers to pay to get their packets to consumers 

before their competitors. 

Well, frankly, I don’t believe it. We have heard these arguments 

before. The truth is, giving ISPs the ability to play gatekeeper only 

5 

benefits the ISPs and their shareholders, and it significantly hurts 

innovators and consumers. 

More than that, it fundamentally undercuts the level playing 

field and open marketplace that defines the internet economy. 

Now, I have a bill that has 160 co-sponsors in the House with 

companion legislation with bipartisan support in the Senate to fix 

this mess. 

Our CRA would reinstate the 2015 open internet rules and restore the FCC to its expert oversight role over ISP network practices. 

When you look at the polling on this issue, these rules have overwhelmingly bipartisan support with a vast majority of Democrats, 

Republicans, and Independents, and I hope to work with my 

friends on the other side of the aisle to make this bill bipartisan 

as well. 

Madam Chair, I’d also like to raise a process issue leading up to 

today’s hearing. Mr. Bennett, who was first to submit his testimony, amended his submission yesterday afternoon in meaningful 

ways. 

I am concerned that many of the changes to Mr. Bennett’s written submission were of a substantive and factual nature, and that 

is of great concern to us. 

I don’t believe the committee should get into the practice of allowing such last-minute changes. When we have witnesses do this, 

the committee process breaks down, and it also—it leads to many 

of us just questioning whether the testimony will be credible. 

I’d also like to note that baseball season is starting here in Congress. I had my team out on the field for the first time today, and 

like baseball, these markets cannot function without clear rules 

and a ref to call balls and strikes. 

The word is that ISPs want us to live in one where there is no 

referee and where there are no rules. The game only ends when the 

other team and all the fans go home because they are just sick of 

watching one team playing by their own rules. 

I don’t want to live in that world, and neither do the American 

people. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

Thank you Madam Chairman for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us. I’d like to thank Matt Wood, a proud Pittsburgher, 

for being here in particular. 

This subcommittee is once again discussing net neutrality and the fallout from 

Chairman Pai’s repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order. This short-sighted act has 

created an uncertain landscape where innovators and entrepreneurs trying to develop new services, applications, and devices can be taxed, tolled, or blocked at any 

time by an Internet Service Provider or ISP. 

Prioritization practices that once were required to meet the standard of ‘‘reasonable network management,’’ as judged by Federal experts in network engineering, 

telecommunications, and competition policy at the FCC, will now be determined by 

an ISP’s bottom line. 

As I have talked to companies large and small that developed and deployed new 

applications in the wake of the 2015 net neutrality rules, their message was clear: 

that the certainty created by the rules was stoking investment and giving certainty 

to investors, and that consumers were benefiting from these new offerings. A number of companies I talked with were working to deploy services that directly comVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
6 

peted with ISPs’ own offerings at lower prices, bringing what we can all agree is 

much-needed competition to a stagnant marketplace. 

I am deeply concerned that as we move forward in a world without the Open 

Internet Rules, ISPs will once again act in anticompetitive ways intended to tamp 

down competition and consolidate their hold over their customers. We’ve already 

seen ISPs zero-rate data from their own services and their affiliates—while forcing 

users to either limit usage on competing apps or pay costly overage fees. 

If we look at the history of the internet before net neutrality, we find a number 

of instances where ISPs used their market position to stifle innovation and prevent 

competitors from bringing new products to market—all while coming to Congress 

and the Government arguing that they were only thinking about the consumer. 

Today we are adding another chapter to that book. 

Today, we’re talking about the prioritization of Internet content. If the testimony 

of a number of our witnesses is to be believed, paid prioritization can bring great 

benefits to the Internet. They claim that the coming flood of data can only be dealt 

with by prioritizing it and creating incentives and opportunities for Web sites and 

edge providers to pay to get their packets to consumers before their competitors. 

Frankly, I don’t believe it. We’ve heard these arguments before. The truth is that 

giving ISPs the ability to play gatekeeper only benefits the ISPs and their shareholders—and significantly HURTS innovators and consumers. More than that it 

fundamentally undercuts the level playing field and open marketplace that defines 

the Internet economy. 

Now I have a bill that has 160 cosponsors in the House and companion legislation 

with bipartisan support in the Senate. To fix this mess. Our CRA would reinstate 

the 2015 Open Internet Rules and restore the FCC to its expert oversight role over 

ISPs network practices. When you look at the polling on this issue, these rules have 

overwhelming bipartisan support with the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans, 

and Independents. I hope to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle to 

make our bill bipartisan as well. 

Madame Chairman, I’d also like to raise a process issue leading up to today’s 

hearing. Mr. Bennett—who was the first to submit his testimony—amended his submission yesterday afternoon in meaningful ways. I’m concerned that many of the 

changes to Mr. Bennett’s written submission were of a substantive and factual nature. What’s more, the committee cannot get in the practice of allowing such lastminute changes. When witnesses play games like this it undermines the credibility 

of these proceedings. 

I’d also like to note that baseball season is starting here again in Congress, and 

I had my team out of the field for the first time today. Like baseball, these markets 

cannot function without clear rules and a ref to call balls and strikes. The world 

that ISPs want us to live in is one where there is no ref and there are no rules. 

The game only ends when the other team and all the fans go home because they 

are sick of watching one team play by their own rules. I don’t want to live in that 

world, and neither do the American people. 

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I’d like to ask unanimous consent to 

have the following documents into the record: letters from 

INCOMPAS, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Realtors, and the Center for Connected Health Policy. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. We appreciate your expert testimony as we try to wade into this issue and get to the facts. 

This subcommittee in particular has long led the way in exercising oversight over the internet. As we will hear today, the interVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
7 

net looks nothing like it did when it was first fully commercialized 

back in 1995. 

Back then, networks were in their nascent stage and network 

management presented a different set of problems. But today, with 

users sending over a hundred exabytes of data per month, networks have had to continually adapt to manage congestion and will 

need to do so even more adeptly and efficiently in the future. 

The development of these networks and their ability to handle 

the ever-growing traffic demands users place on them is truly an 

innovative feat and not one that consumers often think about because, when you turn on your computer or unlock your phone, the 

network—the internet just works. 

Because it appears so simple, it’s easy for consumers to think 

about the internet connections being managed by their ISP—their 

internet service provider—from one end to the other, and for years 

consumers were told the internet was an information superhighway, giving the false impression that all internet traffic is 

moving the same direction on an equal plane at the same time. 

We even use the word ‘‘traffic’’ to describe the movement of information and data across the internet, but it’s actually a lot more 

complicated than that. 

The internet is not a highway, where there can be so-called fast 

and slow lanes. The internet is actually a network of networks with 

many layers managing the data that flows across it. 

There are applications layers that establish the connection and 

encrypt data. There is the transport layer that prepares data for 

transport. And there is the network layer which identifies the 

packet routing sequence. 

Within these layers there are many different players aside from 

your ISP involved in managing traffic. Devices, software, Wi-Fi 

routers, and content delivery networks, or CDNs, can all load, manage, and relay traffic in different ways. 

We will hear from our witnesses today a more in-depth explanation of how the internet actually works, not just talking points, 

and the role prioritization plays in operating networks. 

But in a basic sense, prioritization has nothing to do with traffic 

speed. Rather, it’s putting certain bits over others to ensure that 

all packets arrive to their destination on time. 

A complete ban on prioritization would not permit this and would 

not allow some services and applications to operate smoothly. In 

other words, prioritization currently exists across the internet architecture and is necessary to ensure the internet functions properly. 

It’s also worth noting that, while we have heard a lot from our 

friends at the edge providers about how prioritization is bad for 

business, those operating at the edge pay to prioritize traffic every 

day through the use of various interconnection agreements, including CDN. 

In order to facilitate high-demand applications like video streaming, many of the most popular content providers don’t send data 

over the public internet. Rather, they directly interconnect with the 

CDN, allowing the edge providers’ traffic to be prioritized to provide a better user experience. It’s estimated that, by 2021, CDNs 

will carry 71 percent of global internet traffic. 

8 

Today is not the first time this committee has considered how to 

best legislate the issue of prioritization. I released draft legislation 

last Congress that would establish rules of the road to ensure the 

internet remains open to all. 

Similarly, Chairman Blackburn introduced her Open Internet 

Preservation Act at the end of last year. Rather than waste our efforts on partisan legislation like the CRA, we hope our colleagues 

on both sides of the aisle will join our effort to development legislation that will provide lasting solutions to some of the outstanding 

questions regarding internet traffic management. 

What exactly do we mean and what harms are we trying to address in restricting internet prioritization, whether paid or unpaid, 

whether the content’s affiliated or not? 

So I agree with Chairman Blackburn that, in order to move forward toward a long overdue legislative solution, we need to be able 

to have this conversation in a nuanced, in-depth manner and figure 

out a common ground. 

So I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses. I would just 

tell you we have another hearing going on downstairs, so a lot of 

Members have to bounce back and forth. But we do have your prepared testimony, and we appreciate your participation in this very 

important discussion about the future of the internet. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses. 

The Energy and Commerce Committee has the broadest jurisdiction in all of Congress. And that jurisdiction includes one of the most important social and economic 

tools in the history of the world—the internet. 

This subcommittee in particular has long led the way in exercising oversight over 

the internet. 

As we will hear today, the internet looks nothing like it did when it was first fully 

commercialized in 1995. Back then, networks were in their nascent stage and network management presented a different set of problems. But today, with users sending over 100 exabytes of data per month, networks have had to continually adapt 

to manage congestion, and will need to do so even more adeptly and efficiently in 

the future. 

The development of these networks, and their ability to handle the ever-growing 

traffic demands users place on them is truly an innovative feat. And not one that 

consumers often think about—because when you turn on your computer, or unlock 

your phone, the internet just works. 

Because it appears so simple, it is easy for consumers to think about their internet connection as being managed by their Internet Service Provider, or ISP, from 

end to end. And for years, consumers were told the internet was an ‘information superhighway’ giving the false impression that all internet traffic is moving the same 

direction on an equal plane at the same time. We even use the word ‘traffic’ to describe the movement of information and data across the internet—but it is actually 

a lot more complicated than that. 

The internet isn’t a highway, where there can be so-called fast and slow lanes. 

The internet is actually a network of networks, with many layers managing the 

data that flows across it. There are application layers that establish the connection 

and encrypt data, there is the transport layer that prepares data for transport, and 

there is the network layer, which identifies the packet routing sequence. 

Within these layers, there are many different players aside from your ISP involved in managing traffic. Devices, software, Wi-Fi routers, and content delivery 

networks, or CDNs, can all load, manage, and relay traffic in different ways. 

We will hear from our witnesses today a more in-depth explanation of how the 

internet actually works—and the role prioritization plays in operating networks. 

But in a basic sense, prioritization has nothing to do with traffic speed, rather 

it is putting certain bits over others to ensure that all packets arrive to their destination on time. 

9 

A complete ban on prioritization would not permit this and would not allow some 

services and applications to operate smoothly. In other words, prioritization currently exists across the internet architecture and is necessary to ensure the internet 

functions properly. 

It is also worth nothing, that while we’ve heard a lot from our friends at the edge 

providers about how prioritization is bad for business, those operating at the edge 

pay to prioritize traffic every day through the use of various interconnection agreements, including CDNs. 

In order to facilitate high demand applications like video streaming, many of the 

most popular content providers don’t send data over the public internet, rather they 

directly interconnect with a CDN, allowing the edge provider’s traffic to be 

prioritized to provide a better user experience. It is estimated that by 2021, CDNs 

will carry 71% of global internet traffic. 

Today is not the first time this committee has considered how to best legislate 

the issue of prioritization. I released draft legislation last Congress that would establish rules of the road to ensure the internet remains open to all. Similarly, Chairman Blackburn introduced her Open Internet Preservation Act at the end of last 

year. 

Rather than waste our efforts on partisan legislation like the CRA, we hope our 

colleagues on both sides will join our effort to develop legislation that will provide 

lasting solutions to some of the outstanding questions regarding internet traffic 

management. 

What exactly do we mean and what harms are we trying to address in restricting 

internet prioritization, whether paid or unpaid, whether the content is affiliated or 

not? 

I completely agree with Chairman Blackburn that in order to move forward toward a long overdue legislative solution, we need to be able to have this conversation, in a nuanced, in-depth manner, and figure out the common ground. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Pallone, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The internet is a powerful engine of economic growth and a potent platform for free speech. With a working broadband connection, anyone can work from home, sell their own products online, 

and connect with companies a world away. 

And in the past few years, we have seen how the internet can 

help everyday people launch a worldwide political movement. 

But the power of the internet is rooted in the principles of net 

neutrality. These principles are simple and well understood. 

Broadband companies cannot pick internet winners and losers by 

blocking or slowing down content or charging extra for fast lanes. 

It’s a question of fairness, and there are no loopholes. Until the 

Trump administration took over the FCC, even the broadband providers themselves supported these principles, including a flat ban 

on fast lanes. 

The largest providers told us time and again that they agreed 

that paid prioritization should be prohibited. They said that they 

had no intention of charging anyone extra for faster speeds. 

But recently those voices have gone silent, and that silence presents a real threat to small businesses and speech online. Where 

there was once agreement on a prohibition on fast lanes, some now 

want to add loopholes to net neutrality. The reasoning is conVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
10 

voluted and confusing. They argue that somehow allowing 

broadband providers to charge small companies extra for internet 

fast lanes is good for small business. But that makes no sense, and 

no one’s buying it. 

Small businesses oppose having to pay extra for fast lanes. So do 

telemedicine companies, disabled veterans groups, self-driving-car 

companies, churches, nonprofit, and the list goes on. 

Net neutrality advocates have spoken loud and clear. We want 

everyone to have a faster internet, not just the chosen few who can 

afford to pay extra, and that’s why Democrats on this committee 

introduced the LIFT America Act to bring faster broadband to everyone. 

The only ones who want broadband providers to charge money 

for fast lanes are the broadband providers, and despite these latest 

attempts to muddy the water and create confusion, banning paid 

prioritization is not a new issue. 

The FCC solved this problem when it passed net neutrality in 

2015. At that time, the FCC correctly banned these fast lanes with 

the exception of certain specialized services like health care. 

The FCC got it right in 2015 and the Trump FCC got it wrong 

when it killed net neutrality last year, and that’s why I support the 

legislation introduced by Ranking Member Doyle that would restore the well-crafted and balanced 2015 protections, and I encourage any of my colleagues who support real net neutrality to sign 

on to Ranking Member Doyle’s CRA as well. 

The CRA is the best way to put net neutrality back in place and 

support small businesses, and I’d like to yield the remaining time 

to Ms. Eshoo. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

The internet is a powerful engine of economic growth and a potent platform for 

free speech. With a working broadband connection, anyone can work from home, sell 

their own products online, and connect with companies a world away. And in the 

past few years, we have seen how the internet can help everyday people launch a 

worldwide political movement. 

But the power of the internet is rooted in the principles of net neutrality. These 

principles are simple and well understood: broadband companies cannot pick internet winners and losers by blocking, or slowing down content or charging extra for 

fast lanes. It’s a question of fairness, and there are no loopholes. 

Until the Trump administration took over the FCC, even the broadband providers 

themselves supported these principles, including a flat ban on fast lanes. The largest providers told us time and again that they agreed that paid prioritization should 

be prohibited. They said that they had no intention of charging anyone extra for 

faster speeds. But recently, those voices have gone silent, and that silence presents 

a real threat to small businesses and speech online. 

Where there was once agreement on a prohibition on fast lanes, some now want 

to add loopholes to net neutrality. The reasoning is convoluted and confusing-they 

argue that somehow allowing broadband providers to charge small companies extra 

for internet fast lanes is good for small business. 

This makes no sense and no one is buying it. 

Small businesses oppose having to pay extra for fast lanes. So do telemedicine 

companies, disabled veterans groups, self-driving car companies, churches, non-profits, and the list goes on. 

Net neutrality advocates have spoken loud and clear: we want everyone to have 

a faster internet, not just the chosen few who can afford to pay extra. That’s why 

Democrats on this committee introduced the LIFT America Act to bring faster 

broadband to everyone. 

11 

The only ones who want broadband providers to charge more for fast lanes are 

the broadband providers. 

Despite these latest attempts to muddy the water and create confusion, banning 

paid prioritization is not a new issue. 

The FCC solved this problem when it passed net neutrality in 2015. At that time, 

the FCC correctly banned these fast lanes, with the exception of certain specialized 

services like healthcare. The FCC got it right in 2015 and the Trump FCC got it 

wrong when it killed net neutrality last year. 

That’s why I support the legislation introduced by Ranking Member Doyle that 

would restore the well-crafted and balanced 2015 protections. And I encourage any 

of my colleagues who support real net neutrality to sign on to Ranking Member 

Doyle’s CRA as well. This CRA is the best way to put net neutrality back in place 

and support small businesses. 

Thank you. 

Ms. ESHOO. I thank our ranking member, and good morning, everyone. And to the witnesses: Welcome, and thank you for being 

here. 

We are now a decade into the fight to protect net neutrality, and 

throughout that time there have been many arguments from those 

who oppose it: that it will kill jobs, it would harm investment, or 

hurt the free press. 

All of these have been refuted each in turn. This is actually, I 

think, a very simple issue. It’s about fairness and equal access to 

an essential resource, the internet. 

The 2015 Open Internet Order created the strongest, most reliable rules to protect that level playing field for innovation. The 

courts and the FCC both acknowledged that net neutrality was 

critical to the virtuous cycle that has enabled the internet to act 

as a tool of growth, of innovation, of investment, and of free expression. 

That same FCC found that paid prioritization is inherently 

harmful to that fruitful cycle that fuels education, jobs, and our 

economy. 

Yet now we have the same companies who proclaim in full-page 

newspaper ads that they support net neutrality, but they are pushing for an exception for prioritization. 

This is about money. This is about money. We should just all acknowledge that and have a debate about it. But it’s all about 

money. 

We may be a decade down the road, but it’s about the same thing 

that it always has been about, and that is who controls the 

onramps to the internet, being able to pick winners or losers, and 

that’s based on pay to play. It is about money. 

I don’t blame companies for wanting to make money. That’s what 

they are in the business to do. But we have an obligation to the 

public, and I think that’s what this debate is about. 

So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I think everyone knows exactly where I stand on this. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. ESHOO. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Pallone yields 

back, and this concludes our Member opening statements. 

I will remind the committee that each Member’s opening statement will be made a part of the permanent record for the committee. 

12 

We thank our witnesses for being here today, and you all are 

going to have the opportunity to give your opening statements, followed by a round of questions from our Members. 

Our panel today: Mr. Richard Bennett, founder of High Tech 

Forum; Mr. Peter ‘‘Ree-sa-vay’’—am I saying that properly? 

Mr. RYSAVY. ‘‘Ri-sah-vy.’’ 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Rysavy, president of Rysavy Research; Mr. 

Paul Schroeder, director of public policy and strategic alliances at 

Aira Tech Corporation; and Matt Wood, policy director at Free 

Press. 

We appreciate each of you for being here today and for providing 

your testimony. 

Mr. Bennett, we begin with you. Please, each one of you as you 

speak, turn your microphones on. And, Mr. Bennett, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF RICHARD BENNETT, FOUNDER, HIGH TECH 

FORUM; PETER RYSAVY, PRESIDENT, RYSAVY RESEARCH; 

PAUL W. SCHROEDER, DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND 

STRATEGIC ALLIANCES, AIRA TECH CORPORATION; MATTHEW F. WOOD, POLICY DIRECTOR, FREE PRESS AND THE 

FREE PRESS ACTION FUND 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BENNETT 

Mr. BENNETT. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, and hello to 

Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Doyle, and Ranking Member 

Pallone, and members of the committee, especially Ms. Eshoo, 

whose district I used to live in and who gave me a really hard time 

the first time I testified before this committee, but I probably deserved it. 

Prioritization has been part of the internet’s design from the beginning in that there is a type of service field in the internet protocol header, and it’s been refined through integrated services, a 

standard design in the 1990s, then differentiated services, so there 

is not by itself anything controversial about prioritization. 

And I think it’s fair to say that, while it was controversial for a 

time, it’s come to be recognized there is a consensus sort of support 

that, done correctly, prioritization is beneficial to applications. 

So we have reached this consensus, I think, after about 15 years 

of debate around what we call net neutrality now, that it’s legitimate for ISPs, CDNs, transit networks, and purpose-built networks 

like WebEx to accelerate time-sensitive traffic. 

If you go back to the original paper that Chairman Wheeler 

wrote on net neutrality, he points out that the internet is inherently biased against real-time applications as a class and biased in 

favor of content applications, and I think if we are not careful 

about how we treat paid prioritization we can make that bias 

worse, and that’s something we should try to avoid. 

I think we also—going back to the consensus question—we also 

believe that competition is a good thing. We want tech policies that 

increase that. 

So prioritization and the related technologies such as resource 

reservation, traffic shaping, and dynamic path selection have not 

13 

only become commonplace, but I think they are widely regarded as 

essential to certainly the real-time applications part of the internet. 

And this is good, because no matter how much capacity networks 

have, we can also always make their operation more efficient if we 

apply optimization techniques. There are certain problems that we 

solve without optimization that you can’t really build your way out 

of simply by throwing more capacity at the problem. 

It’s like trying to solve, you know, throwing money at problems 

that you don’t really understand. 

And I think we appreciate that prioritization mechanisms such 

as the IEEE 802.11(e) standard that I helped design are beneficial 

to real-time applications such as voice in the same way that LTE 

bearers are. 

The fact that one is provided free on a closed enterprise network 

and the other is sold as part of a bundle that includes carrier grade 

voice I think doesn’t really impact on their utility. These are useful 

things. We found that, by prioritizing voice and Wi-Fi, we get four 

times as many voice calls through a Wi-Fi network. 

But it’s hard to explain the continual increases in broadband 

speed we have seen in the U.S. over the last 10 years—speed improves 35 percent per year—without giving some credit to the expectation of profit. 

The fact that web speeds have stagnated over this same period, 

even declining in 2016, suggests something is wrong with the web’s 

financial model, and I think you, the committee, explored that last 

week. 

But leaving the consumer broadband market questions aside, 

paid prioritization internet optimization is very important to enterprises that have to connect, say, branch offices to headquarters. 

The traditional way to do that was to lease—and in some cases 

still is widely done—people lease business data services lines like 

a T1 for $300 a month, and it only gives you 1.5 megabits per second. 

But with prioritization, you could actually—with the proper management, you could actually use a public common internet connection to connect the branch office to the headquarters. 

And so now you’re getting 50 to 250 megabits per second for less 

than $100 a month. But this only works—you can only have that 

cost savings if someone is prioritizing the traffic on that pipe. 

So let’s bear in mind that, while there are fees for these things, 

the alternatives can also be quite costly. 

So it’s important, I think, to recognize the internet is no longer 

just a research network. The internet is the network. It has replaced all the other—I mean, not quite completely, but in the next 

few years, all the other networks are going to be subsumed by the 

internet. 

So we can’t apply the sort of, oh, like, research network standards to the internet. We have to recognize that the fundamental requirement is that it serves all the needs of all the used cases of 

all the people who connect to it. 

And I think whatever it takes to do that is fine, you know, given 

the proper oversight. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett follows:] 

14 


31393.001

HighTech 

High Tech Forum 

869 South Cole Drive 

Lakewood, Colorado FORUM 

Hearing Before United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

April17, 2018 

Testimony of Richard Bennett 

Founder, High Tech Forum 

Summary1 

The Internet has undergone substantial change since it was initially designed in the 

1970s. A network built to allow academics to use remote computers is now open to the public. 

The Internet has disrupted a plethora of major industries, and it has in turn been disrupted by 

advances in networking technology and applications. The backbone-oriented, end-to-end 

architecture of the research Internet has given way to today's Content Delivery Network (CON) 

model. Large firms such as Google, Amazon, and Netflix have gained control over their network 

traffic by playing the roles of both network and application. 

The traditional regulatory model that separated content from communications no 

longer fits; large content interests own worldwide networking facilities, only connecting to 

1 This is a lightly edited version of comments filed on April 13, 2018; most changes are for clarity and style. 
15 


31393.002

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to perform the relatively simple task of delivering streams of 

Internet packets over the last mile. 

Regulators have struggled to keep up with the transformation of electronic 

communications from the telephone network to the Internet. While some infrastructure 

providers are highly regulated, others such as Cloudflare and the pure CONs- are almost 

completely free to behave as they please. While net neutrality once promised regulators a 

short-cut around the complexity of traditional competition law and economics, it has become 

all but impossible to reach consensus on its most troubling part, the presumptive ban on "paid 

prioritization" introduced in the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order. 

The na·ive view of the Internet as a magically self-organizing system, enabling all 

applications to utilize the resources they desire without active engagement by network 

operators, has not proved out in the real world. While the web is still a dominant application, 

the Internet continues to spawn novel applications and better ways of enabling traditional ones 

with less expense and greater reliability. 

A diverse pool of users and applications competes for access to critical network 

resources such as bandwidth, latency, packet loss, and jitter. This competition is central to the 

Internet's packet switching design and is therefore unavoidable. ISPs- both fixed-line and 

mobile- distinguish themselves largely in their expertise at managing network resources in 

optimal ways that meet consumer expectations. 

Contrary to popular misconception, optimizations that improve the experience of users 

of real-time applications need not perceptibly degrade traditional applications such as video 

streaming, the web, or email. This is because traditional applications have extremely high 

2 
16 


31393.003

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

tolerance for variations in packet stream delivery speed because they buffer. Internet 

optimization is therefore not a zero-sum game. 

New networking product lines such as Wide Area Network (WAN) Edge Infrastructure, 

Software Defined Networking (SON), and Managed Services overcome shortcomings in the 

Internet's design by enabling dynamic routing or path selection. These capabilities enable the 

Internet to replace costly private lines for many enterprise applications. 

ISPs can do the best job of traffic optimization when they can identify the nature and 

requirements of individual packet streams. The most effective way to do this- while preserving 

privacy- is to allow application developers to register applications requiring special treatment, 

and even to pay for such treatment in some circumstances. If this is not allowed, ISPs, CONs, 

and dominant firms will not face robust competition. 

A tremendous amount of misinformation is afoot about the factors that determine the 

performance of web pages, much of it by well-meaning advocates. The reality is that the speed 

at which web pages load on US broadband networks is largely controlled by choices made by 

web page owners. While the average speed of US broadband networks has increased 35% per 

year for a decade, web performance has remained stagnant, even decreasing in 2016. 

The interests of innovators are best served when they are able to purchase the network 

services they need without undertaking the breathtaking expense of building the networks of 

data centers owned by the five largest US firms. A generally permissive approach to the design 

and sale of innovative network services- with proper oversight by well-informed regulators- is 

the best way forward for the Internet. 

3 
17 


31393.004

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

While net neutrality- and especially the ban on Internet optimization for a fee- has 

been held out to policy makers as a silver bullet that solves the problem of keeping the Internet 

on track, it is a false hope. In reality, nearly all forms of network optimization are good in come 

contexts and bad in others. Our regulators need to develop the wisdom to tell the difference. 

Contents 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 

The Original Idea of Net Neutrality ................................................................................. 6 

FCC Policy Statements Preceding Regulation ................................................................. 7 

FCC Traffic Management Regulations ............................................................................. 7 

Restoring Internet Freedom ........................................................................................... 9 

Why Optimize the Internet? ............................................................................................. 11 

The Internet is a Statistical System ............................................................................... 12 

The Internet Uses Packet Switching ............................................................................. 12 

Resource Contention is Unavoidable on the Internet .................................................. 14 

Brief Overview of Internet Traffic Management .......................................................... 17 

Optimization is Not a Zero Sum Game ..................................................................... 19 

Software-Defined Networks ..................................................................................... 24 

First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) ......................................................... 27 

Other Applications for Optimized Networking ......................................................... 29 

4 
18 


31393.005

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Why Charge for Optimization? ......................................................................................... 30 

What about Free Speech? ................................................................................................. 34 

Broadband Speed vs. Web Speed ................................................................................. 3S 

What about Innovation? ................................................................................................... 37 

Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 40 

Introduction 

Chairman Walden, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Pallone, Ranking Member 

Doyle, and Members of the Committee, 

Internet traffic management short of blocking and throttling- has proven to be the 

most difficult element of the network neutrality construct to commit to regulation. Net 

neutrality emerged in the early part of the century as a potentially simple way to craft Internet 

regulations that balanced efficiency and fairness, provided a short cut to enforcing provisions 

against anti-competitive conduct, and encouraged infrastructure owners to invest in resource 

upgrades. In practice, net neutrality regulations are anything but simple because broad bans on 

behavior that can be either constructive or destructive depending on context are necessarily 

riddled with exceptions, loopholes, and special circumstances. A brief summary of the FCC's 

actions is instructive. 

5 
19 


31393.006

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

The Original Idea of Net Neutrality 

In the first articulation of net neutrality per se, Professor Tim Wu attempted to split the 

baby. 2 On the one hand, he allowed broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) to manage 

traffic as they saw fit for the applications they provided (such as voice and video), but on the 

other he insisted they manage their "Internet gateway" in a blindly nondiscriminatory manner: 

... absent evidence of harm to the local network or the interests of other 

users, broadband carriers should not discriminate in how they treat traffic on 

their broadband network on the basis of inter-network criteria. 3 

By way of illustration, Wu explained that users of resource-intensive applications such 

as online gaming should pay for sufficient resources to run these applications successfully; but 

he did not approve of ISPs levying tolls for the use of gaming apps or other classes of 

applications. 

Wu regarded his approach as superior to "open access" regimes such as Title II 

broadband unbundling that did nothing to remedy the "Internet's greatest deviation from 

network neutrality ... [the] favoritism of data applications, as a class, over latency-sensitive 

applications involving voice or video." Wu proposed to permit ISPs to actively manage Internet 

traffic as long as they didn't do so arbitrarily. 

2 Tim Wu, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination," Journal of Telecommunications and High 

Technology Law 2 (2003): 141, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.388863. 

3 Wu. 

6 
20 


31393.007

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

FCC Policy Statements Preceding Regulation 

FCC Chairman Michael Powell proposed a generally similar approach a year after Wu 

presented his paper at a Silicon Flatirons conference in Boulder, Colorado. Also speaking in 

Boulder, Powell proposed a bill of rights for Internet users that came to be known as the "Four 

Freedoms of the lnternet." 4 Like Wu, Powell insisted that ISPs have the power to actively 

manage traffic, but went further in declaring that this right should only be limited by disclosure 

and the ability of users to run the applications of their choice: 

I recognize that network operators have a legitimate need to manage 

their networks and ensure a quality experience, thus reasonable limits 

sometimes must be placed in service contracts. Such restraints, however, 

should be clearly spelled out and should be as minimal as necessary.5 

In 2005, the Kevin Martin FCC endorsed a slightly modified version of the Four Freedoms 

as the Internet Policy Statement, but refrained from issuing regulations. 6 

FCC Traffic Management Regulations 

In 2010, the Genachowski FCC issued the Open Internet Order, America's first set of 

direct regulations over ISP traffic management practices. This order banned "unreasonable 

4 Michael K. Powell, "PRESERVING INTERNET FREEDOM: GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE INDUSTRY" 

(Federal Communications Commission, February 8, 2004), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC243556Al.pdf. 

5 Powell. 

• "FCC Adopts Policy Statement," Federal Communications Commission, August 5, 2005, 

https :// ap ps. fcc.gov I edocs _public/ attach match/FCC-05-lSlAl. pdf. 

7 
21 


31393.008

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

discrimination" and permitted the safe of "specialized services" as long as such services were 

not used to access the lnternet:7 

We recognize that broadband providers may offer other services over 

the same last-mile connections used to provide broadband service. These 

"specialized services" can benefit end users and spur investment, but they may 

also present risks to the open Internet. We will closely monitor specialized 

services and their effects on broadband service to ensure, through all available 

mechanisms, that they supplement but do not supplant the open Internet. 

These services were considered to include enterprise VoiP and similar applications that 

did not touch the web. 

In 2015, the Wheeler FCC strengthened the presumption against "paid prioritization" in 

order to ban it:8 

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access 

service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid 

prioritization. 

"Paid prioritization" refers to the management of a broadband 

provider's network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, 

7 Federal Communications Commission, "Report and Order: Preserving the Open Internet" (2010), 

http://www. fcc.gov /Daily _Rei eases/Daily_ Bu si ness/2010/ db 1223/FCC -10-201A1. pdf. 

8 Federal Communications Commission, "Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in 

the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet" (FCC, February 26, 2015), 

https:/ I a p ps. fcc .gov I edocs _public/ attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1. pdf. 

8 
22 


31393.009

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, 

resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, 

either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third 

party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. 9 

The Wheeler order substantially departed from the FCC's (by then) long-standing lighttouch approach by banning practices that had been regarded as constructive (with some 

caveats) by previous commissions of both parties. On its face, the paid prioritization ban could 

make services that compete with carrier-provided Voice over LTE (VeLTE) unlawful because 

such services would need resource reservation (using the IETF's Integrated Services standard10) 

to be competitive, especially at higher definition. 

Restoring Internet Freedom 

The Pai FCC's 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order erased Wheeler's ban on paid 

prioritization :

11 

We also decline to adopt a ban on paid prioritization. The 

transparency rule we adopt, along with enforcement of the antitrust and 

consumer protection laws, addresses many of the concerns regarding paid 

prioritization raised in this record. Thus, the incremental benefit of o bon on 

9 Federal Communications Commission. 

10 R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker, "RFC 1633 Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: An 

Overview" June 1994, http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1633.txt. 

11 Federal Communications Commission, "Restoring Internet Freedom: Declaratory Ruling, Report and 

Order, and Order" (Federal Communications Commission, December 14, 2017), 

https:/ /apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-166Al.pdf. 

9 
23 


31393.010

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

paid prioritization is likely to be small or zero. On the other hand, we expect 

that eliminating the ban on paid prioritization will help spur innovation and 

experimentation, encourage network investment, and better allocate the costs 

of infrastructure, likely benefiting consumers and competition. Thus, the costs 

(forgone benefits) of the ban are likely significant and outweigh any 

incremental benefits of a ban on paid prioritization. 12 

As noted, the Restoring Internet Freedom Order required disclosure of paid prioritization 

while permitting the practice. Thus, it is consistent with the Four Freedoms. 

The history of FCC regulation oftraffic management shows a general acceptance of 

Internet optimization- even for a fee- with proper disclosure, apart from the 2015 order. But 

even in the orders and statements that support the practice, we see significant variation in 

presumptions and general reasoning. In part, this variation reflects differences in prevailing 

technologies and practices; it also reflects varying degrees of technology awareness on the part 

of Commission staff and leadership. 

While all FCC Internet regulations have been forward-looking to some extent, it's fair to 

say that the Wheeler order pays greater attention to historical policies and practices. It was 

especially attentive to agency actions such as the Computer Inquiries dating back to the 

1960s.B The Pai order is the only one to mention SG; this technology is crucially important 

12 Federal Communications Commission. 

13 "FCC Computer Inquiries," Wikipedia, September 26, 2017, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php ?title= FCC_ Computer _lnquiries&oldid=802553161. See also Tom Wheeler, 

"Remarks of Tom Wheeler at Aspen Institute 2016 Communication Policy Conference" (Federal Communications 

Commission, August 14, 2016). 

10 
24 


31393.011

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

because it's the most likely path to more robust, facilities-based competition for residential 

Internet services. Most observers agree that competition is a more effective means than 

regulation for ensuring constructive organizational behavior. 

Why Optimize the Internet? 

The Internet has become the world's primary communication medium. As such, it is 

called-upon to carry information for a variety of applications, such as: 

• The well-known World Wide Web; 

• Internet Protocol-based telephone calls14 intersecting with the traditional telephone 

network; 

• Large private networks intersecting with the public Internet at several points (the five 

largest US corporations maintain such networks); 

• Private communications between offices of organizations that use the Internet for 

Wide-Area Network (WAN) connectivity in lieu of purchasing Business Data Services; 

• Public safety communications between dispatchers and first responders; 

• Real-time communications among Internet of Things (loT) devices, garners, or 

specialized applications such as air traffic control. 

This wide range of usage patterns requires a great deal of agility. In fact, there is no 

"one-size-fits-all" traffic management technique that efficiently meets the needs of all 

applications. The only approach that has ever worked is to treat each application with a high 

14 Whether over the Internet or on a private intra-domain {intra-network-providers) or inter-domain 

(cross-provider) basis. 

11 
25 


31393.012

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

degree of sensitivity to its requirements. This is why Service Level Agreements (SLA) specifying 

precise Quality of Service (QoS) parameters are the norm for commercial Internet service 

agreements. 15 

The Internet is a Statistical System 

Unlike the traditional telephone network, the Internet is a statistical system that shares 

resources among a broad pool of applications. The telephone network ensures that each 

portion of each phone call is delivered with the same fidelity, latency, and quality within the 

limits of the communications medium (wire or radio), but this quality assurance extracts a high 

price in terms of network efficiency. The telephone network divides resources into fixed 

buckets or channels of capacity and then allocates one per call. Because it is sized for peak load, 

under normal load most of the network's capacity goes to waste. 

The cable television network uses similar design logic. It consists of a number of 6 MHz 

radio frequency channels, each of which is statically assigned to a television channel, a voice 

channel, or an Internet channel. A typical cable TV network once assigned a pair of channels for 

Internet access, but now it will tend to assign 24 channels for downstream Internet and 2 for 

upstream16• Channels carrying unwatched TV channels effectively go to waste. 

The Internet Uses Packet Switching 

The Internet uses a technology known as "packet switching" that allows multiple users 

and applications to share a single very large communication channel. While a traditional 

15 Network Quality of Service is measured in terms of data volume, latency (delay), jitter (variations in 

latency) and packet loss. 16 Or even more channels, as this changes routinely as bandwidth requirements, and hence speeds to end 

users, increase. 

12 
26 


31393.013

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

network with 24 channels would permit 24 users to communicate in parallel, each would only 

be allowed to use 1/24th of the network's design capacity. 

Packet switching would allow the 24 to use the channel in series, one after another. 

Each user's packets would transit the network 24 times faster, but they would have to wait 

behind packets already in flight or waiting for transmission. When fewer than 24 users are 

active, they will be able to access more bandwidth on the packet switched network than they 

would on the traditional circuit-switched network. When all 24 are active, their ability to access 

bandwidth would be the same, but some would experience more delay (latency) than they 

would on the traditional network. 

Packet switched networks are typically provisioned with sufficient capacity that most 

users experience high speeds most of the time17• The packet switching design is efficient in 

terms of bandwidth allocation- it permits applications that need high bandwidth to obtain itbut they don't provide the same consistency of delay as circuit switching arrangements. 

Packet switching was determined to be the preferred technology for computer 

applications as early as the 1960s because of its ability to provide flexible service. Computers 

run applications, and applications have a variety of different communications requirements. 

Hence, a flexible network tends to serve their interests better than network designed to 

support a single application such as telephone calls or TV viewing. 

Hence, the Internet does two things that previous networks did not do: 

1) It allows multiple users to dynamically share common network facilities; and: 

17 This is largely proven out by results recorded for ISPs since 2010 by the FCC's "Measuring Broadband 

America" program. 

13 
27 


31393.014

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

2) It allows applications to compete with each other for access to a common pool of 

network resources such as bandwidth (capacity), delay (latency), jitter (variations in 

latency) and packet loss. 

This mode of operation raises issues with access to network resources that previous 

technologies did not face, at least not to the same degree. 

Resource Contention is Unavoidable on the Internet 

The Internet is a system in which multiple users run a variety of applications over shared 

infrastructure. Even when the last mile cable is unshared- as is the case for DSL and Ethernetthe rest of the system, after that brief first hop link, is shared. Overall, the Internet consists of 

several levels of traffic aggregation and disaggregation. Sharing is inherent in the Internet's 

design. 

Access to shared resources of any kind implies the development and implementation of 

a sharing policy. For the Internet, this policy can take various forms, each of which has varying 

degrees of Quality of Service impact on different applications: 18 

1. ISPs generally parcel bandwidth into service tiers that simply pre-allocate fractional 

portions of total network bandwidth to each account. While a cable system may provide 

one gigabit per second of bandwidth to a neighborhood, each subscriber is limited to 

using their subscribed quota of 50, 100, or 250 Mbps, for example. While the total of 

the subscriptions in a neighborhood will exceed actual capacity, network engineering 

18 See a detailed examination of sharing policies in my paper: Richard Bennett, "Arrested Development: 

How Policy Failure Impairs Internet Progress" (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, December 2015), 

http:/ /www.aei.orgjpublication/arrested-development-how-policy-failure-impairs-internet-progress/. 

14 
28 


31393.015

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

sensitive to usage patterns ensures that the expected speed is generally achieved by all 

active users. Some degree of over-subscription is essential to Internet economics, which 

depend on statistical multiplexing. 

2. When networks are lightly used, operators may simply forward each packet of 

information on a first-come, first-served basis with no regard for its specific needs such 

as urgency or necessity. Because the Internet carries both "elastic" and "non-elastic" 

data19, this policy is sub-optimal under most load conditions. 

3. Operators commonly employ policies that seek to identify application types in order to 

apply smart queueing policies under moderately high load conditions. Voice packets 

have strict time requirements -less than 150 ms from end-to-end. But packets 

containing software code, such as patch updates, have very loose time requirements. 

Hence, it is sensible for operators to prioritize individual voice packets over software 

patches by moving voice packets to the head of the transmission queue feeding a 

moderately loaded data link. This practice does not impair the patch application 

because it doesn't alter the time at which its final packet arrives or it is not essential for 

the download to finish in a particular second of time, whereas the user of the voice 

application will soon audibly noticed any delays in that application. File transfer 

applications (of which the web is one) are not impacted by the delivery time of 

intermediate packets, only the final one. But each voice packet is impaired by delay. 

19 Elastic data is buffered at the destination before use and is often stored, while non-elastic data is used 

immediately and then discarded. When packets of elastic data are lost, they are re-transmitted. When packets of 

non-elastic data are lost, the application simply moves on to the next packet in the stream. 

15 
29 


31393.016

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

4. When network load increases from moderate to high, it becomes necessary for 

operators to discard data packets in order to maintain the efficiency of the Internet's 

Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). Because non-elastic applications don't use TCP, 

there is no value in dropping their packets. Operators have a number of choices for 

dropping TCP packets, such as dropping the newest, the oldest, or a random selection. 

They may also apply drop quotas to particular streams, especially very heavy ones. A 

common method is Random Early Detection (RED), an algorithm that discards packets 

at random but at a rate that corresponds to the degree of load on the network 

segment.2° Classical RED is insensitive to Quality of Service, hence more sophisticated 

versions such as Weighted RED and Adaptive RED have been developed. 21 

In more recent years, various forms of Active Queue Management (AQM) have been 

developed as well, such as CoDel (Controlled Delay) and Proportional Integral controller 

Enhanced (PIE) queueing. To overcome related problems, Google has also developed 

and deployed the new Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC) protocol, as an 

alternative to TCP flows for web-based and other Internet traffic. 

5. Operators also commonly impose quotas on the amounts of data users are permitted 

to send or receive over a given period of time, especially when resource contention is 

high. Quota-based discard policies drop packets from heavy users before dropping those 

from light users. Alternatively, high load application streams- such as code downloads 

10 S. Floyd and V. Jacobson, "Random Early Detection Gateways for Congestion Avoidance," IEEE/ACM 

Transactions on Networking 1, no. 4 (August 1993): 397-413, https://doi.org/10.1109/90.251892. 21 Kevin Wallace, "Weighted Random Early Detection (WRED)," in Cisco /P Telephony Flash Cards (Cisco, 

2005), http://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p~352991&seqNum~s. 

16 
30 


31393.017

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

that seek to saturate network capacity- would be subject to dropping before light load 

streams, such as narrowband voice, that moderate their consumption of network 

resources. Most Internet data today is video streaming, an application that regulates its 

resource consumption22. 

We sometimes hear claims that network congestion can be eliminated by increasing the 

capacity of data pipes to some arbitrary bandwidth. If this were the case, the research 

literature on managing packet networks under load would not be so rich. In reality, building our 

way out of network congestion is impossible because increases in the capacity of one part of 

the Internet create more congestion in some other part. 

It is also impossible to fully coordinate upgrades because the Internet is not simply a 

single system managed by the single agent; it's a loose federation of networks that undergo 

increases in load and capacity at their own rates. 

Each time we add capacity to alleviate downstream congestion, we enable more 

upstream congestion. So the battle for congestion-free networks is never-ending. This is 

especially true for wireless networks. 

Brief Overview of Internet Traffic Management 

Some facially fair and uniform traffic management policies have been proved to be very 

harmful to the Internet. The Internet consists of a mesh of Internet Exchanges in major cities, 

22 Video servers do this using techniques such as Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH), where 

the server can dynamically- every few seconds- change between various quality levels to adapt to changing 

throughput conditions. Servers can adapt from SD quality when there is very little capacity to HD or 4K when there 

is an abundance. Servers also adapt to changes in their own CPU and storage resources due to load. 

17 
31 


31393.018

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Content Delivery Networks inside Internet Exchanges and ISP networks, middle mile facilities, 

and last mile networks. 

I 

Internet Exchange Content Delivery 

!!:============Network 

Figure 1: Four Parts of the Internet 

Inside each of the four parts, we find Ethernet switches and Internet routers. The parts 

are interconnected by network circuits or "datalinks", which are typically wavelengths of light 

transmitted through fiber optic cables. Where data links meet routers, computer memories 

known as queues hold information packets awaiting transmission. The five resource 

management techniques described in the previous section apply to these queues. 

The most simple, uniform management technique that can be applied to Internet 

queues simply drops new packets when the queue is full. The effect of this method -often 

18 
32 


31393.019

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

praised by net neutrality advocates23 - is called "global internet synchronization". Packet loss is 

a signal to TCP to slow down; when a series of application streams are told to slow down at the 

same time, the utilization of the data link decreases from 100 percent to 50 percent. 

Following this sudden decrease, the rate ofTCP streams gradually increases until it 

reaches 100 percent again, and the process repeats. Because the Internet datalink is rarely at 

100%, adding bandwidth is relatively costly and ineffective. 

Techniques such as RED were developed to prevent synchronization. Because RED has 

unfortunate side effects on some applications, it has been supplemented and/or replaced with 

more advanced techniques such as CoDe I, QUIC, and SPDY intended to ensure more efficient 

bandwidth utilization. This is an ongoing research area in computer science. 

Optimization is Not a Zero Sum Game. 

In the absence of perfect techniques to manage Internet contention, ISPs, transit 

networks, and both public and private CDNs differentiate traffic according to application type in 

order to optimize Quality of Experience. The Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group (of 

which I am a member) published an excellent report on this topic in 2015, Differentiated 

Treatment of Internet Traffic. 24 The report demonstrates that traffic differentiation is not a 

zero-sum game due to the nature of Quality of Experience. 

The BITAG report observes: 

23 M. Chris Riley and Robb Topolski, "The Hidden Harms of Application Bias" (Free Press, November 2009), 

http:/ /conference.freepress.net/sites/default/files/resources/The_Hidden_Harms_of_Application_Bias.pdf. 

14 Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, Inc., "Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic" 

(Boulder: BITAG, October 2015), http://www.bitag.org/documents/BITAG_-

- Differentiated_ Treatment_ of _Internet_ Traffic. pdf. 

19 
33 


31393.020

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Differentiated treatment can produce a net improvement in Quality 

of Experience (QoE). 

When differentiated treatment is applied with an awareness of the 

requirements for different types of traffic, it becomes possible to create a 

benefit without an offsetting loss. For example, some differentiation 

techniques improve the performance or quality of experience (QoE) for 

particular applications or classes of applications without negatively impacting 

the QoE for other applications or classes of applications. The use and 

development of these techniques has value. 25 

This is especially true when large amounts of video streaming (Netflix, YouTube, Amazon 

Instant) traffic are present in a residential broadband network. Advocates who argue that it's 

impossible to prioritize one application without impairing another fail to examine prioritization 

in proper technical detail. 

Internet applications interact with users at the level of transactions, each of which has a 

beginning, a middle, and an end. Downloading a web page is a transaction; watching a movie is 

a transaction, and making a Skype video call is a transaction. 

Each transaction consists of a stream of packets, from a few in the case of an email to 

some number of millions in the case of some movies. When two Internet transactions take 

place on a residential Internet connection, their packet streams are intermingled. If we examine 

25 Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, Inc., page iii. 

20 
34 


31393.021

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

the Internet datalink, we might find clumps of a few hundred video packets interspersed with 

an occasional Skype packet. 

When several hundred video packets are enqueued for transmission inside an ISP 

network when a Skype packet arrives, it is reasonable to move the Skype packet to the head of 

the queue. This situation can arise because of the way video streaming services operate. They 

are connected to ISP networks through very high-capacity datalinks, often 10 -100 gigabits per 

second. These datalinks are much faster than last mile datalinks connecting to consumer 

premises. 

They also tend to deliver traffic in an idiosyncratic matter, filling network queues as fast 

as they can for short periods of time and then waiting before filling it again. 

As the report explains: 

Managing the impact of streaming video on other traffic 

A typical video stream, as sent by a server, consists of a series of large 

bursts of traffic, or "chunks," where each chunk consists of multiple packets 

transmitted as quickly as possible. Sequential chunks are separated by time 

periods that can span seconds. The transmission rate for each chunk is much 

higher than the overage rate of the encoded stream, which is a function of the 

average chunk size and the time between chunks. The video client buffers the 

chunks and then plays them out at the encoded rate. 

When a chunk from a video stream arrives at a bottleneck link, it can 

cause significant delay and jitter for other traffic sharing the same link, 

21 
35 


31393.022

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

causing severe degradation in the QoE of time-sensitive applications such os 

interactive voice. This problem can be mitigated via a technique known as 

pacing, in which the video stream is differentiated and traffic shaped to a rate 

equal to or greater than the stream's overage rote, but still/ower than the 

bottleneck link's rote. Pacing spaces out the video pockets in time, allowing 

other traffic in between the chunks ond in doing so may reduce the latency 

and jitter experienced by other traffic. Since the first packet in each chunk is 

not delayed, the net effect of pacing on streaming video is to deliver video 

packets to the receiver ot a more consistent rote without creating any 

additional delay in video playback. In effect, network pacing performs the 

same "smoothing" function in the received video content that the receive 

buffer in the video client would have performed had the chunks been received 

in discrete high speed bursts, so the QoE for the streaming video may be 

maintained because the content in each chunk is still received before the 

decoder needs it. 

Pacing is on example ot differentiated treatment that is implemented 

in mobile networks and that acts on the traffic within Internet access services. 

It may also be implemented by the sending service or application, reducing the 

need for differentiation in the network. As noted above, this technique con 

improve the QaE far other traffic without degrading the QoE for OTT video 

streams. 

22 
36 


31393.023

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Pacing replaces the stair-step traffic pattern with a line that more accurately represents 

the average rate line. By introducing gaps into the clump of video packets, Internet 

optimization in the form of pacing allows time-sensitive applications such as Skype to more 

happily coexist with Netflix. Prioritizing Skype packets by moving them to the head of the 

transmission queue does not impair Netflix because streaming is impacted more by the volume 

of competing data than by its placement. 

The following diagram from an academic paper illustrates the effect of pacing on a 

typical video stream. 

-

c: 

:::J 

0 

E 

<C 

"0 

res 

0 

c: 

8 

Figure 2: Rao et of., "Network Characteristics of Video Streaming Traffic". 25 

Thus, optimization in the form of prioritization is not a zero-sum game in which every 

boost in queue position in favor of one application harms another application. In fact, this sort 

26 Kenjiro Cho and Association for Computing Machinery, Proceedings of the Seventh COnference on 

Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (New York, NY: ACM, 2011). 

23 
37 


31393.024

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

of prioritization helps applications that need protection from the high-density, high capacity 

packet streams associated with video servers and CDNs without producing a perceptible effect 

on the video stream. 

Software-Defined Networks 

The Internet is a highly-connected mesh composed of a number of interconnected 

networks. Between any given pair of Internet endpoints, a number paths exist by which the 

endpoints can communicate with each other. 

For example, a visit to the House of Representatives' website from my office in Colorado 

travels directly from Denver to Washington through the level 3 transit network, while one to 

the Senate website goes from Denver to the Dallas Internet Exchange over the Com cast 

network, where it is handed off to the AT&T transit network for delivery to an Akamai CDN 

server in Chicago. 

The standard way for the Internet to select paths uses the Border Gateway Protocol 

(BGP). This is a system for exchanging routing information that was developed in the mid-90s to 

facilitate the conversion of the Internet from a research network to a commercial one. BGP 

allows networks to communicate with each other over a variety of intermediaries according to 

business arrangements; it performs "policy-based routing". 

BGP is sub-optimal because it selects paths mainly on distance rather than dynamic 

criteria such as occupancy, packet loss, latency, jitter, throughput, historical reliability and 

maximum peer capacity. Because some applications -especially real-time applications such as 

voice and video conferencing- require consistent low latency, services have developed means 

of overcoming BGP's shortcomings by continually assessing link quality and selecting optimal 

24 
38 


31393.025

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

paths dynamically. While BGP provides static routing, the optimal approach provides dynamic 

routing. 

The pioneer of dynamic routing over the Internet was ITXC, a firm founded by Tom and 

Mary Evslin in 1997. 27 1TXC delivered ordinary telephone calls on a wholesale basis using the 

Internet as an intermediary between traditional telephone networks. Its method consisted of 

evaluating current link quality and selecting paths that could best meet the quality 

requirements of telephony over the statisticallnternet. 28 

The ITXC dynamic routing method is now the basis of an entire software defined widearea network (SO-WAN) industry segment known by the names "WAN Edge Infrastructure", 

"Software Defined Networking (SON)", "Virtualized customer premises equipment (vCPE)", and 

Managed Network Services (MNS). 

A recent Gartner Group report identifies 16 of more than 40 firms offering these 

products.29 Their general value proposition lies in allowing customers to save money by using 

the Internet as a substitute for Business Data Services or private lines. Gartner reports that SOWANs may be deployed by organizations on a "DIY" basis as ITXC did; but they may also be 

offered by network service providers, system integrators, or specialized Managed Service 

Providers. 

27 "ITXC Corporation," Wikipedia, March 7, 2015, 

https :f 1 en. wi ki ped ia. org/w /index. php ?title=ITXC _ Corporation&oldid=6503110 17. 

"For an explanation of the ITXC method, see this video podcast: Richard Bennett, "Internet Pioneers 

Discuss Network Architecture and Regulation," High Tech Forum (blog), August 16, 2017, 

http ://h ightechforu m. org/internet -pioneers-discuss-architecture-regulation/. 

29 Andrew Lerner and Neil Rickard, "Market Guide for WAN Edge Infrastructure," Gartner Reprint (Gartner 

Group, March 23, 2017), https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=l-3X6W6KF&ct=l70404&st=sb. 

25 
39 


31393.026

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

In many cases, SD-WANs are hybrids of ordinary commercial internet services with 

managed services and even private lines. All of these networking facilities use Internet standard 

protocols, TCP and IP, and equipment either similar to or identical with standard Internet 

routers. 

FWaaS: flrewuU as a service; LAN Sw.: LAN switch; SWGaaS: secure web gateway as a serviCe; UC: unifiediXm'lmun!catlons; UCaaS; unified communications as a 

service,; UTM: unified threat management; WAN Opt: WAN optimization; WOaaS: WAN optimization as a service 

Souroo:Gartmu(Mateh2017) 

Figure 3: 7he Transformation of the WAN Edge 

If a firm has Cisco or Citrix routers on premise with some ports connected to an ordinary 

ISP and others connected to managed services and still others connected to private wires, 

where does the Internet end and the private network begin 7 The demarcation point, if there is 

one, is somewhere inside the router; but the router has a single configuration that regards all 

three ports simply as routes of particular quality to general destinations. 

26 
40 


31393.027

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) 

On October 18-19, 2017, I attended an R & D summit on Highly Mobile Deployable 

Networks sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Public Safety 

Communications Research Program at the Commerce Department's Boulder (Colorado) Lab. 

The summit covered ongoing research projects designed to increase the capacity of FirstNet to 

meet the needs of first responders in the aftermath of disasters. 

Of particular interest was NIST's Public Safety Communication Research (PSCR) division 

deployable network testbed, a means of testing new products and applications in the 

deployables space intended to aid first responders. 30 The deployables discussed are LTE-based 

temporary facilities that connect to permanent LTE facilities provided by FirstNet and other LTE 

carriers. FirstNet is an LTE network with extensive Quality, Pre-emption and Prioritization (QPP) 

mechanisms to help ensure greater reliability for first responder communications across a wide 

range of scenarios ranging from full backhaul to intermittent backhaul to no backhaul at all; if 

paid prioritization were not permitted, FirstNet would not be lawful. 

These are challenging problems. We identified the following gaps in current products 

and research: 31 

Lack of tools/analytics and standards to measure, model, and predict network coverage, 

capabilities, load, and reliability in real time to inform decision making for self-organized 

networks 

30 "Deployables" are networks composed of drones, balloons, vehicle-mounted towers, and cell towers on 

wheels that can be used to stand up a temporary communications infrastructure until a more permanent one can 

be recreated. 31 Emily Nunez, "Deployable Networks R&D Summit Highlights," Text, NIST, November 1, 2017, 

https :f /www. n ist.gov 1 news-events/ news/2017 /11/ deployable-networks-rd-su m mit -highlights. 

27 
41 


31393.028

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Inability for deployables from different vendors I agencies to recognize and synchronize 

with each other (discovery problem) 

Need to determine when to rely on deployable resources vs. core resources 

Need to determine an architecture or process for data storage and processing at the 

edge to minimize backhaul reliance and to balance network load 

"I CAM on the fly"-- How to register with other non-federated Identity, Credential, and 

Access Management (ICAM) services (i.e., mutual aid) 

Common Services/ Standardization for Applications 

Need to optimize size, weight, power of deployable hardware for different tasks, 

agencies, and environments 

In the limited backhaul scenarios we examined, we discovered a need to connect 

deployables to standard LTE networks until a genuine FirstNet backhaul could be restored. 

Because FirstNet relies heavily on QPP, it stands to reason that the presence of such features on 

standard l TE networks would also be useful. 

Both previous and current research for First Net include a number of topics related to 

prioritization and Quality of Service that would be adversely affected by an over-broad ban on 

optimization :

32 

Establishment and Modification of LTE Bearers with Specific QPP33 Requirements 

Prioritization ofTraffic across Backhaul with Limited Bandwidth or Congestion 

32 "Annual Report Outlines Year of Progress Leading to Launch of FirstNet Network I First Responder 

Network Authority," accessed April13, 2018, https://firstnet.gov/newsroom/blog/annual-report-outlines-yearprogress-leading-launch-firstnet-network. 

33 Preston Kelley, "End-to-End Quality Priority and Pre-Emption," NIST, August 12, 2016, 

https:/ /www.nist.gov/programs-projects/end-end-quality-priority-and-pre-emption. 

28 
42 


31393.029

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Prioritization of Encrypted Traffic (e.g., mobile Virtual Private Network [mVPN]) 

Prioritization of Traffic processed through In-Vehicle Routers 

Technologies and Methods for the Interface between Local Control and the Network 

QPP Systems 

Assessment of EPS Bearer34 Capabilities to Prioritize Encrypted Traffic 

FirstNet builds on the "bearer" capabilities inherent in LTE. Bearers are a concept that comes to 

LTE from the Internet through the IETF Integrated Services (lntServ) standards. These standards 

were developed in the 1990s to ease the convergence of voice and data on a single network, 

the lnternet. 35 While lntServ was relatively dormant for many years, it became a vital part of 

the Internet with the advent of LTE. It would be shame not to recognize its importance. 

Other Applications for Optimized Networking 

As we complete the transition from the monopoly circuit-switched network of the past 

to the privately owned, decentralized, dynamic, packet switched networks of and future, it's 

important to bear in mind the fact that the Internet is becoming ubiquitous. 

While the net neutrality controversy has encouraged policy makers to divide networking 

between an "Internet segment" frozen to the status quo of the 1990s and a "not-the-Internet 

segment" free to grow and evolve, this is an unwise separation. Our grandchildren will not 

recognize any form of networking as "not the Internet". Even if we stipulate, arguendo, that the 

traditional Internet was a "best-efforts" system that treated all packets the same, it does not 

34 "LTE in WIRELESS: Bearers in LTE," accessed Aprill3, 2018, 

http://lteinwireless.blogspot.com/2012/12/bearers-in-lte.html. 35 Bennett, "Arrested Development." 

29 
43 


31393.030

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

follow that the future Internet should follow such a model. The traditional Internet was small, 

highly specialized research network, while the Internet of the future must be all things to all 

people because it will be the only game in town. 

For example, a myriad of applications than once required private lines- such as highdefinition video conferencing, wholesale voice transport, high volume transaction processing, 

video entertainment, and industrial process control applications- can now run over Internet 

facilities with proper support from network service providers. 

Consequently, we should not divide network applications into those suitable for the 

standard Internet and those that require private networks for specialized treatment. Rather, we 

should ensure that the Internet is sufficiently robust to handle the needs of all applications, all 

the time. 

Why Charge for Optimization? 

Advocates of strict net neutrality with a far-reaching ban on what they call "paid 

prioritization" have to walk a very fine line to endorse "reasonable network management". One 

example of this reasoning is the blog post on today's hearing by Phillip Berenbroick, Senior 

Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge.'6 Berenbroick denounces prioritization as "inefficient and 

unnecessary from a traffic management standpoint," while also claiming "it makes sense for 

[some] services to work in real time, while email does not need to appear in your in box 

instantaneously." 

36 Phillip Berenbroick, "House Commerce Takes on Paid Prioritization, an Essential Tenet to the Open 

Internet," Public Knowledge, accessed April13, 2018, https:/ /www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/housecommerce-takes-on-paid-prioritization-an-essential-tenet-to-the-open-internet. 

30 
44 


31393.031

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

This is a curious juxtaposition. 

The only way real time applications can leap-frog email is for network service providers, 

end user operating systems, or other network devices37 to prioritize. Hence, prioritization is 

good whether provided by users, CONs, or ISPs, and even when provided by ISPs in the form of 

for-fee CDN services. The issue seems to be the payment of fees rather than the act of 

prioritizing. So we have to examine the role that fees pay in network management. 

Reasonable network management of the type permitted by the FCC's 2010 and 2015 

Open Internet Orders requires two distinct operations: first, the ISP has to recognize the types 

of applications generating the packet streams it sees. This can sometimes be very simple: Skype 

packet streams consist of packets much shorter than most Internet packets, and they're very 

evenly spaced. When an ISP sees a series of three short packets at a constant interval, it's very 

likely that they represent some sort of Voice over IP application that should be prioritized. This 

is the case even if the packets are encrypted.38 

Similarly, when an ISP sees three clumps of full size packets, each consisting of a few 

hundred packets separated by a common interval, there's a high probability that they represent 

a video stream, but there are caveats. At the beginning of a movie streaming transaction, 

senders are testing the subscriber's network capacity while also examining their own network 

for load conditions and the presence of the desired title at the desired resolution. This creates 

quite a bit of network chaos, so application identification may take as much as a minute. 39 

37 Such as a home router gateway device, an Ethernet switch, or a Wi·Fi Access Point (AP). 

38 "Very likely" does not mean certain; they could be sensor readings as well. 

39 Because most significant network events take place in thousandths or millionths of a second, a minute 

is a very large chunk of network time. 

31 
45 


31393.032

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Video streams are often embedded in web pages as ads these days, so it can also be 

tricky to distinguish a genuine movie or TV show from some advertising fluff on a web page. 

Online games also need special treatment, but they often begin by downloading a great deal of 

imagery that can appear to be video streaming at the network level. 

So identifying applications and guessing their requirements can be difficult unless 

applications announce themselves and specify their requirements. Internet standards such as 

lntServ and DiffServ specify mechanisms for this sort of identification, but they're not always 

operational across internetwork boundaries. Wi-Fi also employs such mechanisms according to 

the IEEE 802.11e standard.40 

In the case of Wi-Fi, applications announce themselves to the network access point by 

sending an "Admission Control" message informing it of their upper and lower bounds on 

latency and data volume. If the network has sufficient resources, it will reserve the required 

amount and allow the application to proceed. As the application runs, it is allowed to obtain 

high priority network access. When complete, it notifies the network so the resources can be 

recycled. 

This negotiation requires a bit of policy- the network can only give high priority to a 

limited number of applications, and it must trust the application to use resources responsibly. 

So this procedure is generally carried out on private networks. When it is, experience shows 

40 IEEE Computer Society et al., IEEE Std 802.11erM_2005: IEEE Standard for Information Technology 

Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems--Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--Specific 

Requirements. Part 11, Amendment 8, Part 11, Amendment 8, (New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers, 2003), http:/ /ieeexplore. ieee .org/ servlet/ opac?p u number= 103 28. 

32 
46 


31393.033

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

that networks are capable of successfully carrying four times as many phone calls as they could 

carry when every packet stream has the same priority_41 

Payment for priority treatment (whether by queue re-ordering, resource reservation, or 

traffic shaping) serves the same purpose on a commerciai!SP network that our Admission 

Control message does on the enterprise network. It is impossible for a network to give all 

packets high priority on any network, just as all the children in Lake Wobegon cannot really be 

above average. Regardless of its capacity, the network has a limited supply of low priority (or 

low loss, or low jitter) transmissions per second. These can either be parceled out at random -

as net neutrality supporters appear to demand- or according to some sort of plan, the 

accuracy of which is dubious unless requestors have incentives to only seek low latency when 

they need it. As net neutrality advocates correctly point out, if all packet streams are 

prioritized, none are. 

The most straightforward way to align user incentives with network capacity is to charge 

a consideration perhaps a small fee- for the privilege of jumping the queue over packets of 

unknown character. The consideration might involve a barter, a quota, or some other nonmonetary form. One idea that was suggested nearly a decade ago at a policy panel in 

Washington called for a quota of low-delay packets per month, similar to the minutes of use 

once attached to cellular telephone services.42 

41 This narrative is based on personal experience with creating the IEEE 802.11e standard while working at 

Sharp Labs and then implementing enterprise Wi-Fi products that carried it out at Trapeze Networks. 

42 Richard Bennett and Brett Glass, "Forum on Network Management" (ITIF Forum on Network 

Management, Washington, D.C, March 12, 2008), https:/ /itif.org/events/2008/03/12/forum-networkmanagement. 

33 
47 


31393.034

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

The value to the user and to the network provider is that today's guesswork would be 

replaced with a more certain system in which users and developers would register applications 

requiring treatment with ISPs so the latter could handle them with great precision. 

Net neutrality advocates are worried that payment for specialized treatment could lead 

to abuse. This fear can be allayed through disclosure requirements addressing the amount of 

special treatment sold. If ISPs are selling more special treatment than they can reasonably 

provide, or selling much, much less than their peers, the regulator will understandably have 

issues. In any case, the potential problems of financial abuse are better resolved by empirical 

analysis and ex-post enforcement than by pre-emptive emotional reactions. 

What about Free Speech? 

Arguments for banning Internet optimization generally rest on a faulty understanding of 

Internet performance. 

Many advocates have insisted that allowing ISPs to sell optimized delivery services 

would mute the voices of non-profit advocates and impose barriers to startups. For example, 

Malkia Cyril warned that "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" are limits on speech: 

Internet Service Providers want to break the internet into fast and slow 

lanes that sell public voice to the highest bidder. If we lose that vote, the most 

democratic communications platform the world has ever seen could become 

34 
48 


31393.035

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

more like cable TV, a fairly scary place that reproduces the economic gaps and 

racial hierarchies of the offline world. 43 

Cyril's fears are based on a misinterpretation of a reality of Internet commerce. 44 While 

it's true that users abandon web e-commerce sites that are slow to load, the key to a fast site 

does not rest on buying speed from ISPs. My research on the relative speeds of broadband 

networks and websites indicates that the websites generally use a small fraction of the speed 

ISPs make available to them today. 45 

Broadband Speed vs. Web Speed 

While broadband network speed has increased by an average of 35% per year for ten 

years, web page load times have remained fairly stagnant.46 In 2016, for example, web page 

load times were worse than they were in 2015. The FCC's Measuring Broadband America 

reports have consistently shown that ultra-fast broadband speeds do not make web pages load 

faster than they do over 12- 15 Mbps networksY 

43 Malkia Cyril, "Only Net Neutrality Can Protect the Internet from Becoming like TV: White, Middle-Class 

and Exclusive," the Guardian, February 26,2015, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/26/onlynet-neutrality-can-protect-the-internet-from-becoming-like-tv-white-middle-class-and-exclusive. 

44 Rick Whittington, "Is A Slow Website Costing You Sales?," accessed AprillO, 2018, 

https:/ /www.rickwhittington.com/blog/is-a-slow-website-costing-you-sales/. 

45 Richard Bennett, "You Get What You Measure: Internet Performance Measurement as a Policy Tool" 

(American Enterprise Institute, November 2017), http://www.aei.org/publication/you-get-what-you-measureinternet-performance-measurement-as-a-policy-tool/. 46 Web page performance measurement is not as precise as we would like it to be, so it's possible that the 

first screens of web pages load much faster than they used to. 

47 Early MBA reports reported this fact correctly, but those issued after the FCC redefined "broadband" to 

25 Mbps have claimed a threshold value of 25 Mbps even though the underlying data have not changed; see FCC's 

Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, "Measuring Broadband 

America," Measuring Broadband America (Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission, 2016 2011), 

https:/ /www.fcc.gov/general/measuring-broadband-america; FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology and 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, "2012 Measuring Broadband America: July Report" (Washington, DC: 

Federal Communications Commission, July 2012), 

http :f /transition. fcc.gov f cgb/ m easuri ngbroad bandreport/2012/M easu ring-Broadband-America. pdf; FCC's Office 

35 
49 


31393.036

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Putting a website in a "slow lane" would require the ISP to reduce the speed of the 

service it offers to the user from its native speed- an average of 85 Mbps in the US- to a speed 

less than 15 Mbps. 48 This would raise serious false advertising issues. 

So there is clearly more to the speed at which web pages load than the service provided 

by ISPs. Other factors include the size and complexity of web pages themselves, because pages 

must be processed by browsers before they can be seen. Mozilla Firefox has proved that simply 

re-arranging web page content can cut load time in half.49 The reason for this is that ads are 

slower to load than native content. 

Content Delivery Networks (CONs) such as Akamai, Amazon AWS, and Fastly also make 

web pages load faster than they would from a single web server. In fact, speeding up web sites 

is the fundamental value proposition for CONs. It's worth noting that very large companies 

operate their own CONs. Each of America's five largest companies by market cap- Apple, 

Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon -operates its own CON as well as its own large scale 

IP network ("pipes"). 

of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, "2013 Measuring Broadband 

America: February Report," Measuring Broadband America (Washington, DC: Federal Communications 

Commission, February 2013), http:/ /transition. fcc.gov I cgb/ measuri ngbroadbandreport/20 13/Measu ringBroadband-America-feb-2013.pdf; FCC Office of Engineering and Technology and Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, "Measuring Broadband America- 2014," Measuring Broadband America (Washington, DC: Federal 

Communications Commission, 2014), http:/ /www.fcc.gov/reports/ measuring-broadband-america-2014; FCC's 

Office of Engineering and Technology, "Measuring Broadband America Fixed Report- 2015," Federal 

Communications Commission, December 22, 2015, https:ffwww.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuringbroadband-america/measuring-broadband-america-2015; FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology, "Measuring 

Fixed Broadband Report- 2016," Federal Communications Commission, September 29, 2016, 

https:/ /www. fcc.gov I reports-resea rch/reports/m easuri ng-broadband-a m erica/m easuring-fixed-broadbandreport-2016. 

48 "United States's Mobile and Broadband Internet Speeds," Speedtest Global Index, accessed April10, 

2018, http:/ /www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-states#fixed. 49 Richard Bennett, "The Firefox Fast Lane," High Tech Forum (blog), December 21, 2017, 

http:/ /hightechforu m .o rg/the-firefox-fast-lane/. 

36 
50 


31393.037

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Advertising also has a significant effect on the speed at which webpages load. Many ad 

networks- such as Google- rely on real-time auctions to sell ads, and these auctions 

sometimes take more time than they do at others. Web pages, especially commercial ones, 

tend to include tracking by a variety of parties (most commonly Google and Face book) that 

requires the execution of code while the page is loading. Executing this code requires CPU 

resources in the user's computer; this is why pages load faster when we upgrade our laptops 

and mobile devicesso 

Consequently, "fast lane" services worthy of the name would not consist of high-speed 

data pipes within ISP networks. Rather, they would be comprised of fast CDN web servers 

located close to ISP networks or even inside them, as many are- and pages free of 

advertising, tracking, and auto-play videos. 

Hence, advocates who insist that optimization must be banned in order to protect free 

speech have failed to analyze the issue correctly. And despite the absence of benefit to the web 

from optimization, the practice is extremely useful- and even necessary- to the host of nonweb applications that exist on the Internet today and will exist tomorrow. 

What about Innovation? 

The great myth about innovation stresses the lone inventor cobbling together a better 

mousetrap in a dorm room. While this is sometimes the case, the majority of significant 

innovations and inventions are made by large firms and well-funded startups. Bell Labs, for 

50 I recommend the use of the "Ghostery" plugin for seeing the impact of trackers on web page tracking 

and performance; see https:/ /www.ghostery.com/ 

37 
51 


31393.038

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

example, created the integrated circuit, fiber-optic communications, the Unix operating system, 

and the C programming language; the microprocessor was devised by Texas Instruments and 

Intel Corporation; the Internet was designed by researchers funded by the US Department of 

Defense; the Google search algorithm was developed by recipients of National Science 

Foundation (NSF) grants working in a well-equipped Stanford University lab; and the SPDY and 

QUIC protocols that enable web pages to load faster were devised by Google within the last six 

years. While 2016 was a down year for investment in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, venture 

capital flow for the year is estimated at $69.1 billion in the US alone.51 

Consequently, the first question for potential innovations in the Internet ecosystem is 

whether the necessary capabilities are available to entrepreneurs at any price. If an innovation 

cannot be done on the networks of the day, it will obviously not be done. 

The Internet has proved to have something of an affinity for consolidation. It has 

spawned an effective duopoly of Google and Facebook in the advertising market, for example. 

Similarly, single firms dominate the markets for search, Internet retail, social networking, 

mobile apps marketplaces, desktop operating systems, and video streaming. 52 The dominant 

positions maintained by America's five most valuable companies Apple, Facebook, Alphabet 

(Google), Microsoft, and Amazon- are protected by the private content delivery networks 

owned by each ofthese firms. 

51 "After Peaking in 2015, Venture Investment Activity Normalizes in 2016, According to Pitch Book," 

NVCA, accessed April13, 2018, https://nvca.org/pressreleases/peaking-2015-venture-investment-activitynormalizes-2016-accord i ng-pitch book -nvca-ventu re-monitor I. 52 Richard Bennett, "Internet Monopoly Platform Crisis," High Tech Forum (blog), October 26, 2017, 

http:/ /hightechforum.org/internet-monopoly-platform-crisis/. 

38 
52 


31393.039

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Facebook, for example has two billion users. A would-be competitor to this firm would 

need to reach similar scale because the value proposition of a social network is its ability to 

connect us to others. Hosting content and facilitating communication between two billion users 

requires enormous investment, outstripping the capacity of even our rich venture capital 

establishment. But would-be competitors may boot-strap their way to success by using 

commercial CDNs such as Akamai and Cloudflare, keeping costs in rough alignment with 

business growth and then gradually replacing CDN contracts with private investment, as Netflix 

did. 

But the CON model only works for applications that don't require real-time 

communication. Real-time applications such as voice and video conferencing rely on entirely 

separate networks- such as Cisco's Webex and the VoiP exchanges- that bypass the 

constraints of the public Internet. Real-time networks practice a form of admission control and 

strict internal management to guarantee low latency delivery across large portions of the 

planet. 

Building networks of the size and scale of Webex is not practical for small 

entrepreneurs. And prices are high because there is limited competition for such services. A 

much more efficient technical and economic model would allow real-time startups to contract 

directly with ISPs for low-delay transport to ISP customers, in much the same way that firms 

purchase Business Data Services (BDS). But it's essential to allow entrepreneurs to reach 

potential customers who are not users of BDS. The public Internet is available to ordinary users 

at relatively low prices because the grade of service required by popular applications such as 

Netflix and Facebook is relatively low. 

39 
53 


31393.040

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Upgrading to higher quality services increases costs to ISPs. Ideally, these would be 

borne by users rather than startups. But it's extremely difficult to persuade users to upgrade to 

a higher service grade to run an application with which they have no experience. Consequently, 

it's sensible to allow third parties to purchase upgrades on behalf of potential customers so that 

they an appreciate the value of new services for gaming, video communication, augmented 

reality, virtual reality, and even holographic conferencing. 

These applications are a poor fit to the service model of today's Internet, but they 

probably do represent the future of electronic communications. That future depends on 

regulators not strangling the baby in the cradle, however. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

The "traditional" Internet as understood by policymakers (and many senior 

technologists no longer involved in day to day network engineering and operations)- an endto-end system organized around a common backbone- is a thing of the past. Today's Internet 

is simply the universal network for all forms of electronic communication. Application service 

networks are often directly connected to last mile networks, and the role of transit and 

backbones has diminished, making old notions of "tier 1" and "tier 2" networks moot. To meet 

the new demands, the Internet has developed a new architecture consisting of content delivery 

networks, large private networks, parallel networks, and multiply-connected networks. 

Traditional protocols such as HTTP 1.1 and TCP have given way to SPDY /2 and QUIC, and 

traditional algorithms such as RED have given way to CoDe I and PIE. The Internet is now 

entrusted with applications ranging from cat videos to safety-of-life first responder networks. 

40 
54 


31393.041

Testimony of Richard Bennett on Internet Optimization 

Regulators must display wisdom by recognizing the new mandates and the new 

technologies. Trying to stuff the Internet back into the traditional mold is simply an exercise in 

futility. Internet Service Providers, innovators, regulators, and dominant (for the moment) 

service providers have always worked together according to the so-called "Internet model" of 

multi-stakeholder governance. This model has generally worked, and we should continue to 

rely on it. 

Abandoning the multi-stakeholder model in favor of a top-down, micromanagement 

model assumes that regulators will be possessed not just of the wisdom born of experience but 

that they will indeed be endowed with god-like power to see far into the future. It's best for 

policy makers to limit the scope of regulatory power to the range of affairs that can be 

performed by mere human beings. 

It's perfectly fine for regulators to permit first and sanction only in the presence of 

meaningful evidence of harm. The alternative stifles new technologies and applications before 

we've had the opportunity to test them. That is not the path to a better tomorrow. 

41 
55 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

STATEMENT OF PETER RYSAVY 

Mr. RYSAVY. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and 

other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. 

I am president of Rysavy Research, an analyst in the wireless industry with more than 25 years of experience. When I started, the 

hot new wireless technology was 1G. 

I am an expert in wireless technology. I’ve worked with many 

dozens of firms and have published more than 175 reports and articles. My testimony is on 5G. 

5G will start to be deployed as early as this year—end of this 

year—and will become the dominant wireless technology through 

the 2020s. It is being designed and developed by organizations, individuals from all over the world, and will employ sophisticated 

mechanisms to handle different kinds of traffic flows. 

This is critical because 5G is being designed to address a much 

wider range of use cases than prior generations of technology. 

Many of the applications envisioned for 5G are of a control nature, and that means they need minimal delay and high reliability. 

These types of applications, whether it’s controlling drones in 

real time or robots or sending emergency messages to autonomous 

vehicles, will depend on traffic prioritization. 

5G’s reliance on traffic prioritization should not be viewed as 

problematic for internet traffic that will not be prioritized. Traffic 

differentiation and prioritization is not a zero sum game. 

You can prioritize certain traffic flows without adversely affecting other users’ applications. The goal in managing network traffic 

is to maximize the quality of experience across the entire subscriber base. 

5G needs QoS management not only for traffic prioritization to 

support mission critical applications but also enable a fundamental 

architectural component called network slicing. 

Again, 5G is being designed and developed for cellular operators 

to deploy on a global basis. Network slicing, implemented through 

virtualization, will allow an operator to provide different services 

with different performance characteristics customized for the specific use cases involved, such as those needing low latency enhanced reliability. 

Even with new spectrum and expected peak throughputs that 

will exceed a gigabit per second, 5G networks will still have to 

manage latency, reliability, massive numbers of connections, and a 

mix of stationary and mobile users. 

Capacity alone is not the solution. The United States has assumed global leadership in 4G. It enjoys deep LTE 4G penetration, 

leading smartphone platforms and the vibrant application ecosystem. But globally, countries and companies are investing in and 

concentrating on what will come next with 5G. 

Constraining 5G with rules that restrict traffic management necessary for the traffic flows anticipated with 5G applications could 

threaten U.S. leadership in mobile technology and deployment. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rysavy follows:] 

56 


31393.042

Testimony of Peter Rysavy 

President, Rysavy Research 

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing on "From Core to Edge: Perspective on Internet Prioritization" 

April 17, 2018 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and other distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. 

Introduction 

My name is Peter Rysavy, and I am president of Rysavy Research, an analyst in the 

wireless industry with more than twenty-five years of experience. I am a leading 

expert in wireless technology, having worked with many dozens of firms and having 

published more than 175 reports and articles. 

SG will employ sophisticated mechanisms to handle different kinds of traffic flows. This 

is critical because SG will address a wider range of use cases than prior technology 

generations, such as 3G and 4G. Many of the applications envisioned for SG are of a 

control nature, which means they need minimal delay and high reliability. These 

applications will therefore depend on traffic prioritization. 

But SG's reliance on traffic prioritization should not be viewed as problematic for 

Internet traffic that will not be prioritized. Traffic differentiation and prioritization is 

not a zero-sum game. Selective application of quality-of-service increases the quality 

of experience across the subscriber base. 

SG needs QoS management, not only for traffic prioritization to support missioncritical applications, but also to enable a fundamental capability in its architecture: 

network slicing. Network slicing, implemented through virtualization, will allow an 

operator to provide different services with different performance characteristics to 

address specific use cases that require low latency and enhanced reliability. 

Even with access to new spectrum and expected peak throughputs that will exceed 1 

Gbps, SG networks will be required to manage latency, reliability, massive numbers of 

connections, and a mix of stationary and mobile users. 

The United States has assumed global leadership in 4G and enjoys deep LTE 

penetration, leading smartphone platforms, and a vibrant application ecosystem. But 

globally, countries and companies are investing in and concentrating on what will 

come next with SG. Constraining SG with rules that restrict traffic management 

necessary for the traffic flows anticipated with SG applications could threaten US 

leadership in mobile technology and deployment. 

Background Details 

The millions of mobile applications already transforming the world are just the dawn of 

the next frontier in mobile broadband-humanity has barely begun exploiting the full 

potential of wireless technology. The Internet of Things, which will interconnect 

objects to increase their utility and efficiency, will account for tens of billions of new 

connections by next decade. IoT's potential is limited only by imagination; use cases 

Rysavy Research, LLC, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
57 


31393.043

include self-driving cars with pre-crash sensing and mitigation, health biometric 

sensing and response, telemedicine, and proactive monitoring of critical physical 

infrastructure such as transmission lines. 

What many of these new applications have in common are stringent data 

communication requirements, such as high reliability or minimal delay. This is true 

even for use cases without particularly onerous bandwidth demands. For example, a 

self-driving car or autonomous robot may need only a small amount of data, but it 

might have to receive that data within a few thousandths of a second. In contrast, a 

user watching a movie is not negatively affected if the video stream leaves the server 

a second earlier, with no interruption to the viewing experience. 

How Quality-of-Service and Prioritization Work 

Engineers have designed controls for how packets flow between base stations and 

users over the radio interface. Traffic-flow parameters include whether bit rates are 

guaranteed, their priority relative to other traffic flows, the maximum amount of 

packet delay that can be tolerated by the traffic in question, and the extent of 

permissible packet loss. LTE specifications define thirteen quality-class identifiers, 

each with unique parameters.' Voice over LTE (VeLTE), which is based on voice-overIP protocols, uses these QoS mechanisms to provide carrier-grade voice service. 

Without this control, an LTE voice call would disintegrate if surrounding users were 

consuming large amounts of data-the network prioritizes voice as higher priority than 

data. The same prioritization of voice over data also happens in 2G and 3G networks. 

Figure 1 shows how, in a QoS-enabled network, the network may schedule higherurgency packets to transmit first, ahead of those with lower urgency. 

1 For details about LTE QoS, refer to 3GPP TS 23.203. Technical Specification Group Services and System 

Aspects; Policy and charging control architecture, available at 

http://www.3gpp.org/DynaReport/23203.htm. Specifically, see Table 6.1.7, "Standardized QCI 

characteristics." 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
58 


31393.044

Figure 1: Transmission of Packets According to Their Urgency in a QoS-Enabled Network 

Queued Incoming 

Packets 

Rysavy Research 

Transmitted 

Packets 

Higher-urgency Packets Scheduled to Transmit First 

lower-Urgency Packet Transmitted Next 

SG will employ similar, yet more sophisticated, mechanisms to handle different kinds 

of traffic flows. This is critical because engineers are designing SG for a wider range of 

use cases than prior technology generations, such as 3G and 4G. As described below, 

SG will employ a "network slicing" architecture that will depend heavily on QoS 

management. Many of the applications envisioned for SG are of a control nature, 

which means they need minimal delay and high reliability. 

Table 1 lists some typical applications and their QoS requirements. 

Table 1: Examples of Applications and QoS Requirements 

Applicatiot:t R,equirements . 

Speech Guaranteed bit rate, low delay, but can tolerate some packet 

loss. 

Internet of Things Varying requirements depending on use case, but missioncritical applications will require low error rate and low delay. 

Streaming (music, High throughput, but can tolerate delay and some packet 

video) loss. 

Health and medicine Throughput-rate requirements vary. High priority for critical 

health applications. 

Autonomous High throughput and low delay, with low packet loss. 

vehicles 

Video conferencing High average throughput, low delay, can tolerate some 

and telepresence packet loss on video but less on voice. 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
59 


31393.045

Application Requirements 

Operating system or Can run in the background over an extended period, so QoS 

application update requirements are minimal. 

Web browsing High average throughput, low error rate, can tolerate slight 

delay. 

Current wireless networks assign equal priority to all third-party application traffic, 

regardless of the application type. An analogy is a freeway on which fast-moving cars 

and slow-moving trucks use all lanes equally. The Information Technology & 

Innovation Foundation (ITIF) states in a report, "To date, we have been able to 

muddle through with this 'best-effort' system, but many of the exciting innovations 

around the corner will increasingly require reliable low-latency connections. And while 

some applications affirmatively need prioritization or some kind of differentiation, 

other applications can easily tolerate delay or jitter. "2 

The goal of intelligent traffic prioritization is to maximize the quality of experience 

across the largest number of users and application types possible, allocating higher 

priority for those applications that need it while not adversely affecting those that do 

not. 

As ITIF states, "Traffic differentiation simply is not a zero-sum game." Because 

applications have varying quality requirements, selective application of QoS results in 

higher average quality of experience across the subscriber base. The Broadband 

Internet Technical Advisory Group agrees, stating, "For example, some differentiation 

techniques improve the Quality of Service (QoS) or Quality of Experience (QoE) for 

particular applications or classes of applications without negatively impacting the QoE 

for other applications or classes of applications. "3 

2 Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Crafting a Grand Bargain Alternative to Title /1: Net 

Neutrality with Net Adoption, October 2015. Available at http://www2.itif.org/2015-alternative-title-ii.pdf. 

' Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group, Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic, October 2015. 

Available at http:l/www.bitag.org/documents/BITAG - Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic. pdf. 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
60 


31393.046

Differentiation is not a 

zero-sum game. Selective 

application of QoS 

increases the quality of 

experience across the 

subscriber base. 

Figure 2 shows how a SG wireless network could use QoS management to allocate 

different priorities to different traffic flows based on their urgency. 

Figure 2: Radio Resource Management in a Wireless Network 

SG (or LTE} 

Radio Channel, 11Pipe}n 

Carrying 

Multiple 

Traffic Flows 

Other Traffic Flows 

Prioritized traffic: 

• Enables many new 

use cases • Can be deployed to 

not adversely affect 

other users 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
61 


31393.047

SG Use-Case Models Depend on Ability to Provide QoS 

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the organization charged with 

setting SG objectives and approving final, technical standards for how SG networks 

interface with one another and enabled devices. The ITU's recommendation M.2083-04 

defines use cases using the following model. 

Figure 3: ITU SG Use-Case Model 

Massive 

Machine Type 

Smart 

Cities 

Enhanced Mobile 

Broadband 

Building 

Industry 

Automation 

Rysavy Research 

Ultra-Reliable and 

Low-Latency 

Enhanced mobile broadband is faster Internet, a turbo-charged version of today's LTEAdvanced networks. "Massive machine type" refers to millions of sensors and controls 

placed throughout cities, homes, and businesses to improve energy efficiency, 

transportation, and other logistics. But it is the new ultra-reliable and low-latency 

category, also referred to as mission critical, that opens cellular networks to 

capabilities never before possible, such as advanced industry automation and 

autonomous vehicles. This category of SG application will depend on the ability to 

deploy traffic prioritization. 

Developers expect response times of less than a millisecond with 5G, ten times lower 

than with LTE, in which 10 msec latencies are typical. But unprioritized and competing 

with other traffic, the latency (round-trip time in the network) can be ten times 

higher, for example, 100 msec. At 60 miles per hour, a car travels nine feet in 100 

msec versus only one inch in 1 msec. In a scenario of an intelligent highway warning a 

car of a pedestrian on the road at a blind curve, that could be the difference between 

life and death. 

4 Available at http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-M.2083-0-201509-I 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
62 


31393.048

SG Networking Slicing and QoS Management 

SG needs QoS management, not only for traffic prioritization to support missioncritical applications, but also to enable a fundamental capability in its architecture: 

network slicing. Network slicing, implemented through virtualization, will allow an 

operator to provide different services with different performance characteristics to 

address specific use cases. Each network slice operates as an independent, virtualized 

version of the network. For an application, the network slice is the only network it 

sees. The other slices, to which the customer is not subscribed, are invisible and 

inaccessible. The advantage of this architecture is that the operator can create slices 

that are fine-tuned for specific use cases. One slice could target autonomous vehicles, 

another enhanced mobile broadband, another low-throughput loT sensors, and so on. 

Figure 4 shows the network slicing architecture, with devices having access to only the 

slice(s) for which they have a subscription. Each slice has radio resources allocated, 

with specific QoS characteristics. Within the core network, virtualized core network 

functions support each slice and provide connections to external networks. 

Figure 4: SG Network Slicing Architecture 

Radio Re-sources Allocate-d 

Across Slices, Each with 

Spedfic QoS Characteristics 

Virtualized Core-Network 

FunctionsSupport Each Slice 

A recent report on network slicing from SG Americas lists the following examples of 

slices: serving a utility company, servicing remote control for a factory, serving a 

virtual operator, and optimizing for streaming video. 5 Operators will be able to 

provision devices through account configuration so the devices can access specific 

slices. For consumers, one slice might be for best-effort, unprioritized Web browsing 

5 SG Americas, Network Slicing for 5G Networks & Services, November 2016. Available at: 

http://www.Sgamericas.org/files/3214/7975/0104/SG Americas Network Slicing 11.21 Final.pdf. 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
63 


31393.049

while another slice could support prioritized telepresence that needs low latency and 

high bandwidth. 

An example of an application using network slicing is a patient wearing body sensors 

that monitor a heart condition. The sensors continually report vital stats and GPS 

location to a medical application server, which in turn analyzes the data in real time, 

taking into account the patient's medications and medical history. Proper analysis 

depends on receiving accurate data regularly and without interruption-even if the 

network is congested because a half-dozen people are streaming video while on the 

same bus as the patient. 

To support this application, the operator could provide a network slice customized for 

medical communications, perhaps one in which throughput rates are modest but the 

need for reliability and low-latency is high. In other words, the virtualized network 

that the medical application accesses via the network slice is optimized for the specific 

needs of health monitoring. In the event of a health event requiring treatment, 

detected either by the user's monitoring equipment or by the server using more 

sophisticated data analysis, the system advises the user to see a doctor. If the 

situation is critical, the monitoring equipment or server could summon an ambulance. 

Figure 5: Medical Monitoring EKample 

Communications between 

smartphone and server is via 

the Internet (Broadband 

Internet Access Service) 

I 

1 (((,1)) 

y.~__.,___ 

User account has access to 

prioritized medical data 

communications service 

Internet 

Rysavy Research 

Even with access to new spectrum and expected peak throughputs that will exceed 1 

Gbps, SG networks will be required to manage latency, reliability, massive numbers of 

connections, and a mix of stationary and mobile users. Fundamental to this task will 

be managing QoS. Different slices will have different QoS requirements, inherently 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
64 


31393.050

invoking traffic management within each slice. As the SG Americas paper states, "Each 

slice is defined to meet different service/application requirements, which are 

represented in a certain QoS level. A QoS level can be defined by certain performance 

descriptors such as delay, jitter, packet loss and throughput." In addition, the amount 

of radio and network resources to apply to each slice, determined based on demand 

across all slices, will require QoS management. 

Conclusion 

The communications requirements of today's mobile network applications span a huge 

range. One application may need high throughput but can tolerate significant delay. 

Another may need to send only a small number of bits, but these must traverse the 

network with minimal delay. Future Internet of Things innovations, from intelligent 

highways to smart-grid monitoring, will only increase the rich variety of application 

diversity. QoS mechanisms in 4G, and those under development for SG, provide for 

application developers and operators to specify needs and for the network to 

dynamically accommodate them. 

Developers and operators have an incentive to enable a diverse range of services, and 

empowering them to optimize networks to meet competing needs will result in the 

highest possible quality of experience for the largest number of users. The business 

case for massive SG investment can only be made by being able to support all 

potential applications. 

The U.S. wireless industry is at a critical juncture. The United States has assumed 

global leadership in 4G and enjoys deep LTE penetration, leading smartphone 

platforms, and a vibrant application ecosystem. But globally, countries and companies 

are investing in and concentrating on what will come next with SG. Constraining SG 

with rules that unnecessarily undermine its potential would harm the United States' 

ability to lead the world in SG technologies and deployment. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Rysavy, President, Rysavy Research 

April 13, 2018 

Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, PO Box 680, Hood River, OR 97031 
65 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Schroeder, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and I will give 

you a warning at 30 seconds. How’s that? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL W. SCHROEDER 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Thank you very much. Good morning. I think 

the microphone is on. 

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, members of the subcommittee. 

Very pleased to be with you this morning. My name is Paul Schroeder, and I am here on behalf of Aira, a San Diego-based technology 

company. 

Our groundbreaking service provides instant access to visual information for people who are blind or visually impaired. As such, 

our service relies on the transmission of streaming video from the 

network edge through mobile up to the internet without interruption at high speeds to ensure ultra-low latency connection between 

the blind individual and the remotely located sighted assistant who 

is providing information based on the video feed. 

We leverage mobile communications as well as innovative technologies such as the smart glasses that I am wearing, and yes, 

there is a camera in the middle of these glasses that is connected 

to an agent as we speak. We also use GPS and other sensors, augmented reality, and are incorporating machine learning. 

Besides the technology, Aira’s success really depends on our 

human agents. They are highly trained, they are paid, they are 

held to a confidentiality requirement, and they do undergo background checks before they serve as an agent. 

Our customers—we call them explorers—pay for access to a fixed 

number of minutes per month. We are, though, working with agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that 

blind veterans have access to this critical service. 

I also want to note that Congressman Peters and Congressman 

Rutherford have been very helpful in leading a bipartisan effort to 

ensure that the VA is paying attention to these new technologies. 

This week, Aira has designated the congressional office buildings 

as free Aira zones. This was a choice we made because there is a 

large group of individuals who are blind visiting this week, and we 

know that this will help them navigate the halls of Congress more 

effectively. 

We encourage others to do this, and I do want to note for Chairman Blackburn, your home State airport of Memphis was the first 

one to join the Aira Airport Network, paying for the minutes of 

Aira users at Memphis airport in order to get around the airports 

more effectively. 

Yesterday, two of our Aira explorers ran the Boston Marathon 

using Aira. Now, most of us, blind or sighted, probably aren’t going 

to run a marathon. But the test of a low-latency available network 

was put to the test at the marathon, and many of us will have opportunities to test that in other environments, for example, 

hustling through an airport trying to find the gate for our airplane, 

checking out bus signs in a crowded bus garage to figure out the 

one that we need, quickly looking at a chart or slide in a meeting 

or a classroom, or maybe a congressional hearing, in order to get 

the information from that slide as a person who’s blind, putting inVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
66 

formation into these kiosks that are popping up everywhere in 

order to order or confirm a reservation, and, of course, reading a 

medication label to ensure that we are actually taking the right 

medication. 

For those of us who are blind or visually impaired using Aira, we 

need instant access to this information. We need a network that is 

reliable and a network that has low latency, because our video is 

able to stream upward from the mobile edge. 

We are particularly pleased to note our partner AT&T has offered dynamic traffic management to Aira to ensure that our users 

have the low-latency network and reliable connectivity that they 

need and our agents need as well. 

I am pleased to say this morning I am joined by an agent—Amy, 

are you there? 

AGENT. I am. Good morning, Paul. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Oh, I left the speaker by the phone. Do you 

want to do a very quick description of the room, please? 

AGENT. Absolutely. I see three rows of a desk and that have 

white wood on the bottom of them and then a darker mahogany on 

the top of the desk and they are separated by an aisle in the middle, and the very back of the room has a single panel of speakers. 

I see the chairwoman is in the very middle of the room. A gentleman to her left is waving at me. 

[Laughter.] 

AGENT. American flags that are flanking the center—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thirty seconds. 

AGENT [continuing]. Three windows directly across—— 

Mr. SCHROEDER. I am going to have you hold up, and we’ll come 

back to you if there’s a question for the agent. 

We are investing in artificial intelligence as well so that we can 

bring automation to our service, and we are, of course, looking forward to the emergence of 5G, which will help our low-latency network and service be even stronger. 

Finally, I just want to say we encourage policymakers to support 

policies and programs that will promote and expand reliable access 

to visual information such as what Aira is providing as a right to 

those of us who are blind or visually impaired. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schroeder follows:] 

67 


31393.051

STATEMENT 

Presented by Paul W Schroeder 

Director, Public Policy and Strategic Alliances 

Aira Tech Corp. 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Hearing "From Core to Edge: Perspective on Prioritization. " 

Aprill7, 2018 
68 


31393.052

Summary 

Aira provides people who are blind or low vision with instant access to visual and 

environmental information, whenever and wherever users request it. Aira leverages the power of 

mobile communications- together with innovative technologies (such as smart glasses, 

Augmented Reality, machine learning, geolocation, and sensors) and professionally-trained 

human agents. 

Founded in San Diego in 2015, Aira has secured venture funding of over $15 million. 

The service was launched for consumer subscription in April 2017. Further information, 

including videos demonstrating Aira, can be found at our website https://www.aira.io. 

As a cloud-based service, Aira relies on mobile communications networks as well as the 

Internet. Video and other sensor data is transmitted directly from the Aira user's smart glasses 

through a mobile network to an Aira agent's dashboard. As a cell-based service, Aira is widely 

available, but it requires a robust network with dependable connectivity. AT &T's Dynamic 

Traffic Management (DTM) ensures that our users have low latency and robust connectivity for 

the transmission of streaming video on which our agents rely to provide guidance and support. 

Aira has invested in artificial intelligence to support automated services. We recently 

launched our new Horizon product with an AI-agcnt, "Hey Chloe'M," and we will expand her 

capabilities. A ira looks forward to leveraging the capabilities of emerging 5G networks to 

support our vision of creating smart communities that enable a level playing field for people of 

all abilities. 

We encourage policymakers and regulators to support policies and programs which 

promote and expand reliable access to visual information as a right for individuals who are blind 

or visually impaired. 
69 


31393.053

Introduction 

My name is Paul W. Schroeder and I serve as Director of Public Policy and Strategic 

Alliances for Aira Tech Corp. I am pleased to provide testimony which describes our 

groundbreaking service that provides unprecedented access to visual information for people with 

blindness or visual impairment. I lead our public-sector engagement as well as providing 

guidance regarding partnerships with agencies and organizations serving people with disabilities. 

Our service is relevant for this Subcommittee hearing because our service relies on the 

transmission of streaming video, without interruption, at sufficient upload speeds to ensure a 

low-latency connection between a blind individual and the remotely located sighted assistant 

who is providing information. 

Aira develops transformative technology that provides greater information and 

independence to those with vision loss by connecting them immediately via streaming video to a 

network of professional Agents. The start-up is on a mission to provide people who are blind or 

low vision with instant access to visual and environmental information, whenever and wherever 

users request it. Aira provides this service by leveraging the power of mobile communicationstogether with innovative technologies (such as smart glasses, Augmented Reality, machine 

learning, geolocation, and sensors) and professionally trained human agents. Aira users, just by 

tapping a button on the A ira app, connect within seconds to a network of distributed, trained 

agents who help blind people gain immediate and unprecedented access to information and 

assistance in real time. Our agents are carefully screened, trained, and compensated for their 

work. They are also held to a strict confidentiality requirement and they undergo detailed 

background checks. 
70 


31393.054

Founded in San Diego in 2015, Aira has secured venture funding of over $15 million. 

The service was launched for consumer subscription in April 2017. 

Our customers (whom we call Explorers) use the service to pursue a variety of activities 

ranging from navigating busy city streets and airports, to reviewing printed material, catching 

public transportation, recognizing and interacting with colleagues in the workplace and 

classroom, obtaining real-time assistance at work and home, successfully completing job 

applications, shopping, pursuing recreation endeavors, and literally traveling the globe. Further 

information, including videos demonstrating Aira, can be found at our website 

https://www.aira.io. 

Since launch, we have achieved significant milestones. Below are some service 

accomplishment metrics. 

• I million minutes used 

• I 00,000 sessions initiated 

• 25,000 work-related tasks completed 

• 100 agents located across 30 states 

• 1500 users ranging in age from 18 to 93 (51% men and 49% women) 

100 college campuses offering scholarships covering a full school year of A ira service 

• Free Aira assistance for all tasks and activities related to job-seeking and employment 

Company Values 

Suman Kanuganti, CEO and co-founder of Aira, articulated three core values that guide 

the company. They are based on the understanding that the real challenge with blindness isn't the 

loss of sight. It is the loss of immediate access to visual and environmental information. 
71 


31393.055

1. Aira is not a cure for blindness or low vision. It is designed to address the lack of 

immediate access to visual and environmental information. 

2. Aira's culture and creative drive is centered on thinking like a set of eyes rather than 

thinking like a brain. It is a simple yet powerful concept. The person receiving the 

information decides what to do with it. We are the eyes. Not the brain. 

3. Aira's services are enabled by technology but delivered through human-to-human 

interactions, a partnership of equals. 

At its heart, Aira is about information. It is about eliminating that gap in information that a 

person with blindness has and that inhibits the ability to make informed choices. And it is about 

shrinking the time it takes for a person to get that information. 

Targeting Employment 

Recognizing the need for additional efforts to enable people who are blind to pursue 

employment, Aira recently announced that all activities related to preparing for and finding a job 

would be free to our users. Aira is also working with the public and private vocational 

rehabilitation system, as well as employers, to support access to visual information in the 

workplace. One quarter of the service minutes we provide are tied to employment-related 

activities. More information about this initiative can be found at https://go.aira.io/employment. 

Partnership with AT&T and the Blindness Community 

Aira is proud to have the support and partnership of AT&T as our primary source for 

wireless connectivity, including AT&T' s Dynamic Traffic Management (DTM) solution. 

AT&T's Foundry for Connected Health is working with Aira on several projects including 

development and testing of a solution designed to help people who are blind or have low vision 

reliably access medication labels and information. This is one of the most requested features 
72 


31393.056

among Aira's customers. The solution will utilize "Hey ChloeTM," Aira's new artificial 

intelligence (AI) platform, to correctly identify prescriptions and over-the-counter medications. 

To support educational opportunities, AT&T, Aira and the National Federation of the Blind 

(NFB) joined forces to make the transition to college easier for 100 blind students by giving 

them Aira smart glasses. AT&T funded the innovative back-to-school program. 

Aira also enjoys a close partnership with leading organizations in the vision loss 

community. The American Council of the Blind, The American Foundation for the Blind, the 

National Federation of the Blind and Blinded Veterans Association are Aira partners and 

advisors. 

Communications Networks 

As a cloud-based service, Aira relies on both mobile communications networks and the 

Internet. Live video, along with GPS and other sensor data, is transmitted directly from the Aira 

user's smart glasses through a mobile network to an Aira agent's dashboard. The sophisticated 

dashboard is built to support an augmented reality context combining live data streams and 

interaction capabilities. Working from their dashboard, Aira's agents can access myriad sources 

of information the video streaming from the explorer's glasses or smartphone, along with GPS 

and other sensor data, and of course audio. The agent can also leverage web-based maps, 

transportation routes/schedules, and other online information to assist our explorers in virtually 

any activity). 

As a mobile and Internet-based service, Aira is designed to be widely available, 

supporting our Explorers/ need for access to visual information anywhere, at any time. A robust 

network with dependable connectivity is an absolute requirement. Aira requires a minimum 

variable bit rate (VBR) transmission of 720 Kbps to 1 Mbps to deliver 640x480 video 
73 


31393.057

resolution at 15fps. However, a more effective result requires an optimal (VBR) of 2-4 

Mbps to deliver 1280x720 resolution at 30fps. For the most reliable data feed, we need 

constant bit rate. AT&T's DTM has been key in ensuring that our users have ultra-low latency 

and robust mobile connectivity for the transmission of streaming video on which our agents rely 

to provide guidance and support with visual tasks. Securing efficient and reliable access to 

information instantly, anywhere and anytime is essential. Delays of more than a few milliseconds 

would severely limit the value of the service. Using priority network services provided by AT&T, we 

record only 80 milliseconds of latency, which is ncar real time, ensuring better reliability and consistent 

bandwidth availability for transmission of high-quality video streaming. 

Service Models 

Aira launched as a direct-to-consumer subscription service. Our Explorers pay for access 

to a fixed number of minutes of service per month. We have expended considerable effort to 

work with agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure that our nation's 

veterans who lost their sight in service to our country can continue to access visual information 

and remain independent and productive. We are also reaching out to veteran's service 

organizations to recruit veterans with disabilities to serve as agents, creating opportunities for 

veterans to assist their fellow veterans. Aira is also working with vocational rehabilitation 

providers and encouraging other third-party payers to include coverage so that consumers with 

limited incomes can make use of the service. 

More recently, Aira launched a site-access program to allow public facilities (such as 

airports or transit stations), retail centers, government facilities, and other service-providing 

agencies to cover the cost of Aira service within their locations. This "public Aira" provides 
74 


31393.058

access to the visual information needed to support independent navigation by individuals with 

vision loss. 

Through these and other models, Aira is working to sustain and expand our support for 

individuals with vision loss. We are also investigating services to other disability groups as well. 

Innovation 

From our inception, Aira has invested in engineering and other technical expertise to 

build our innovative service. Reliability and ease-of-use are critical as arc the efficiency and 

quality of the video and audio connection. Because we understand that "hands-free" access is 

essential, we deploy video camera-equipped smart glasses to facilitate the connection from 

Explorer to agent. Initially, we used existing technology. However, Aira recently launched our 

Horizon hardware, which features smart glasses designed by Aira and built in the United States, 

largely by companies based near San Diego. These glasses provide a superior field of vision for 

the video camera and battery life that supports up to seven hours of continuous use. 

We have also continually updated the platform to provide new services, such as 

integration with ride-sharing entities Lyft and Uber. The work we are undertaking with AT&T to 

enhance access to prescription and medication information is another example. 

The "AI" in Aira's name signifies the importance of artificial intelligence to our platform. 

We have hired AI expertise and we are working with the most capable technology companies to 

deploy support for automated services in the A ira platform. We launched Horizon with AT-agent, 

"Hey ChloeTM" functionality, and we will expand her capabilities. 

To maximize AI functionality, the local device and cloud-based capacity must work in 

conjunction. While AI solutions can be developed to run on a smartphone device, AI scales 

better in a cloud-based environment because of the theoretically unlimited computing resources 
75 


31393.059

in the cloud. However, limited network capacity has meant that the performance of running AI 

locally is better than on the cloud. The weak medium here is the network. Fortunately, the 

emergence of the 50 network exponentially increases data transfers that will enable local devices 

to be powered by cloud-based support. Aira looks forward to the development of 50 networks 

which will fill a gap in today's technology to support our vision of creating smart communities 

that enable a level playing field for people of all abilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee. I look forward to 

discussing Aira, our technology and access to visual information. We encourage policymakers 

and regulators to support policies and programs which promote and expand reliable access to 

visual information as a right for individuals who arc blind or visually impaired. 
76 


31393.060

Aira Awards/Honors (Since 2015) 

--2018: Aira receives bronze medal as a finalist in the prestigious 2018 Edison Awards 

which recognizes the nation's top technology industry leaders, innovators and 

entrepreneurs who are driving innovation and new product development. 

--2018: Aira Co-founder and CEO, Suman Kanuganti named semi-finalist for Ernst & 

Young's Entrepreneur of the Year 2018 Award. Winner to be announced in May 

2018. 

--2018: Aira shortlisted for Global Mobile Award of the Mobile World Congress in 

Barcelona, Spain which recognizes the world's top innovators in mobile technology. 

2018: The publication, MedTech Boston names Aira as among the top 4 digital health 

startup companies using the Internet of Things (loT) to improve healthcare. 

--2017: The New York Times cites Aira as among the emerging tech startups that are 

using its powers for good in society, earning these companies the NY Times' 'Actually 

Good Tech Awards' for 2017. 

--2017: As further testament to Aira's groundbreaking technology, Smithsonian 

Magazine features Aira Co-founder and CEO, Suman Kanuganti as among the 9 

Innovators to Watch in 2018. 

--2017: Aira's partnership with Memphis International Airport-- in which this facility 

became the first airport to offer Aira's blind and low-vision users free access to Aira 

services while they travel through the complex-- is cited by USA Today as among the 

best new airport amenities of 2017. 

--2017: Selected as Startup of the Year by the Consumer Technology Association 

(CTA). The CTA is the consumer technology industry's leading proponent of innovation, 

technology and entrepreneurship. 

--2017: Named Finalist for Innovations in HealthcareTM ABBY Awards. 

--2017: The Medical Futurist, a leading healthcare tech publication, rated Aira as 

among the top nine augmented reality (AR) technology companies in the 
77 


31393.061

health/medical industry. It cited Aira's augmented reality-powered solutions that offer 

the blind and visually impaired the opportunity to live more independently. 

2017: Selected as Speaker/Presenter at the prestigious GSMA Mobile World 

Congress Conference (Barcelona, Spain) taking place in 2018. 

--2017: Aira named 'Best in Show" and nominated as "Best Tech" at the Mobile 

World Congress exhibition in Barcelona, Spain where Aira's new smart glasses, and the 

newly announced partnership with AT&T, were showcased. 

--2017: Aira named by PC Magazine as 'Best New Technology" at the international 

CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas. At CES, Engadget magazine also 

nominated Aira as finalist for the publication's 'Best of CES 2017'" Awards. 

2017: Aira named winner in the Consumer Technology Association Eureka Park 2016 

Accessibility Competition (Awarded at CES 2017). The Award recognizes innovations 

that have the potential for a positive impact on older adults and people with disabilities. 

2017: Named Winner of California State Fair's Champions of Technology Award (in 

the Project/Organization Category), recognizing Aira as a key innovator whose 

technology has direct benefit to Californians. 

2017: Aira Named Finalist in the 2017 Mobile World Congress International d-LAB 

Pilot Challenge in Barcelona, Spain. The competition recognizes outstanding mobile 

technologies who have particular potential in being integrated into Spanish and other 

foreign markets. 

2017: Suman receives San Diego Business Journal's 'Most Admired CEO Award'. 

The award recognizes local entrepreneurs for their outstanding leadership in driving 

their business while also making a significant impact on their companies and the San 

Diego community. 

2017: Aira Awarded Honorable Mention in FCC Chairman's AAA competition for 

Advancing Innovation in Accessibility Technology. In accepting the award, Aira was 

among key innovators in communications technology for the disabled who were 

honored by Ajit Pai, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Pai 

honored the innovators for being selected among the nation's best in the FCC 

Chairman's Awards for Advancement in Accessibility (or Chairman's AAA). 
78 


31393.062

--2016: Aira named a winner of San Diego CONNECT's prestigious 'Most Innovative 

New Products Awards' competition (in the Information Communications Technologies 

category). CONNECT is a premier accelerator in San Diego for highly innovative area 

companies in the technology and life sciences sectors. 

--2016: Aira is selected finalist in the Wall Street Journal's prestigious WSJDLive 

competition that showcases innovative startups globally. Aira was selected from 

among 400 applicants worldwide. 

--2016: Aira is selected a winner in the 2016 Red Herring Top 100 North American 

technology competition which honors some of the world's best high technology 

innovators, venture investors and business decision makers who are driving the 

economy. 

--2015: Aira selected "Best New Startup" at AWS (Amazon Web Services) loft Startup 

Pitch Event, San Francisco. 
79 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Wood, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW F. WOOD 

Mr. WOOD. Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here 

today to testify. 

Free Press is a nonpartisan nonprofit with 1.4 million members, 

and we were founded 15 years ago to elevate people’s voices in policy decisions that shape our media. 

Today, we believe that achieving racial justice and social justice 

require equitable access to technology and information. That’s why 

we work on net neutrality. 

We supported the strong rules recently and wrongly repealed by 

the FCC, and we support Congressman Doyle’s resolution to restore 

them, and we are not alone. 

Hundreds of members have cosponsored that resolution in the 

House and Senate. Thousands of businesses and organizations and 

State and local officials support it, too. 

Millions of people have made their voices heard, first at the FCC 

and then in these halls, opposing that repeal and calling on you to 

pass the CRA. 

That’s not surprising, because, as Mr. Doyle noted, poll after poll 

shows the net neutrality rules enjoy tremendous popular support 

across party lines. 

One poll last summer showed that 72 percent of Republicans 

supported the 2015 rules. Another taken before the FCC’s December vote found that 83 percent of all respondents oppose that repeal. 

Free Press supports restoring the entire 2015 order because we 

need more than three bright lines to preserve the open internet. 

We need FCC authority to prevent new forms of discrimination and 

also to address digital divides, protect privacy, and promote competition. 

Yet some people claim that paid prioritization bans are harmful 

and they say that ISPs should be able to charge new kinds of fees 

and that internet users and businesses would benefit from such 

new charges. 

They also say this would help with last-mile congestion without 

explaining its scope or accounting for the ways the networks already deal with that. 

As a general matter, prioritizing rather than building capacity to 

solve any last-mile congestion over a sustained period would let 

ISPs profit from artificial scarcity. 

It would let them charge more to get through the bottleneck 

rather than building a bigger path. So paid prioritization is not just 

a solution in search of a problem, it’s a toll booth in search of a 

traffic jam. 

ISPs’ own data shows that under Title II, both broadband investment and deployment speeds increased markedly in rural and 

urban areas alike. 

Despite that evidence, some still insist that strong rules made 

ISPs invest too little. Now, funnily enough, we are told that the 

rules may make ISPs invest too much by requiring them to build 

80 

both excess capacity instead of prioritizing their way out of congestion. 

Whatever the investment incentives of the paid prioritization 

ban, discarding this rule would cause a radical change to the internet. 

That ban prohibited ISPs favoring traffic only in exchange for 

payment from a third party or to benefit an ISP’s affiliates such 

as video or voice offers. 

In other words, it did not ban the kinds of user-directed and application-driven traffic management techniques praised by others 

here today. 

Those kinds of practices leave ISPs’ customers in control when 

it comes to choosing how to use those connections, and those customers already can and do choose to buy faster speed tiers when 

they so desire. 

They could even buy what’s called a quality of service tier to use 

on applications of their choosing and at times of their own choosing. 

Longstanding network protocols also can and do make these 

kinds of choices neutrally. ISPs don’t need to inspect our internet 

traffic as they transmit it or to second guess how to treat it. 

The paid priority rule banned none of these network management techniques. It applied only if the ISP tried to make a content 

provider pay extra just to reach broadband customers or just to cut 

in line ahead of other traffic. 

People already pay for their connections. The websites and apps 

they visit should not suddenly be asked to do so too. So if I visit 

marshablackburn.com or mikedoyleforcongress.com on my home 

connection, those websites don’t have to pay my ISP to reach me. 

Let me be clear. I am not here to defend big edge providers from 

such payments. I represent internet users. But letting gatekeeper 

ISPs impose new tolls would distort the choices users have and 

ISPs undoubtedly would get together with those largest edge providers to set the terms and prices for any such advantages. 

It would be inefficient for every edge provider to have to strike 

such deals with every ISP in the country, and signing up for such 

deals means they’d be double charged for data that ISP subscribers 

already paid to receive. 

Academics can speculate that in a different kind of access market 

such new fees might reduce subscriber costs. They still do not explain why ISPs facing so little competition would have any incentive to lower their retail prices. 

So when ISP executives talk about paid prioritization, they don’t 

describe it as a way to reduce revenues or to replace the source for 

those revenues. They talk about it as a chance to increase their 

revenues. 

That’s why the notion that new ISP fees might benefit internet 

users and reduce their prices brings to mind a joke I’ve heard on 

several occasions. But with all due respect to the originator of that 

joke, I think that the most terrifying words in the language may 

be, ‘‘I am from the cable company. I am here to save you money.’’ 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:] 

81 


31393.063

Free 

Press 

Written Testimony of 

Matthew F. Wood 

Policy Director 

Free Press and the Free Press Action Fund 

before the 

Congress ofthe United States 

House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

regarding 

"From Core to Edge: Perspective on Internet Prioritization." 

April 17, 2018 
82 


31393.064

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

SUMMARY 

Net Neutrality enjoys tremendous popular support across party lines. That support 

extends not only to the general framework in the 2015 Open Internet Order, but the belief that 

small businesses cannot afford to pay for prioritization. Yet after the FCC's repeal of rules 

banning such payments, there are disagreements about whether Congress might restore them. 

Net Neutrality opponents oppose restoration of the 2015 rules and successful legal 

framework. Among the arguments they make for dismantling the rules or weakening them in 

Congress is their claim that the paid prioritization ban is harmful. They say ISPs should indeed 

be able to charge new kinds of fees, arguing that users and business would benefit from such new 

charges and that such fees would help last-mile network congestion. 

As a general matter, prioritizing rather than building capacity to solve sustained 

congestion would misalign ISP incentives, letting them profit from artificial scarcity rather than 

encouraging deployment. Free Press used !SPs' own data to show that under the rules the FCC 

voted to abandon, broadband investment and speeds increased in rural and urban areas alike. 

Jettisoning the paid prioritization ban would upset that balance and radically change the 

internet in the bargain. The ban only prevented ISPs' from favoring traffic in exchange for 

payment from third parties, or to benefit an ISP's affiliated video or voice offers. It did not ban 

user-directed traffic management, or innovations that might depend on that. ISP customers 

already can and do buy faster sped tiers. They could even buy higher quality of service ("QoS") 

- for apps of their choosing, at times of their choosing. Longstanding network protocols also can 

and do and make choices neutrally without ISPs inspecting traffic or second-guessing protocols. 

Academics may speculate that such new fees might reduce subscriber costs, but do not 

explain why ISPs facing so little competition would have any incentive to lower retail prices. 
83 


31393.065

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 20!8 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

INTRODUCTION 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member 

Pallone, and Members of the Subcommittee: thank you for inviting me to testify in this hearing 

entitled "From Core to Edge: Perspective on Internet Prioritization." 

Free Press and the Free Press Action Fund (together, "Free Press") are nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations with 1.4 million members around the country and around the world. We 

were founded fifteen years ago to elevate people's voices in the policy decisions that shape the 

media landscape. Today we believe that achieving racial and social justice means achieving 

equitable access to technology and information. That's why we've worked on Net Neutrality for 

almost all of our fifteen years. During much of our history, and over the course of a now decadeplus legal battle on this issue, Free Press has been a leader in advocating for open internet 

principles based on a strong legal foundation. 

That is why we supported the strong open internet rules adopted in 2015,1 before they 

were recently (and wrongly) repealed by the current FCC. 2 That is also why we support 

Congressman Doyle's resolution under the Congressional Review Act ("CRA") to restore them.3 

We are not alone. Hundreds of Members of Congress have co-sponsored that resolution 

in the House and Senate. Thousands of businesses, organizations, and state and local officials 

support it too. Millions of people made their voices heard, first at the FCC to oppose that repeal; 

and then in the Halls of Congress too, calling on you to stop Chairman Pai's plan and now 

calling on you to pass the CRA. 

1 Restoring Internet Freedom, WC Docket No. 17-108, Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order, FCC 17-

166 (rei. Jan. 4, 2018) ("2017 Net Neutrality Repeaf'). 

2 Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory 

Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Red 5601 (2015) ("Open Internet Order"). 

3 See H.J. Res. 129, !15th Congress (2018). 

2 
84 


31393.066

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

That's not surprising: poll after poll shows that Net Neutrality enjoys tremendous popular 

support across party lines. Only inside the beltway and buildings like these does this (sometimes) 

remain a partisan issue. Results like that this have helped change the debate. We welcome the 

newfound expression of commitments from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to preserve 

fundamental communications rights. 

Now, instead of hearing from ISPs that Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a 

problem, we've heard Chairman Walden say Chairman Blackburn's bill might "help solve a very 

complicated problem." 4 

Y ct there are disagreements about how solve it. Free Press supports restoring the entire 

2015 FCC order. We need more than three "bright lines" to preserve the open internet. We need 

FCC authority to prevent new forms of discrimination, and also to address digital divides, protect 

privacy, and promote competition. 

THE 2015 OPEN INTERNET ORDER STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCE. 

On December 14, 2017, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to repeal rules set in place in 2015. The 

repeal abdicated the agency's congressional mandate to prevent unreasonable ISP practices. 

Contrary to ISPs' talking points, the 2017 repeal did not restore a "light-touch" regulatory 

framework for internet access: it repealed all rules preventing ISP blocking, throttling, paid 

prioritization and other forms of unreasonable discrimination, and it tossed aside the only legal 

foundation upheld in court for such rules. The prior FCC had restored that proper legal 

framework in 2015, after Verizon appealed and overturned an earlier version of these rules 

grounded on the weaker statutory authority in Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act 

that ISPs later said they would have preferred. 

4 "Chairman Walden Statement on the Open Internet Preservation Act," Dec. 19, 2017, 

https://encrgycommerce. house .gov /ncws/press-release/chainnan-wa !den-statement -open-internet -preservation-act!. 

3 
85 


31393.067

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

The FCC's 2017 reversals leave internet users without sufficient protections, not only 

against Net Neutrality violations like blocking content or slowing it down, but also against 

privacy violations if ISPs make unauthorized and unpermitted use of customers' personal data. 

The FCC's recent repeal also purported to preempt states' attempts to fill this vacuum and 

restore these rights. And as this hearing should show, repealing the rule that prohibited "paid 

prioritization" by ISPs only harms internet users and innovators. It does so by creating the 

possibility that ISPs could for the first time charge third parties who are not their broadband 

customers for delivering traffic those broadband customers already paid to send and receive. 

The FCC's 2017 abdication puts internet users at risk. It jeopardizes the ability of 

individual internet users, businesses, educational institutions, elected officials, and other political 

speakers to participate in the civic and economic life of the country. Net Neutrality is important 

not only for small businesses and commerce, but also for free speech and democracy. These 

protections are particularly important for communities of color and other marginalized groups, as 

they let people make their voices heard on the internet and bypass traditional media gatekeepers. 

The fight to restore these protections is gathering momentum, with tens of millions of 

people organizing to reinstate the rules. In addition to the Congressional Review Act efforts, 

some twenty-three state attorneys general have joined in a federal appeal of the FCC's decision. 

Free Press is among dozens of public interest organization, private companies, and state and 

local officials that will be involved in this litigation too. 

There is good explanation for all of this energy: Net Neutrality rules are immensely 

popular. Poll after poll shows strong support for the rules, and opposition to the FCC's repeal 

decision, with consensus across party lines. This polling even shows strong support for the legal 

foundation and conceptual framework underpinning those now-repealed rules. 

4 
86 


31393.068

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Internet Users Oppose the Kind of Paid Prioritization the Net Neutrality Rules Banned. 

For instance, one poll released in July 2017, conducted by Freedman Consulting and 

Civis Analytics, shows that 88 percent of respondents agreed with the statement "when I buy 

internet service, I am paying to transmit information between my computer and the websites I 

visit, free from interference." 5 It found that "[a] strong majority (77 percent) of Americans 

support keeping the existing net neutrality rules in place," as did 73 percent of Republicans. 

A second poll, also released in July 2017 and conducted by Republican consulting firm 

IMGE, found that Trump voters believe by more than a 2 to 1 margin that "Internet should be 

treated like any other utility such as gas or electric service." 6 This poll told respondents that 

"Companies like Comcast, AT&T, Charter[], and Verizon provide home internet access [and] .. 

. are prohibited from slowing or blocking websites or video services like NetFlix." A full 75 

percent of all voters agreed that such rules were necessary, including 72 percent of Republican 

voters and 75 percent of Trump voters. 

Similarly strong majorities overwhelmingly said they would be "concerned if companies 

like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon could discriminate against main street businesses on the 

internet" (by a margin of 79 percent to 15 percent). They strongly disagreed, by a tally of 72 

percent to 19 percent, "that small businesses like local hardware stores and restaurants should 

have their websites run slower than bigger national chains that can afford to pay more for paid 

prioritization."7 

5 "New Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Existing Net Neutrality Rules, Affordable Access, and 

Competition Among ISPs," at 2 (July 10, 2017), http://tfreedmanconsulting.com.routing.wpmanagedhost.com/wp· 

content/uploads/20 17/07/Tech-Policy-Poll·Summary _Final_ 2017071 O.pdf. 

6 "Open Internet Survey: Key Findings," at 3 (July 13, 20 17), http://www.incompas.org/files/IMGE!nsightsPresentations·Keyfindings-l c.pdf. 

7 !d. at 4 (emphasis added). 

5 
87 


31393.069

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommitt~e on Communications and Technology 

Those surveys were conducted prior to the FCC's initial comment deadline in July 2017. 

Yet another survey taken just days before the December 2017 vote, and conducted by the 

nonpartisan University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation and Voice of the 

People, found that 83 percent of Americans did not approve of the FCC's rcpeal. 8 The partisan 

split in this more recent poll was slightly larger, but the support level for retaining the rules (and 

thus opposing what this FCC ultimately voted to do) was even higher than it had been in the 

summer. Making up the 83 percent total of survey respondents supporting the rules were 88 

percent of Democrats, 86 percent of Independents, and 75 percent of Republicans. 

Net Neutrality Implements Basic and Vital Nondiscrimination Law for Internet Access. 

Net Neutrality's foundation in nondiscrimination law answers contentions that falsely 

suggest the FCC's 2017 repeal merely rescinded rules that were only in effect for two years and 

unnecessary to protect the open internet. To the contrary, the Net Neutrality rules wrongly taken 

away by this FCC are based on longstanding nondiscrimination law for communications 

services; and they are in need of preservation, whether ISPs violate them or promise not to. 

Net Neutrality is a rather well-known term at this point in time - perhaps much to the 

surprise of those who previously criticized the concept as too weedy or obscure for mass appeal. 

But in the end, Net Neutrality is a term of art for rules implementing federal law against 

unreasonable discrimination by the carriers that operate .essential broadband telecommunications 

networks. Even if Net Neutrality were not immensely popular and the polls cited above show 

that it is- it would be worth preserving. People's fundamental communications rights, as granted 

to them by Congress, do not and must not change simply because our communications 

technologies evolve and improve. 

8 Program for Public Consultation, Net Neutrality Survey Questionnaire (Dec. 6 - Dec. 8, 2017), 

http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/20 17 /12/Net_ Neutrality_ Quairc _1212l7.pdf. 

6 
88 


31393.070

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 20!8 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Press, pundits, and ISPs sometimes describe Net Neutrality to lawmakers and the general 

public as a clash between the likes of Comcast and AT&T, Google and Facebook. The impact of 

communications policy on the fortunes of these hundred-billion-dollar companies is real (though 

often exaggerated). Yet the rights enshrined in federal communications law do not exist 

primarily to protect either ISPs or companies that transmit information to their customers over 

internet access lines. These rights protect internet users themselves, in their freedom to access the 

content of their choosing once they have paid for the transmission service that ISPs provide. 

Even if ISPs did not routinely interfere with these choices - and history shows that they 

do9 these rights would remain essential. ISPs over time have blocked access to voice and video 

communications applications like FaceTime and Skypc, blocked access to mobile payment apps 

that competed with their own apps of this sort, and slowed or blocked access to video content 

that competed with ISPs' legacy cable television offerings. In fact, as research conducted by the 

Open Technology Institute showed, 10 there were significant and sustained end-user harms as a 

result of interconnection disputes from 2013 to at least 2014, with millions of people not 

receiving broadband service they paid for and suffering from unusable speeds for months on end. 

The law that establishes these rights, as well as the FCC's mandate to protect them, is the 

Communications Act. It divides communications services into different categories or 

classifications, including "information services'' such as websites, apps or other kinds of content 

accessed online; and "telecommunications services," which transmit that information to users. 

Telecom services are governed by Title II of the Communications Act, which applies to 

telecommunications carriers (also sometimes called "common carriers" as well). 

9 See, e.g., Tim Karr, "Net Neutrality Violations: A Brief History," Jan. 24, 2018, https:llwww.freepress.net/ourresponse/expert-analysislexplainerslnet-neutrality-violations-brief-history. 

10 See Beyond Frustrated, New America, Nov. 12, 2014, https:llwww.newamerica.org/oti/policy-paperslbeyondfrustrated-the-sweeping-consumer-harms-as-a-result-of-isp-dispulcs. 

7 
89 


31393.071

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

The nondiscrimination principles that apply to such carriers has evolved, but those 

principles have been with us as long as we've had communications networks. ISPs may 

simultaneously criticize the strong Net Neutrality rules repealed by this FCC as both oldfashioned and untested. The reality is just the opposite: the 2015 rules repealed by this FCC are 

well-tested. They arc based on the same principles that long governed telephone networks, 

competitive wireless voice services, and business broadband offerings, as well as residential 

broadband internet access using various technologies at various times over the past two decades. 

Yet these principles are also timeless. There is nothing old-fashioned about 

nondiscrimination law, and it remains as essential for broadband internet access as it does for 

other telecom offerings. Just as the telephone company can't tell its customers whom to talk to or 

what to say, ISPs shouldn't be able to dictate or influence what their customers see or say online. 

Such nondiscrimination rules are still quite necessary in non-monopoly settings. Many 

broadband subscribers still face a situation in which they have just one provider of high-speed 

service available; yet the Title II framework has remained in place for wireless voice offerings 

since the inception of cellular service. Even as Congress and the FCC deregulated pricing for 

wireless voice in the early 1990s, and refused to adopt rate regulations in that relatively 

competitive market, these lawmakers still rightly understood the need for regulations preserving 

nondiscriminatory access on wireless telecom networks in such competitive markets. 

Put even more simply, a modicum of competition does not completely obviate the need 

for Net Neutrality rules. It would seem odd indeed to condone blocking of certain phone calls 

and phone numbers by Verizon Wireless simply because customers thus blocked might have the 

option to switch to AT&T, Sprint, or T-Mobile. This is not how communications networks are 

meant to work, and people understand that. 

8 
90 


31393.072

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Until the FCC's drastic repeal, the agency seemed to understand it too. Few questioned 

the wisdom of FCC rules safeguarding these nondiscrimination rights, and the FCC maintained 

principles and rules prohibiting ISPs from blocking lawful content or otherwise interfering with 

their customers' content and application choices. The only question, if any, concerned the proper 

legal foundation for such rules- and admittedly, that legal foundation did shift over time because 

the FCC attempted to shift it. 

Between 2002 and 2005, in a misguided attempt to more or less completely deregulate 

broadband, the FCC started to tinker with its service classifications by deciding that broadband 

was an information service and not a telecom service. The FCC lumped together (for regulatory 

purposes) a website and the wire over which people access that site. Yet the Bush FCC and the 

first FCC Chairman in the Obama administration still tried to retain Net Neutrality rules. 

That approach did not stand up in court. The FCC twice tried to argue that it could 

prevent blocking, throttling, prioritization, and discrimination by broadband providers without 

treating those companies as telecom carriers under Title II. It lost both times, first to Corneas! in 

2010 and then Verizon in 2014. The question about the legal foundation for rules safeguarding 

these rights took some time to resolve, it is true; but there is a right answer under current law. 

Prior to the unfounded and ideologically motivated repeal order issued in December, the 

FCC had finally settled on a very certain and solid approach. On the third time though the 

rulemaking process in 2015, the Commission finally got it right. Thanks to millions of people 

calling on it to do so, the FCC put rules into place that prevented blocking, discrimination, and 

paid prioritization by ISPs, and it put those rules on solid legal footing by restoring the Title II 

legal classification for broadband. 

9 
91 


31393.073

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Apri117, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

STRONG RULES DID NOT DAMPEN ISP INVESTMENT OR DEPLOYMENT. 

Any claim that Title II delayed or dampened broadband rollouts simply is not true. ISPs' 

0\\11 data (discussed in somewhat greater detail below and far greater depth in Free Press's FCC 

comments 11 ) proves such arguments wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. Broadband deployment 

is by no means satisfactory in every area in the nation. And even when and where fast broadband 

networks are deployed, not every person can afford to subscribe. That is why Free Press works to 

guard Lifeline's broadband adoption program from attacks by the Pai FCC, and always 

advocates for policies that promote universal deployment of robust and affordable services. 

Despite the continuing, twin challenges of deployment and affordability, ISPs' own 

deployment data and investment data show that Title II's reinstatement and the 2015 Net 

Neutrality rules did not slow down deployment, speed upgrades, or overall investment by ISPs. 

The data that these companies report to the FCC- and also to their own investors, to Wall Street 

analysts, and to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission - all show that deployment 

continued apace during the time that Title II was in place. 

To reach this conclusion, Free Press analyzed FCC Form 477 deployment data to answer 

what should be the central question on this topic for all policymakers: how did the broadband 

market's capacity and capability change after the FCC's 2015 Title II reclassification and 

adoption of Net Neutrality protections? This self-reported data is a rich source of information on 

broadband deployment, the types of technology ISPs offer, and the transmission speeds available 

for every Census Block in which they offer broadband. Free Press has analyzed changes in this 

data since December 31, 2014, just prior to the FCC's adoption of the now-repealed 2015 order. 

11 E.g., Comments of Free Press, WC Docket No. 17-108, at 86-294 (filed July 17, 2017) ("Free Press Comments"). 

10 
92 


31393.074

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Our analysis of this FCC broadband deployment data shows that the national broadband 

market continued to thrive after Title II reclassification. 12 We found that: 

• The number of Census blocks with two or more ISPs offering service with downstream 

speeds at or above 25 Mbps increased by 42 percent following the Open Internet Order. 

• At the end of 2014, approximately one-third of the population had access to two or more 

ISPs offering 25 Mbps or higher-level services. By mid-2016, more than half of the 

population could purchase broadband at this speed threshold from two or more ISPs. 

• At the end of2014, only 10.5 percent of the population had access to one or more wired 

ISPs offering consumer services above the 300 Mbps downstream threshold. But just 18 

months later, this had more than doubled to nearly 23 percent of the population able to 

access this level of broadband service. 

• In Census Blocks with cable DOCSIS 3.0 services, the average available speed of this 

technology increased from 118 Mbps to 173 Mbps ( 4 7 percent). In blocks with fiber to 

the home, its average available speed increased from 251 Mbps to 380 Mbps (51 

percent). And average available VDSL downstream speeds more than doubled, from 24 

Mbps to 52 Mbps. 

• Examples of specific ISP company gro'.'.ih include: 

o Comcast sharply increasing the speeds of its offerings in the months following the 

Open Internet Order, from a Census block-average of 129 Mbps to 191 Mbps. 

o Cox going from offering 300 Mbps and higher-level service in none of its Census 

blocks to doing so in 68 percent of its blocks following the Open Internet Order. 

o AT&T improving from offering 25 Mbps and higher-level downstream speeds to 

consumers in just 5 percent of its Census blocks in 2014, but by mid-2016 

offering this level of service in nearly 40 percent of its territory - a massive 

increase reaching more than 50 percent of the population in AT&T's service area. 

o In rural blocks, AT&T's average available downstream speed doubling to 18 

Mbps during the period following adoption of the Open Internet Order. 

Among cable ISPs (which disclose in their quarterly SEC filings the specific amounts of 

capital expenditures they devote to network infrastructure): 

o During the two years following the Open Internet Order vote, cable-industry 

physical-network investments increased 48 percent when compared to the amount 

invested in such facilities during the two prior years. 

o Cable's core network investments accelerated dramatically during 2016 (a $2.1 

billion increase over 2015, compared to 2015's $0.8 billion increase over 2014). 

o That one-year increase in cable-industry core network investments during 2016 

marked the biggest single-year jump since 1999. 

12 See Reply Comments of Free Press, WC Docket No. 17-108, at 21 (filed Aug. 30, 2017). 

11 
93 


31393.075

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

The period after adoption of the Open Internet Order, and prior to this FCC's vote to 

repeal it, saw historic levels of investment, deployment, and innovation across the entire internet 

ecosystem. In addition to the numbers we presented regarding deployment and investment, we 

copiously documented each publicly traded ISPs' comments made to their own investors and 

investor analysts, which clearly reflected these broadband providers' justified belief that the 

Commission's 2015 order had no negative impact on their broadband deployments. 

Net Neutrality Rules Banning Paid Prioritization Work to Align ISP Incentives Correctly. 

These real-world facts and figures are curiously - and even irreconcilably - at odds with 

theories advanced by paid prioritization proponents as much as a decade ago and as recently as 

two weeks before this hearing. 

On the one hand, these theorists have speculated that without paid prioritization capacity 

upgrades simply won't happen. One wrote in 2007 that with "the advent of streaming video and 

other bandwidth-intensive applications, the demand for bandwidth [was] projected to overtake 

the existing supply quickly." He cautioned that "(r]egulators and legislators should not interfere 

with a broadband service provider's ability to manage this 'coming exaflood' with intelligent 

networks," because without prioritization "the price of Internet service will skyrocket if [ISPs] 

can meet the coming traffic using only expanded infrastructure [or] the Internet experience for all 

users will deteriorate." 13 Of course, we see instead that broadband providers of all types have 

dramatically expanded capacities and continued to meet demand - for the most part, though with 

notable exceptions, done without resorting to discriminatory routing, charging "skyrocketing" 

prices, or uniformly letting user experiences deteriorate. 

13 Hal J. Singer, "Net Neutrality: A Radical Form of Non-Discrimination," Regulation (Summer 2007). 

12 
94 


31393.076

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

On the other hand, and far more recently, another academic echoed the notion that 

"additional capacity is expensive," coupling it with the rather truism that it generally would be 

"uneconomic to build a network with zero congestion at peak time because this would create 

significant excess capacity at off-peak periods." 14 (Of course, no broadband internet access 

network is engineered for "zero congestion" at peak time, and as discussed below, network 

management already occurs without paid prioritization.) 

The shift here over the course of a decade and two authors is subtle but substantial. Paid 

prioritization is still seen as a way to manage congestion, though no longer offered up as the only 

way to staunch the "coming exaflood" otherwise supposed to swamp the internet. But after years 

of attacks claiming Title II, strong Net Neutrality rules, and the paid prioritization ban in 

particular would dampen broadband investment or even make it uneconomic, we're now told that 

paid prioritization may actually spare ISPs from spending so much to deploy in "capacityconstrained" rural areas. That's a particularly bitter pill to swallow in the wake of so much ISP 

lobbying money spent to suggest that Net Neutrality rules kill investment: now we're told that 

instead of making ISPs invest too little, they make JSPs invest too much! 

With the prospect of paid prioritization made a reality again by the FCC's repeal, we can 

see such schemes for what they are: a tollbooth in search of a traffic jam. The deployment and 

speed increases documented above are the better outcome, and the one expected from the FCC's 

2015 order (seemingly) settling the legal uncertainty. ISPs then understood their path to 

prosperity depended not on discriminatory schemes, but on selling users the capacities they 

demand much of that created by the exponential growth in online content and applications. 

14 Daniel Lyons, "Paid prioritization: Debunking the myth of fast and slow lanes," AE/deas, Apr. 2, 2018. The 

Lyons piece offers a few additional arguments easily rebutted by the sections of this testimony that follow. Lyons' 

biggest red herring is his insinuation that Net Neutrality proponents suggest "central planning" as the only 

alternative to price mechanisms such as having third parties pay that price. 

13 
95 


31393.077

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

There is no evidence of any change in 2015 and 2016 to the status quo buildout 

trajectory. This strongly suggests that the central premise of the FCC's repeal was completely 

wrong. There is simply no evidence that restoration of Title II, and codification of basic Net 

Neutrality duties, negatively impacted the nation's broadband internet access market. 

In our comments in the FCC's 2017 rulemaking docket, we documented extensively how 

the internet access and online content markets continued to thrive after that 2015 FCC's decision. 

Broadband access companies large and small increased their capital investments, and uniformly 

told their investors that Title II reclassification had not impacted their deployment plans. And 

with the confidence that ISPs would not be allowed to implement discriminatory shakedown 

schemes, online content and service providers increased their investments too. 

Broadband Investment Increased, But Raw Investment Is Still the Wrong Metric, 

In our reports and filings, we also cautioned that what matters most is not the raw dollar 

amount ISPs invest each year in capital equipment. What matters most is deployment of 

broadband capacity, and progress in improving on what little competition exists in this highly 

concentrated industry. The facts and figures recited above show that there was progress in those 

important areas. Policymakers and internet users shouldn't dwell on whether or not an ISP spent 

more in a given year than it did the prior year; they should care if that ISP and its competitors 

continued to rollout better quality and more competitive services. 

Yet with those caveats in mind, we have also shown in our thoroughly documented and 

researched comments and reports that aggregate investment by the broadband industry increased 

during this time period too- again, contrary to the claims made by some of the ISPs' lobbyists 

and by FCC commissioners that voted for repeal. 

14 
96 


31393.078

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17.2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Free Press's compilation of broadband industry investment totals, as publicly traded 

broadband internet access service providers themselves reported this data for the two years 

preceding the FCC's February 2015 vote and the two years following it, conclusively 

demonstrates that the investment total for all of these publicly traded ISPs together increased by 

5.3 percent for the two-year period following the adoption of the 2015 Net Neutrality rules. 15 

Those who still insist on incorrectly claiming some harm to broadband investment from 

Title II focus on supposed decreases in this aggregate figure, but the manipulated totals they cite 

stem from vague and unspecified tabulations for the broadband industry as a whole. These 

commenters also distort the amount invested by certain providers while ignoring freely available 

public statements explaining individual firms' decisions. 16 

Even were these manipulated aggregate figures correct (and they are not), a myopic focus 

on raw dollars spent ignores the Commission's statutory mandate to promote deployment- as 

well as the overwhelming evidence that deployment continued (and even improved) in the years 

following the order. 

The blunt measure of an aggregate total is easily swayed by changes in either direction at 

any large firm, and it obscures changes (if any) in investment decisions, cycles, and strategies by 

all of the individual firms that make up the aggregate total. Looking at those individual results, 

the majority of publicly traded broadband providers in their own financial disclosures reported 

investment increases after the vote. This fact alone does much to disprove the fanciful notion that 

Title II was a systemic threat or source of harm to investment across the entire industry. 

15 See Free Press Comments at 129-130 & Fig. 24. 

16 See id. at 145-151; see also id. at 151 (quoting AT &T's explanation that the company's costs were falling due to 

technological improvements and the efficiencies therefrom, not due to any regulatory concerns, as evidenced by the 

fact that AT&T was then "going to deploy more fiber next year than we did this year, but the capital requirements 

are going down"). 

15 
97 


31393.079

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Twice as many individual ISPs increased their capital spending as the relative few that 

decreased it. Several individual ISPs increased their capital spending by double digits. To name 

just a few specific examples, Comcast's total capital spending for the two years following the 

2015 vote increased by 26 percent, Verizon's by 3 percent, and Charter's by 15 percent. 

As Free Press has copiously documented, 17 again relying on broadband providers' own 

words, there is no reason to think the relatively few individual ISPs reporting less capital 

spending decreased it due to Title II. In fact, as AT&T itself has made clear in earlier filings, 

largely explaining long in advance its own temporary decline following the 2015 vote: 

[T]here is no reason to expect capital expenditures to increase by the same amount 

vear after year. Capital expenditures tend to be "lumpy." Providers make significant 

expenditures to upgrade and expand their networks in one year (e.g., perhaps because 

a new generation of technology has just been introduced), and then focus the next 

year on signing up customers and integrating those new facilities into their existing 

networks, and then make additional capital expenditures later, and so on. Minor 

variations from year to year thus should not be surprising[.] 18 

Broadband providers have spoken at length since the 2015 vote and reclassification 

decision about how they are leveraging technological advances to deploy higher capacities at a 

lower capital cost than was required in prior upgrade cycles. In the few instances when analysts 

asked these executives how Title II (or its potential repeal) impacted their company's 

investments, these executives did not say that Title II had a concrete impact on their own 

numbers, nor quantify how its repeal would impact their spending. 

As a Free Press report prepared almost a year ago explained, and as our further research 

and analysis in the FCC docket confirmed, the 2015 Open Internet Order was working for all 

parties on the internet: retail users, edge providers, and ISPs too. What is the supposed 

justification to get rid of the paid prioritization ban, and what would that even entail? 

" See, e.g., Free Press Comments at 209-28 L 

18 Comments of AT&T, WT Docket No. 10-133, at 34 (filed July 30, 201 0); see also id at 39. 

16 
98 


31393.080

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 20!8 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

THE RULES PROHIBITED PAID PIORITIZATION, NOT ALL PRIORITIZATION. 

A cursory glance at the Net Neutrality rules that the Pai FCC voted to repeal shows that 

they define "paid prioritization" in a manner broad enough to encompass several types of 

unreasonably discriminatory ISP behavior. Yet the definition is narrow enough to permit 

multiple methods of traffic management- including even user-directed prioritization, chosen and 

paid for by an ISP's broadband customers. 

Section 8.9 of the FCC's rules, subject to repeal if and when OMB approves the FCC's 

new information collection requirements in the 2017 order, says in its entirety: 

(a) A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such 

person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. 

(b) "Paid prioritization" refers to the management of a broadband provider's network to 

directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques 

such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential 

traffic management, either; 

(1) In exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or 

(2) To benefit an affiliated entity. 

(c) '!be Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner 

demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and 

would not harm the open nature of the Internet. 19 

As the definition makes clear, management of the broadband provider's network only 

constitutes prohibited "paid prioritization" if and when it comes in exchange for payment from a 

third party, or when such traffic management is done to benefit an ISP's affiliated entities (likely 

but not necessarily offering services such as pay-TV video, online video, or voice). And by third 

party, the rule means an individual or entity that is not the ISP' s own broadband customer, such 

as the so-called "sender" of data on the other side of the internet connection from the ISP' s 

subscriber or another party that might wish to pay the ISP for some kind of advantage. 

19 47 C.F.R. § 8.9 (2017) (emphases added). 

17 
99 


31393.081

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Allowing ISPs to Impose Any Charges on Non-Broadband Internet Access Customers 

Would Be a Radical Shift in How the Internet Works Today. 

Thus defined, we can see how even this carefully crafted paid priority ban does more than 

just prevent unreasonable discrimination by !SPs. It preserves the traditional structure of the 

internet and ISPs' relationships with their access customers. 

Broadband subscribers pay their ISPs to transmit information of the users' choosing. ISPs 

recover their costs and make their money by selling this service to those users. This is a very 

different model from the telephone system, for which it took decades of work just to start the 

transition away from the intercarrier compensation regime that telephone companies and wireless 

voice providers had to navigate when paying each other to terminate traffic. Whether in 

recognition of the fact that internet "conversations" may have no obvious sender - because after 

all, a streaming video app likely sends me traffic only after I first request that video or simply 

to embrace the benefits of what telephone carriers might call a "bill and keep" business model, 

the internet has grown up and flourished this way. 

What does this mean in practical terms? When I visit a website, it means that the third 

party on the other "edge" of the network from my ISP is not suddenly made into a potential 

paying customer of my ISP. So if MarshaBlackburn.com or MikeDoyleforCongress.com sit on 

servers eonneeted to the internet by Comcast broadband service, those sites and their owners 

cannot be made to pay Verizon for delivery of their content simply because I'm a Verizon 

subscriber at my home. This is a very good thing. 

Proponents of paid prioritization often describe it as a benefit - "allowing" distant 

websites and apps the privilege of paying not just for their own connectivity and upload capacity, 

but also an additional amount to the ISPs that an edge provider's customers just so happen to use. 

18 
100 


31393.082

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 20!8 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Somehow, the vast majority of internet innovators, investors, entrepreneurs, start-ups, 

and small businesses seem to think otherwise 20 They have told the FCC and now Congress, in 

no uncertain terms, that "letting" apps pay for priority will instead become an obligation to pay 

for priority- taxing the few edge providers that could afford to pay in an attempt to keep up with 

the largest and most dominant platforms, and lining ISPs' pockets in the process. 

Suggestions that Congress either could or would forbid the sale of paid prioritization to 

the largest platforms, and thus to the (likely) highest bidders, are outlandish at best. Absent some 

such law or other highly regulatory intervention to forbid ISPs from selling priority to some 

buyers, why would any ISP forgo the chance to obtain the highest price? Will Congress in its 

wisdom, or the ISPs in their good graces, really devise a workable policy to reserve priority 

treatment only for small businesses or certain kinds of edge providers? The answer is no, unless 

ISPs really are looking to pick winners and losers by distorting the market for their own services 

and for the disfavored edge providers denied the chance to buy priority. 

Once again, it is important to note that the slim chances for such a plan are a good thing, 

but not only and not even primarily due to the benefits for app makers and content providers 

on! inc. Let me be clear: I'm not here to defend edge providers from such payments. I represent 

internet users. Letting gatekeeper ISPs impose new tolls on the edge would distort the choices 

users have, and ISPs undoubtedly would get together with the largest edge providers to set the 

terms and prices for such advantages. 

20 See, e.g., Fred Wilson, "VC Pitches In A Year Or Two," AVC 8/og, Jan. 15, 2014, https://avc.com/2014/01/vcpitches-in-a-year-or-two/ ("Telcos will pick their preferred partners, subsidize the data costs for those apps, and 

make it much harder for new entrants to compete with the incumbents."); see also Letter from Engine Advocacy, 

Techstars, Y Combinator eta/. to Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC (Apr. 26, 2017), http://www.engine.is/startups-fornet-neutrality/; Letter from American Sustainable Business Council eta/. to Hen. Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC (Aug. 31, 

20 17), https://www.keepthewebopenforbusiness.com/FCC _17 -108 .smallbusiness-ASBC-filing-170830.pdf. 

19 
101 


31393.083

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

This would crowd out diverse speakers, startups, and smaller competitors on the internet, 

all to the detriment of broadband users and the denial of their rights to send and receive the 

information of their choosing over their connections. As the 2015 Open Internet Order rightly 

decided, allowing third parties to "purchase of priority treatment can lead to degraded 

performance ... for traffic that is not covered by such an arrangement," and can "introduce 

artificial barriers to entry, distort the market, harm competition, harm consumers, discourage 

innovation, undermine public safety and universal service, and harm free expression."21 

THIRD PARTY PAID PRIORITIZATION IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO MANAGE 

CONGESTION ACCORDING TO NEUTRAL STADARDS OR PRICE MECHANISMS. 

Since the FCC's repeal of its Net Neutrality rules and abdication of its responsibility to 

protect a free and open internet, ISPs have all but announced their intention to deploy not just 

end-to-end management of traffic but third-party paid prioritization. In their years-long effort to 

upend these rules, ISPs have consistently touted the supposed benefits of allowing ISPs to pick 

what internet traffic to move to the head of the queue. Yet allowing ISPs to take advantage of 

their gatekeeper position by giving priority to the edge providers that can pay them the most will 

result in all of the harms outlined just above. 

What is Last-Mile Prioritization? 

As traffic moves throughout the internet or crosses a particular interconnection point or 

router, the amount of infonnation that can travel through that link is limited by its bandwidth. 

Most of the time this has no effect on internet traffic, but during peak usage hours nodes of the 

internet can become congested, slowing down traffic in the network. Under the Net Neutrality 

rules, ISPs could engage in reasonable network management practices but not charge third 

parties for prioritization (as defined in Section 8.9 of the 2015 open internet rules). 

21 Open internet Order~ 126 (citations omitted). 

20 
102 


31393.084

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Paid prioritization would mean, in times of last-mile congestion, that an ISP would 

permit information from content providers who have paid them to cut to the front of the line at 

congested nodes, thus de-prioritizing other customer-selected content. 

By Definition, Prioritizing One Bit Slows Down All Other Bits. 

Setting aside the differences in first-party payment vs. third-party payment, there is 

another key difference between prioritization in tasks such as physical parcel delivery and 

internet routing. The routing of IP data over a given network at a given time is a zero-sum game 

-even if that prioritization itself may not impair other applications so far as users can perceive it. 

If a router speeds up one set of bits, by definition all other bits are slowed down or moved dovm 

in the queue. Prioritization only has value during times when that network is experiencing 

congestion; otherwise the bits are routed in a first-in-first-out manner. 

What's more, the value of the prioritization to a third-party is directly proportional to 

how much faster their content loads in comparison to non-prioritized content; but the more 

priority relationships there are, the Jess this difference in load time. This means that ISPs wanting 

to charge third parties for priority (or to violate the other part of the ban in Section 8.9 by 

prioritizing their affiliates' content) will only be able to prioritize a relatively small amount of 

content on the whole. 

Paid Prioritization Will Entrench Incumbents and Harm tile Open Internet. 

Despite claims made in the current FCC's Net Neutrality repeal order that paid 

prioritization might actually encourage the entry of new edge providers, any mechanism that lets 

third parties who pay the most go first in line at chokepoints will naturally favor the most wellestablished companies with the deepest pockets to bid on a limited number of priority slots. 

21 
103 


31393.085

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

The incumbency protection effects of ISPs favoring their own content or content 

produced by affiliated companies is even more pernicious. Customers have limited choices in 

their broadband provider and typically purchase only one fixed broadband connection. By 

prioritizing their own traffic, ISPs could distort the market to favor content they own. 

New entrants into the market would be systematically disadvantaged in favor of 

established firms. This is especially true for content creators from historically disadvantaged 

communities, for whom a free and open internet creates a more level playing field. A network 

that does not require content creators to bid for limited priority slots is one where new content 

and ideas can compete more equitably with content from established firms and without the 

permission ofiSPs. 

Banning Paid Prioritization Hardly Means That Priority Cannot Be Assigned Neutrally, 

Or That It Must Be Assigned in the Absence of Any Price Mechanism. 

As suggested above, and as real-world experience makes patently clear, ISPs typically 

receive payment from their broadband customers to transmit data. Any prioritization or traffic 

management that must take place when and where congestion arises in a last-mile network can 

take place in a neutral fashion. 

It can be handled in due course by network protocols already used universally (like 

TCP/IP), or capabilities largely unused today but still written into those protocols (like DiffServ 

-which contrary to AT &T's assertions over the years does not violate Net Neutrality principles 

and does not obligate third parties to pay for users' prioritization choices with respect to their 

own traffic). Lastly, congestion can be handled neutrally, as Comcast decided to do after its 

BitTorrent blocking scandal, by throttling high-bandwidth users when and where congestion 

occurs without respect to the source, type, or content of that high-volume user's traffic. 

22 
104 


31393.086

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Obviously, in light of the payments that ISPs receive from their broadband customers for 

internet access, none of these methods to deliver data lacks a "price mechanism" for the 

allocation of resources. To return to Professor Lyons blog post, and the false dichotomy he 

suggests by eliding users' "first party" payments to their own ISPs, the only alternative to thirdparty paid prioritization is not some kind of imperfect and intrusive "central planning model" 

that must decide based on subjective criteria which service is "more important."" Instead, users 

can pay their ISP for a higher speed tier, increasing the proportion of network resources the ISP 

allocates to them without concern for the source or type of content they transmit. 

USER-PAID PRIORITY IS DIFFERENT FROM THIRD-PARTY PAID PRIORITY. 

If such "unpaid" methods - though unpaid only in the sense of there being no separate 

charge for QoS - are not enough to ensure that a latency-sensitive application works in times of 

congestion, users could also pay for a service tier that offers not just faster speeds but a QoS 

promise as well. As one leading Net Neutrality scholar explained at length, a Net Neutrality rule 

can quite readily support a ban on third-party paid prioritization while still allowing a "type of 

user-controlled Quality of Service [that] offers the same potential social benefits as other, 

discriminatory or provider-controlled forms of Quality of Service without the social costs."23 

User-directed QoS could: 

(l) "preserve the application-agnosticism of the network" because QoS provision "is not 

dependent on which applications users are using, but on the ... choices that users make; 

thus, the network providers docs not need to know anything about which applications are 

using its network in order for this scheme to work. The network provider only makes 

different classes of service available, but does not have any role in deciding which 

application gets which Quality of Service; this choice is for users to make"; and 

22 Lyons, supra note 14. 

23 Barbara van Schewick, "The Case for Meaningful Network Neutrality Rules," WC Docket No. 17-108, at 21 

(filed Aug. 31, 2017), 

23 
105 


31393.087

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April !7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce~ Subcommittee on Communication<> and Technology 

(2) provide QoS that meets users' preferences because "users choose when and for which 

applications to use which type of service ... even if even if these preferences differ 

across users or (for a single user) over time." 24 

In the end, there is a better answer for all of the innovations and applications that -

according to some Net Neutrality opponents supposedly "need" third-party paid prioritization 

to function. That is true whether or not they are tclemcdicine applications of the sort so often 

referred to in these debates as the most deserving of priority. 

And these other answers have at least one more benefit: they don't paint the absurd or 

even immoral picture of ISPs like AT&T suggesting that new prioritized pathways are the only 

way to get the medical services through the traffic - then putting up a toll booth, sticking their 

hands out, and demanding that lifesaving or emergency applications pay a toll. 

PAID PRIORITIZATION FEES WOULD CREATE BARRIERS FOR APPS BUT NOT 

SAVE INTERNET USERS MONEY. 

Suffice it to say that it would be inefficient in the extreme for app makers, websites, 

online platforms, internet content suppliers, and other edge providers to strike paid prioritization 

deals with every ISP whose broadband customers they'd like to reach. Even if they could 

manage it, these edge providers would essentially be double-charged for data that ISP 

subscribers have already paid to send and receive. 

Academics may yet speculate that if we had a different kind of access market, in which 

broadband customers paid on a strictly metered basis, the new fees paid by edge providers could 

offset subscriber costs. What these academics cannot explain, however, here in the real world, is 

why ISPs facing so little competition and no oversight of the fees that might charge in either 

direction of this two-sided market would have any incentive to lower their retail prices rather 

than pocketing the additional revenues. 

24 !d. at 21-22. 

24 
106 


31393.088

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Aprill7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce~ Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

When ISP executives talk about paid prioritization, if they do, it seems quite unlikely that 

they'd describe it as a way to reduce their revenues, or merely to change the source of them from 

their end-users to the edge. It seems far more likely that they would talk about it (if at all) as a 

chance to increase those revenues. So in the end, speculation that paid prioritization could save 

people money is just that: speculation. And it is even less well informed than suggestions that 

some applications simply "need" priority and need to pay for it themselves too. 

CONTENT DELIVERY NETWORKS ARE NOT PRIORITIZATION. 

Are there other justifications for lifting the paid prioritization ban, besides supposedly 

addressing congestion, reducing "excess" broadband investment, and miraculously creating 

trickle-down savings for internet users? One suggestion is that Content Delivery Networks (or 

"CDNs") constitute a form of"prioritization" that only large edge providers can afford- and that 

this advantage might be offset by letting ISPs charge third parties for priority. While there is no 

time in this testimony to provide a full description of the law, technology, or marketplace 

realities for CDNs, it is enough to say that this formulation is mistaken in every respect. 

First, CDNs do nothing to address last-mile congestion. Edge providers may use CDNs in 

an attempt to reduce transit costs and latency by storing content closer to the end-user. But CDNs 

certainly do not prioritize a service by letting it cut to the front of the line for a fee when lastmile congestion occurs. If the tcm1 "prioritization" is to have any meaning at all, it must mean 

placing one message or packet ahead of another one, not simply improving the speed or other 

performance characteristics of a particular message without moving other packets back in line. 

That is why even the FCC's 2017 Net Neutrality repeal order conceded that it did "not mean to 

suggest that CDN services themselves constitute paid prioritization. "25 

25 2017 Net Neutrality Repeal~ 255 n.926. 

25 
107 


31393.089

Free Pre~s/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April !7, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Commumcations and Technology 

Second, it's strange to hear that CDNs are expensive or out of reach for lillY edge 

provider, small, medium or large, when there are numerous competitive CDNs in the market -

including CDN services provided by the largest ISPs themselves. Verizon, 26 Comcast,27 and 

AT&T28 all offer their own CDNs, and they apparently did so for the entire time that the 2015 

rules were in effect. They are not typically in the habit of suggesting that their own offerings are 

unaffordable and ineffective, so perhaps that's why they aren't attending this hearing to make 

this claim. All kinds of edge providers, large and small, use CDNs. They are not confined to the 

largest platforms by any stretch. 

Third, even if paid prioritization could be used to level the playing field, and offset this 

supposed advantage that CDNs confer on large edge providers, it's implausible to believe it 

would be sold this way. As explained above, absent new laws or highly regulatory interventions 

to forbid ISPs from selling priority to the highest bidder, and to reserve it only for small 

businesses or certain kinds of edge providers, why would any ISP do this? The answer is it 

wouldn't, unless that ISP were once again looking to pick winners and losers. 

We sometimes talk about artificial scarcity in the broadband market, but there's an 

artificial abundance of Net Neutrality analogies. Nevertheless, I'll try one here. I'd guess that 

even in this internet era, most or all Members of Congress still send direct mail during campaign 

season. Using a CDN is something like using a local printer or direct mail firm to produce, store, 

and deliver your materials, rather than printing them here in Washington and shipping them back 

to the district. 

26 Verizon Digital Media Services, "Better matters: Why our content delivery network is simply better," (last visited 

Apr, 16, 2018), https://www.verizondigitalmedia.com/platform/edgecast-cdn/. 

27 Comcast Technology Solutions, "Content Delivery Network," (last visited Apr, 16, 2018), 

https://www.comcasttechnologysolutions.com/our-portfolio/video-platform/content-delivery-network. 

28 AT&T Business, "Content Delivery Network," (last visited Apr, 16, 2018), 

https://www.busincss.att.com/solutions/Family/cloud/content-delivery-network/. 

26 
108 


31393.090

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 20\8 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Let's imagine that the market for such services is competitive, just as the CDN market is; 

and that there are many providers to choose from, just as there are with CDNs today. Now, 

imagine that in addition to such a service - or instead of one - you got this pitch from the Post 

Office: why pay for local storage and delivery of mail when you could buy prioritization instead? 

Not just local storage that cuts down on costs and transit time, available on the same terms and at 

the same prices to everybody who chooses a particular class of service, regardless of the sender 

or content of the message. No, prioritization here would mean the ability to cut in line - paying 

to have your message delivered before your opponent's. Or, heaven forbid, your opponent's 

ability to do that to you. 

I think you'd have little trouble in that case understanding how paid prioritization, 

achieved by purchasing an advantage and jumping the queue in the last mile, is different from 

simply ensuring that earlier phases in the transit, storage, and delivery process are fast and 

efficient. Attempts to conflate CDNs with paid prioritization should be understood the same way. 

PLATFORMS' CURATION AND TARGETED ADS AREN'T PRIORITIZATION. 

Less than week after the Facebook CEO's hearings in this Committee and in the Senate, 

the sprawling questions swirling around what to do about online platforms can barely be 

contained inside all of Washington, DC, let alone inside a single Net Neutrality hearing. Yet 

from the tenor of some Committee Members' questions last week, it is evident that there has 

been some thought given to connecting the topic of ISPs' traffic management practices on 

telecommunications networks and online platforms' practices more generally. 

27 
109 


31393.091

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- Apri\17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Before offering even a few thoughts on the topic, one mispcrception I need to address at 

the top is the notion that Free Press or other Net Neutrality supporters are unwilling to regulate 

dominant online platforms and edge providers generally. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to such platforms' troubling data 

collection practices and privacy abuses; their pattern of profiting from hate and racism, and from 

their own or other parties' violations of election law and civil rights law; and their impact on 

journalism revenues and digital ad competition, Free Press is deeply concerned and researching 

answers. 

We have endorsed the Honest Ads Act to promote greater transparency in political 

advertising. We supported the FCC's privacy rules in order to protect against abuses by 

broadband providers; but we certainly support opt-in requirements for edge providers too -

frankly, in terms that could require far more than the FCC rules did, and that also go further than 

Chairman Blackburn's BROWSER Act introduced last year or Senator Markey's CONSENT 

Act introduced last week. We need more than just general, one-time opt-in requirements, that 

apply to more than just a pre-defined category of "sensitive information," because we've now 

seen the many flaws in such approaches. 

One person may deem a particular type of personal information "sensitive" even though 

another does not. So-called non-sensitive information may still be very useful- and valuable to 

the entity collecting it and then al!o'.'.ing others to use or misuse it. Opt-in language in privacy 

policies is not clear or prominent enough; but beyond being written more clearly and placed 

more conspicuously, it must be more specific and time-bound, explaining exactly what is 

collected, how it's used, and for how long. 

28 
110 


31393.092

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17,2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Without that kind of breadth, depth and specificity for new laws or rules, companies like 

Facebook could deploy fleets of lobbyists and lawyers to argue quite plausibly that they already 

comply with a more vaguely drawn opt-in requirement. And that's before we even talk about 

regulating numerous abuses of data once it is collected, for example by advertisers blatantly 

allowed to violate housing laws by excluding people based on race, religion, or family status. 

But even with all of that hopefully understood, we still reject suggestions made by some 

advocates today - and even by some sitting members of the majority, or by former Senator 

Franken in a speech last year to apply the same kinds of neutrality rules we had for broadband 

networks and other common carriers to online speakers, curators, or platforms. 

I can't help but pause to remark on this ironic twist in the fight against Title II. It seems 

that some people's rallying cry has become "Don't regulate the internet ... just the websites!" 

Needless to say, a platform like Facebook has tremendous power to shape what its users 

see - on Facebook and off of it too, thanks to its billions of users and its referral of traffic to 

other sites. But even with two billion Facebook users worldwide, there are just as many billions 

of websites, applications, media outlets, and other sources of information online and off. So 

while Facebook has great sway over news, opinion, and public dialogue, it does not have the 

same type of power that ISPs could wield to exclude online information from users altogether. 

Economic power and political persuasion alone have historically been insufficient in this 

country to support content restrictions on speakers and editors such as newspapers 29 Even the 

spectrum scarcity rationale put forward by the Red Lion30 case to support the FCC's broadcast 

"Fairness Doctrine" - long disfavored by the Republican party, and long ago cast aside by the 

FCC- may be subject to challenge in a world of unlicensed spectrum technology. 

29 See, e.g., Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974). 

30 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). 

29 
111 


31393.093

Free PressiFree Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 2018 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Common carriers, on the other hand, have always been subject to reasonable 

nondiscrimination rules and not held liable for speech they carry. That remains true today, five 

years after Verizon dangerously argued in a Net Neutrality appeal that "broadband providers 

possess 'editorial discretion"' and said that "O]ust as a newspaper is entitled to decide which 

content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others." 31 

This is simply not true. Edge providers and other speakers are not the same thing as 

telecommunications networks. 

And just like ISP-owned sites are -whether in Verizon's sprawling Oath empire, that 

includes legacy AOL and Yahoo! content; on Comcast's NBC and Universal properties; or for 

the Time Warner content that AT&T hopes to acquire- an online platform or website can and 

does function as a speaker, editor, or curator of content. 

There are interesting academic questions we could take up, about whether or not a large 

and essential internet platform might be made subject to common carrier rules someday. Though 

it is also worth noting in that context that those calling to remove internet companies' liability 

exemptions under Section 230 of the Communications Act would actually encourage more 

blocking, not less, by treating sites as the publisher of their users' speech and comments. 

But the answers to these questions right now are relatively easy. Facebook is not a 

common carrier. Neither is Twitter, or Google search. Neither is MikeDoyleforCongress.com, 

MarshaBlackburn.com, or Freepress.net while we're at it. Lawmakers who view this as a game 

about which sector to regulate, as if it's just a battle between competing interests in Silicon 

Valley and ISP headquarters, will ensure that their constituents arc the real losers in that fight. 

31 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (2014), Joint Brieffor Verizon and MetroPCS at 43 (filed July 2, 2012). 

30 
112 


31393.094

Free Press/Free Press Action Fund Testimony- April 17, 20l8 

House Commlttee on Energy and Commerce- Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

There are some kinds of privacy and disclosure rules that could or should be made the 

same for all participants in the internet "ecosystem," and that even could be enforced by the 

same federal agency so long as it had the power to make rules and then enforce them adequately. 

But a one-size-fits-all approach that suggests the same kinds of rules for vastly different 

kinds of services is never the right approach, and it would not serve anyone well here. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in this hearing, for your questions during 

the hearing itself, and for any written questions thereafter. Free Press's position has been and 

remains that the FCC was wrong to repeal the Net Neutrality rules, its 2015 order, and the legal 

framework and classification decisions undergirding those earlier policies. We urge you to adopt 

the resolution of disapproval intended to restore the policies and legal interpretations in place 

prior to the repeal vote taken by the current FCC majority. And we respectfully remind you that 

Net Neutrality is not just an astonishingly popular political issue in 2018, but also an essential 

part of maintaining your constituents' congressionally granted communications rights. 

31 
113 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

This concludes the testimony from our witnesses. We thank you 

for that, and we will now move to our questions and answers. I will 

begin and recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Bennett, I want to come to you first. I want to discuss a 

tweet from Matthew Prince, the CEO of CloudFlare, from last November. 

This exchange occurred on the day the FCC made its Restoring 

Internet Freedom order available to the public. Someone tweeted a 

wish that a tech billionaire would buy out the local ISP where 

Chairman Pai lives and throttle his internet access in retaliation 

for reversing the previous Commission’s order. 

Matthew Prince tweeted in reply, ‘‘I could do this in a different 

but equally effective way.’’ He went on to say he had sent a note 

to his general counsel to see if CloudFlare could throttle Pai’s access without breaking any laws. 

This tweet certainly raises a number of questions, and in fact it 

gave us the idea for this hearing. Was Matthew Prince right, and 

if so, how could he have done this? 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you for the question, Chairman Blackburn. 

I remember that exchange. I got involved in it myself, actually. 

And I think what it illustrates is how the construction of the internet, the structure of the architecture, has changed since the sort 

of founding days of even really since Tim Wu came up with the 

idea for net neutrality. 

So instead of it being a system that consists of users attached, 

you know, with their computers and mobile devices to an infrastructure that’s provided only by internet service providers, the infrastructure is actually—there’s a lot going on in the infrastructure 

today that didn’t used to be there in the very beginning, and content delivery networks have been mentioned several times, and 

that’s one example. Technically, content delivery networks are edge 

services, but it turns out that all parts of the edge are not equal. 

So if you put a content delivery network on a portion of the edge 

close to the end user, then you, by that very act of simply locating 

the data there, you have moved the data to the head of a line that 

other suppliers of information that could be, say, on an average of 

half a nation away would have to join at the back—you know, 

CDNs put you at the front. 

So CloudFlare has a number of—they’re actually quite innovative 

products the company has. So it’s sort of a—it’s hard to—I am not 

completely a fan, but some of the things they’re doing I think are 

very beneficial. 

I think their primary product is the DDoS protection mechanism 

so that, you know, sites can be subject to denial-of-service attacks 

if they are on the wrong side of popular opinion on certain topics, 

and CloudFlare came up with a way to protect sites that are being 

hammered with denial-of-service attacks by simply putting a really 

high bandwidth kind of firewall in front of the site that could absorb the denial-of-service attack and allow the website to continue 

to function. 

Of course, that doesn’t always work the way it’s planned. I used 

to be a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and we 

published a blog called Tech Policy Daily, and we used CloudFlare’s 

114 

free service to protect the blog from denial-of-service attacks. AEI’s 

the kind of organization that’s sort of a target for a lot of that sort 

of antisocial behavior. 

But I ran into a situation once where I was unable to access a 

post that I would written for the blog from my home in Colorado 

due to a misconfiguration of the CloudFlare. 

The CloudFlare had changed some IP addresses. They hadn’t told 

the people at AEI, and so the AEI server, which was not actually 

owned or controlled by CloudFlare—it was just behind the 

CloudFlare firewall—was unreachable to me. But people in DC 

could see it just fine. So it’s, like, they were saying, ‘‘Why is this 

a problem?’’ 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me interject and ask you one more question on this. You talked about the CDNs, and as we look at an individual user’s access to certain content, who else within this ecosystem would have the opportunity to control that access or to control the speed of the individual’s access? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the CDNs dump so much traffic on the internet I think, as it’s covered in the background memo for the hearing, that they’re actually in a position to affect the rate at which 

non-CDN users can get their jobs done. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. My time has expired. 

Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

A number of witnesses mentioned that 5G will precipitate the 

need for greater prioritization. If we dramatically increase the capacity of the network service, do we also need to dramatically increase our ability to manage the scarcity of it? 

Mr. WOOD. I think not. Congestion doesn’t solve every problem, 

I heard other witnesses say, but it can solve a lot of them, and as 

I noted in my testimony, certain kinds of prioritization actually do 

happen already. The question really is who’s being made to pay for 

that. 

Mr. DOYLE. You know, a number of witnesses also said in their 

testimony, they talked about the benefits of ISPs prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others—for instance, live video, telemedicine, and online games. 

But what happens when you take the choice away from consumers of which packets get to them first and ISPs are allowed to 

decide which applications and application providers will have optimized access to consumers and which ones won’t? 

I mean, to me it seems like the ISPs get to pick who wins and 

who loses. What do you think? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Congressman. 

Yes, we agree. We think retaining that user choice and the rights 

that users have is very important. And so you’re right that certain 

kinds of traffic might have different network needs at different 

times. 

It should really be up to the user to choose not only which kinds 

of traffic they might wish to pay for or prioritize but also the source 

of that traffic. So will all video applications be treated the same 

way? That’s a very tough question to answer when we are leaving 

that all within the ISPs’ control. 

115 

Mr. DOYLE. You know, let’s talk a little bit about competition. If 

ISPs were allowed to implement paid prioritization for services 

such as telemedicine or other services, do you think that would increase or decrease the number of competitive offerings in that 

space? 

Essentially, do you think small, rural health practices or small 

startups would want to compete against large health systems and 

the ISPs themselves or other large institutional players? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, Congressman. Thank you. 

I think it would decrease the amount of competitors further upstream, if you will. There’s some notion that paid priority could be 

used to level the playing field, I suppose, and let the small businesses compete with the large businesses. 

I can’t see how that would work. I think that, if there were paid 

prioritization allowed, then naturally the companies with the deepest pockets and the providers with the biggest bank accounts would 

pay for that prioritization. 

It wouldn’t be used to level the playing field. It would just be 

used to tilt it even further. 

Mr. DOYLE. You know, a number of witnesses here today have 

alleged that the Open Internet Order severely restricted the types 

of network management an ISP could engage in. 

They also alleged that certain types of specialized service offerings such as telemedicine work prohibit it. Further, they claim that 

prioritization is necessary to ensure the quality of certain services, 

services, it seems to me, that might be best served using business 

data services, which I see are claimed to be too expensive. 

What do you make of that? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, there’s a lot there. I do think that the Open 

Internet Order of 2015 did allow for reasonable network management. It was the term of art used for several of the rules. So even 

for blocking or for throttling, there were network management exceptions. 

For a prioritization, there was no such exception, but, of course, 

as I noted this morning, the ban only applied to third-party payments or prioritization done to benefit an affiliate of the internet 

service provider. 

So all kinds of applications could receive network management. 

You mentioned specialized services and other kinds of dedicated capacity. Those were fully allowed by the 2015 order, and, again, 

even when there is a use case for prioritization on the open internet without going to a specialized service or dedicated capacity, 

there are protocols and methods for doing that today. 

They just simply don’t require the edge provider to pay on top 

of what the broadband user is already paying for their service. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. 

Mr. Wood, the ban on paid prioritization, or pay to play, that was 

a fundamental part of net neutrality, and throughout the proceeding to eliminate neutrality protections, Chairman Pai repeatedly said that the 2015 net neutrality order was a departure from 

the past. 

Yet, as far back as the 1970s the Commission had identified the 

potential harmful effects that could result when just a handful of 

gatekeepers could control consumers’ access to the internet. 

116 

Has the internet always been open and free? 

Mr. WOOD. We certainly think so. In the old days, you might call 

it, broadband providers were Title II providers. Your dial-up service worked over a phone line, and that phone company was subject 

to nondiscrimination rules. 

So, although the legal ground for net neutrality has shifted somewhat over the last decade as different administrations have tried 

to do it in different ways, the protections have always been there, 

and we think the 2015 version did the best job of restoring the protections we’ve always had. 

Mr. DOYLE. So why were guardrails needed when the FCC 

opened its proceeding that resulted in the recently overturned net 

neutrality protection? 

Mr. WOOD. I am sorry. You said why were guardrails needed? 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. 

Mr. WOOD. I am not sure I completely understand the question. 

But we do think that keeping the protections we’ve always had was 

the right move. I am not sure what guardrails you’re referring to 

in the new proceeding. 

Mr. DOYLE. No, in the recently overturned proceeding. 

Mr. WOOD. Yes. Well, I mean, again, these are fundamental 

rights that we think deserve protection and always have had it in 

some form or another, and so that’s why we are looking to restore 

it now. 

Mr. DOYLE. I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Shimkus, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Great hearing, interesting issue, contentious views. I want to 

start with Mr. Schroeder, and I want to, one, thank you for being 

here, and secondly, I was watching your hands. Were you reading 

Braille or how was—how did you read to us your testimony? What 

was going on down there? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, I was. I am reading off of a small Braille 

device. It’s essentially a Braille computer that has my summarized 

testimony. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. And where is the lady who’s assisting you 

through your glasses and the video? Where is actually she physically located? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Amy is in San Diego currently. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Great. Great. So—— 

Mr. SCHROEDER. I am taking the headphone out so she can talk 

if you have a question for her. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I hope that you have a good working environment, 

Amy. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCHROEDER. You know, one of the things we found when our 

agents—and Amy was our lead agent and the person that developed a lot of the training that the agents now go through—she is 

a company employee in San Diego. 

But our agents love Aira, as you can imagine. They are paid, as 

I mentioned. It’s largely home-based employment, and as long as 

they’ve got a good internet connection, they are able to provide the 

117 

support for Aira users, and there’s a lot of satisfaction, I know, 

among our agents and the kind of work that they do from the tedious work of getting somebody through an airport or the very exciting work of actually being able to work with somebody who’s touring Paris. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. In your testimony then—you can put her— 

you can put her down. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I don’t think I’ve got questions for—— 

Mr. SCHROEDER. I’m putting you down, Amy. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. In your testimony you talked about your relationship with AT&T and then the Aira accessibility of Government 

buildings this week or while there are numerous people who have 

impaired vision that’s on the Hill. 

And so it’s tied into this hearing. Why do you think you were invited here to testify? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. I think Aira has an interesting case to make. 

We’ve been clear from the beginning we don’t really—as you know 

if you looked at our company references, we don’t really have—we 

haven’t stated a position on this particular topic. 

But Aira has a very interesting case to make regarding 

prioritization, and as I noted it’s an upstream priority. So typically 

when we talk about this issue of prioritized content and access to 

content, it’s usually ensuring that users have access to content, and 

the discussion tends to revolve around making sure that the content goes downstream in an orderly fashion. 

We are the other side of that case. We need to send video upstream and, as you know, often upload speeds don’t match 

download speeds. 

And so our critical case to make is that our service can’t work 

if we don’t have priority low-latency access. I think we talk about 

80 milliseconds is what we try to achieve, or better, of latency because, if somebody is out and about moving, they really do need 

that instant video feedback that the agent can then provide—that 

that video in the opposite direction of what we usually talk about 

in these networking—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. It’s excellent testimony, and you can just see 

someone trying to cross a busy street and then being—feedback is 

delayed. That’s a dangerous proposition to be had. 

I just think it really does speak to—it’s not as simple as people 

like to portray this debate. 

And I want to go to Mr.—‘‘Ri-say-vy’’? 

Mr. RYSAVY. ‘‘Ri-sah-vy.’’ 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Rysavy. You say it’s not a zero sum game. Explain 

that. Because that’s the whole debate. You know, net neutrality— 

there’s winners and losers—Mr. Wood articulates that very—but 

you say it’s not. You can’t put it in that—in that—— 

Mr. RYSAVY. It is absolutely not a zero sum game. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And explain that. 

Mr. RYSAVY. The reason is that different applications have different requirements. If I am trying to send a short message to an 

autonomous vehicle that there’s a pedestrian in the road around 

the corner that the car can’t see, that traffic does not have to adversely affect a video streaming application that already has a buffVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
118 

er and already has tolerance for delay in how it receives its packets. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So, and then someone else mentioned it’s really 

not a highway. It’s a network of networks. 

Mr. RYSAVY. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And so there’s other—and Mr. Bennett, in your 

testimony you talk about how you can manipulate a portion of the 

network to actually slow up the process where the, quote, unquote, 

‘‘pie’’ may get the original one. 

Great hearing, Madam Chairman. I wish I had more time, but 

I don’t, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Let’s see. So Ms. Eshoo, 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Again, thank you to the witnesses. I have to say that from the 

first three, I haven’t heard any of you just clearly address why you 

think paid prioritization is a good idea. 

We just heard the exchange with Mr. Shimkus and the witness 

about different uses of the internet, but you didn’t bring up why 

one case or another should have paid prioritization. 

So you know where I am, but I think that your job is to try to 

dissuade me or bring new facts to the table, and, most frankly, I 

didn’t hear them. 

I think that paid prioritization really needs to be examined for 

exactly what it is. There are many uses on the internet. But, you 

know, I think that we are going to—here at the committee we have 

many Members, including myself, that are fighting very hard for 

rural areas in our country to receive broadband. Some are underserved. Others are not served as they should be. 

Put paid prioritization on top of that. How fair is that to those 

people? You know, the idea is to move it faster, quicker, fairer, expand it so that there’s more information to the many in a democracy. 

So, to Mr. Wood, can you explain the distinction between—because this term is being thrown around—specialized services and 

paid prioritization? 

And also, you refer to your, in your testimony, to new forms of 

discrimination, and I think that that is—you know, that could crop 

up, and if you can expand on that a little I would appreciate it. 

Mr. WOOD. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Specialized services is a term that the FCC has used over the 

last several years. You might think of it as dedicated access. And 

so I don’t know Aira’s business model completely, but a purchaser 

of a device might not actually be using that device on their own 

broadband network. 

The device might bring the broadband with it, if you will, and 

that’s a way, if there is a need for prioritization and even for the 

application waiver—— 

Ms. ESHOO. And that was included in the 2015 rule, right? 

Mr. WOOD. It was, and 2010 as well, and this is the kind of thing 

we’ve always seen with—— 

Ms. ESHOO. And the court upheld that. 

Mr. WOOD. That’s true. 

119 

Ms. ESHOO. Very importantly, the courts upheld that. Mm-hmm. 

I am sorry, go ahead. 

Mr. WOOD. And then, as to new forms of discrimination, we just 

believe that the kinds of things Chairman Blackburn was describing—for example, distortion further into the network or especially 

at interconnection points, as they’re called, where the last-mile 

broadband network receives all this traffic that their users are subscribing for—the users are requesting, and if it can’t get to them 

due to some sort of blockage further up the line or if there is some 

kind of new form of discriminatory treatment towards the 

broadband providers and users, we would like the FCC to have the 

ability to assess that and determine the statute is unreasonable 

discrimination to assess whether a tactic or a technique is actually 

benefiting users or hurting them. 

Ms. ESHOO. Is there anything that you know of, that you can 

think of, that makes the case for paid prioritization plausible or acceptable? 

Mr. WOOD. I mean, as I said, some people might postulate that 

it would save money for the broadband providers’ customers. We 

just haven’t seen that happen, and when you have so few choices 

among broadband providers—— 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, how do you save money if you’re paying more? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, you wouldn’t be saving money. I think that, you 

know, sometimes there’s a notion that if the edge provider pays, 

the user won’t have to, and what we think of this as is more double 

charging. 

The broadband provider’s customer continues to pay for their access, and then the two-sided market, or the handout in the other 

direction, says now the edge provider pays as well. 

So, as I said, I don’t think that the ISPs think of this as a way 

to save money. 

Ms. ESHOO. Yes, it’s about as clear as fog. Yes. 

Well, I just—I wish I heard a very clear case from the wonderful 

first three witnesses on why paid prioritization is a very good thing 

for anyone using the internet, and I haven’t heard it. 

I admire the different services that you have referred to and all 

of that, but I think that we’ve got some fog in this hearing, and 

paid prioritization is paid prioritization. 

I don’t find anything foundational and positive about it. 

Thank you to all of you, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Latta, you’re recognized. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and 

thanks for our witnesses. As my friend from Illinois said, this has 

been a very interesting hearing. I appreciate you all being here to 

give your testimony today. 

Mr. Bennett, if I could start my questioning with you. What are 

the impacts of traffic management on different applications? And 

if all video conferencing applications such as Skype or Facetime 

were in the same traffic lane as general email traffic, how would 

that impact each service? 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you for the question. 

The network operators have to manage a pool of resources, and 

one of the resources that’s really critical is what engineers call laVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
120 

tency. It’s delay. It’s how long it takes a packet to get from one 

point to another. 

Low latency is a resource that networks never have an infinite 

supply of. It always has to be managed. 

So it’s very important for these video conferencing apps to have 

low latency because, if they don’t, the picture breaks up, you hear, 

like, dropouts in the audio channel, and the overall accuracy and 

the feeling of sort of presence of being as if you’re in the same room 

with the person you’re talking to, you can’t achieve that without 

very low latency. 

Latency doesn’t make any difference to email applications. I 

mean, they’re perfectly fine with, you know, and network time is 

measured in, units of, like, millionths and billionths of a second, 

and email operates more at the level of, like, minutes and hours. 

So, I mean, it doesn’t really matter. So when we assign, effectively, low latency to an email packet that doesn’t need it simply 

because we are sending packets in the order they were received or 

in some other sort of semirandom order, we are wasting a resource. 

And so it’s actually—I think it’s a bit irresponsible to just sort 

of treat all traffic the same, because that means we are ignoring 

the fundamental requirements that the users of those services 

have. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Rysavy, if I could ask you—in my district and across the 

country, there’s a great deal of interest in manufacturing and other 

sectors that we see increased efficiency from the Internet of Things. 

IOT will be made of next-generation sensors and automated 

equipment such as drones and robots that can provide real-time 

and HD video imaging, audio, and other bandwidth-intensive sensing, monitoring, automated processes. 

In a world without prioritization, can the Internet of Things become a reality? 

Mr. RYSAVY. It would come to a very partial reality. The fact is 

that the application and quality of service requirements for different applications vary. 

So there may be some IOT applications that don’t need 

prioritization. But to expand the number of applications to allow 

innovators the full range of everything that is possible, many of 

these techniques of quality-of-service management will be essential. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, just a quick follow-up then: So what would 

that mean for overall U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing? 

Mr. RYSAVY. The more artificial restrictions that there are on 

what kind of applications can be deployed, the less competitive industry will be because you can be assured that other countries who 

wish to dominate in this space are not going to handicap their technologies. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. 

Mr. Bennett, going back, if I could, to you, we often hear about 

how ISPs prioritize packets that manage traffic congestion to complete a user-friendly experience. 

However, we see edge providers pay to prioritize search results, 

advertising, social network feeds, shopping options, et cetera. Given 

that this form of paid prioritization is happening every day, I 

would like to understand the impact that it has on consumers. 

121 

1The information has been retained in committee files and also is available at https:// 

docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thanks for the questions. 

Yes, we can see some of the impact of the prioritization of search 

results and how the market has changed for product search. For 

a very long time, Google was the dominant company in product 

search. 

But nowadays more people begin product searches on Amazon 

than do it on Google, and I don’t know exactly why that is happening, but I think it has something to do with the fact that, when 

you do a Google search, the first few answers you get are all paid 

ads, and they’re not always very relevant, you know, to what you’re 

doing, and they’re certainly not as trustworthy as the organic 

search. 

So prioritization, I think, in that sense the company should realize that they’ve actually hurt their market position by distorting 

their search results that way and by the fact that the Google 

search is just not as effective as it used to be. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, my time has expired. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Clarke, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank our 

expert witnesses for their testimony here this morning. 

And given that I also serve on the Small Business Committee, 

I strongly believe and maintain that the rollback of net neutrality 

is going to have a hugely detrimental effect on small businesses, 

and I am not alone in this belief. 

Polling indicates that an overwhelming majority of respondents 

are concerned that the elimination of net neutrality could disadvantage small businesses by allowing big national chains to put 

their online services in a fast lane. 

A number of small businesses in my district back in Brooklyn 

have been outspoken about this—small businesses like TakeShape 

and Staffbase—and I could co-sponsor the CRA to reinstate net 

neutrality in part due to their concerns. 

Given that, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to introduce a letter for the record and this record—it opposes the FCC’s rollback of 

net neutrality and it’s signed by 800 small businesses. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection.1

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Wood, why are small businesses so concerned about the rollback of net neutrality, and why is rolling back the ban on paid 

prioritization worrying these businesses? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I think it’s pretty clear and simple: They don’t want to have to 

pay extra to deliver their content to their customers. 

Now, it’s not true that they’re not paying. They pay a lot to get 

their content onto the internet, and they pay their own broadband 

provider, or sometimes they’re even able to build their own connections. 

What we are talking about here is then paying my ISP at home 

separate charge either to cut in line in front of somebody else or 

122 

perhaps just to get the traffic to me in the first place, and it’s that 

extra and, frankly, new toll that I think has small businesses worried. 

I saw the poll that I think you’re referring to, and it was something like 4 to 1 small businesses opposed to the repeal and worried about paid priority. 

A large number of them are uncertain how it would affect their 

business, so I find it funny that, in the name of creating more certainty, we’ve actually created great uncertainty for small businesses who thought this was unsettled. 

But that’s the kind of fear they’re facing is, ‘‘Are there going to 

be new tolls and new charges that I must pay just to get my content to my customers?’’ 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

I’ve also been a strong advocate of diversity in traditional media 

companies, and that’s why, along with my colleagues, I’ve created 

the Multicultural Media Caucus here in the House. 

The sad truth is that diverse voices are seldom truly represented 

in traditional media but that neutrality can in some ways help fix 

that problem. 

Mr. Wood, why is net neutrality important for groups that are 

not well represented in traditional media? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it’s for exactly 

that reason it does. It doesn’t eliminate all barriers, but it lowers 

the barriers to speaking in one’s own voice and getting your story 

out there. 

And so, traditionally communities of color have not been well 

represented on the airwaves. The internet helps to change that. 

Again, I think the notion that some have tried to put forward in 

this hearing is that prioritization and paid prioritization could help 

them compete with the biggest content providers, and I just can’t 

see how that would work. 

I think if we did allow for paid prioritization, then the traditional 

media companies would be the first in line and the highest bidders 

for such slots and that the less well-known and well-established 

media companies and voices would be pushed to the back of the 

line. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well, and I remain concerned about the impact 

paid prioritization can have on innovation and new ideas and on 

new products. 

When a programmer in my district comes up with the next big 

idea, how can we help ensure her focus is on connecting with her 

users? And this question is to Mr. Wood and Mr. Schroeder. 

Mr. WOOD. I will go just because my mic’s on. 

I think this is how we can do it, is by preserving the internet as 

it always has been, where people pay their own broadband connection but then they’re not asked to pay an additional toll just to 

reach the other side of that connection and we have each side of 

the conversation paying for their connectivity but not this extra toll 

where the ISP charges in both directions. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

I think for Aira, we are a company that serves a rather small 

and underserved customer base providing a unique service, right. 

123 

So people who are blind or visually compared constitute, you know, 

maybe 23 million of the population. 

The people who need our service don’t really have an adequate 

technology-based solution. What most people would do is try to find 

a sighted assistant to provide some access to visual information, 

and there isn’t always a sighted assistant around and, frankly, 

there isn’t always a competent sighted assistant around to provide 

access to information. 

Getting to our users has been a real challenge. But to answer 

maybe the question you didn’t ask, but for us, one of the limitations we worry about is—and one of the things we’ve seen before 

we had access to the dynamic traffic management that AT&T offers 

on its essentially high-priority private network—is that our users 

were not able to get their video through in a way that actually 

worked, because there were too many lags, too many delays, and 

too many dropped calls. And so they weren’t able to have access to 

competent assistants using the Aira model. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you, Mr. Schroeder, and I yield back, 

Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

appreciate the hearing. 

And this question is for Mr. Bennett, probably continuing on 

some of the same theme. I would like to discuss the debate over 

ISPs taking advantage of their gatekeeper position at the last-mile 

connection points by prioritizing content delivery for those who pay 

the most or even holding content hostage, and the counter position 

that they wouldn’t have a viable business model if they did this. 

I may be oversimplifying this, but it seems to boil down to questions about relative bargaining positions within edge providers and 

ISPs and who has the unique advantage in this regard. 

So the question: In the development of the internet as we know 

it today, has there been a need for or practice of paying for priority 

of content delivery over the last mile? 

Mr. BENNETT. It certainly hasn’t been a widespread practice, if 

it has existed at all. There have been certainly a lot of claims that 

ISPs were holding certain content providers hostage for payment. 

In 2014, Netflix accused the major ISPs of doing that to them, 

but it turns out the network that was actually slowing their traffic 

down was their transit provider, Cogent. The ISPs didn’t really 

have anything to do with it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So if it exists, you don’t know of it? Is that what 

you’re saying? 

Mr. BENNETT. It certainly hasn’t been widespread. I mean, in 

fact, I would like to see more willingness on the part of ISPs to sell 

prioritized delivery to application providers that had real-time 

apps, you know, like video conferencing and have never really seen 

much reason how that would benefit them to sell that service, because it would actually make third parties able to provide voice 

and face time just as well as the native products sold by the ISPs. 

This is especially the case at the wireless ISPs. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So who has the stronger bargaining position over 

the last mile and what if an ISP with less than a million customers 

124 

is dealing with an edge provider that has tens of millions of customers for their platform services? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the day an ISP announces that it’s not going 

to allow Netflix to use its network because, you know, it has some 

dispute and it’s not getting the money, that’s pretty much the day 

that you should short that ISP, as they’re—nobody has the kind of 

bargaining position that Amazon and Netflix and Google have. 

Those are regarded as essential services by users of ISPs. There’s 

no way the ISP can mess with them. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Because a lot of my ISPs at the last mile are 

local—like, utilities, Bardstown City Cable is the ISP. Logan Telephone and Telegraph is the ISP for the last mile for a lot of the 

areas there that wouldn’t have that kind of bargaining power that 

you’re talking about. 

In your testimony also, you say sharing is inherent in the internet’s design and go on to say access to shared resources of any kind 

implies the development and implementation of the sharing policy. 

Can you elaborate on what options network operators have to 

manage shared access to a scarce resource? In particular, how does 

class of service or smart queuing techniques alleviate congestion 

when network load increases to moderate or high levels? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the purpose of class of service or type of 

service in IP is for the application to identify—tell the network 

what kind of service it needs, if it’s a low precedence or whether 

their focus is capacity or reliability. 

The trouble with that is that, typically—and that’s used internally by ISPs once they’re able to determine what application generated a particular traffic stream, which they can do with a fair degree of accuracy, but it’s never going to be 100 percent, especially 

as new applications emerge that the ISP hadn’t seen before and, 

like, ‘‘How do I treat this? Do I treat it just like generic traffic’’— 

you know, which is probably 95 percent or it could be as much as 

95 percent of the internet—‘‘or do I give it some sort of specialized 

treatment?’’ And the specialized treatment could be, like, it needs 

to be more urgently delivered than generic traffic, but it also could 

be less. 

And so there’s a case to be made for, like, actually—if we can recognize the unique performance characteristics of different streams 

and then bargain appropriately, for some streams they’re going to 

save money, because if it’s like a patch distribution or something 

that can happen at 3 o’clock in the morning, it doesn’t make sense 

for the ISP to charge a whole lot for that. In fact, it kind of makes 

sense to give it away for free, because it makes the network work 

better if all the computers are patched and up to date. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So who manages these techniques? I got about 10 

seconds. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. They’re managed by network operation staff 

at the ISPs, and the tricky part, though, is that the boundary’s between different ISPs or different networks—between an ISP and a 

transit network. And so they operate on the basis of agreements 

and they typically don’t articulate the treatment of nonstandard—— 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. McNerney, you’re recognized 5 minutes. 

125 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the witnesses. 

As an engineer, I am deeply concerned and troubled by the FCC’s 

decision to repeal the ban on paid prioritization and kick the scraps 

of net neutrality over to the Federal Trade Commission. 

Mr. Wood, does the FTC have the resources to enforce net neutrality? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Congressman. 

To my knowledge, they do not. They have an enforcement-geared 

staff, and I think they do a good job but have trouble keeping up 

with the current caseload that they have, my understanding. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I’ve heard they don’t have any network engineers. Is that right? 

Mr. WOOD. That’s what I’ve heard as well, yes, Congressman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am concerned that, without an expert 

agency with network engineers on the case, we might never know 

if there are violations of net neutralities. 

Back in 2007, we only discovered net neutrality violations due to 

the work of an engineer working at home on his own. 

Might it be difficult for the average consumer to recognize their 

broadband provider is violating net neutrality? 

Mr. WOOD. Yes, Congressman, I think it could, and in fact, with 

nobody to watch over that process, I do think that would be a problem. 

As we’ve heard, congestion can happen at different places in the 

internet and different parts of the network. The Netflix and 

Comcast disputes that Mr. Bennett referenced, a lot of people 

called their Comcast customer service representatives and said it’s 

not coming through correctly, and the first answer from the company was, ‘‘Maybe you should buy a faster speed tier,’’ which 

wouldn’t actually have solved the problem. 

So I think even the people who work in the network, either for 

good-faith reasons or marketing purposes, might not be able to pinpoint where the problem is and then actually help the customer to 

solve it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

About veterans, in response to thousands of constituents who 

reached to me concerning their concerns about the elimination of 

net neutrality protections, I had a net neutrality town hall in my 

district to discuss their concerns. 

At the town hall, I heard from a veteran who was very worried 

about what this would mean for him and other veterans, including 

their access to health telenet services. 

Mr. Wood, given your experience with net neutrality, do you 

think veterans who need home telehealth services for in-home care 

should be concerned about the FCC’s rollback of net neutrality? 

Mr. WOOD. I do, Congressman. 

I think what they want is for the service to work, and so as we’ve 

heard there could be different use cases, different types of 

prioritization that the network already does to make sure that all 

applications can reach their destination. 

What I think veterans are worried about overseas is, ‘‘I am already paying for my connection, which might be difficult to manage 

overseas, my family is paying at home’’—is there going to be a 

news hole or a new kind of charge to make sure that traffic can 

126 

actually reach his destination, and I think that’s where the concern 

comes from, that this will be a new fee that’s ultimately passed on 

to customers, even if it’s the edge provider who is paying it in the 

first place. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Schroeder, do you have similar concerns 

about access with net neutrality protections disappearing? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. For the purposes of Aira’s technology, again, we 

are concerned that we have access to a cell network that can deliver our video upstream in a way that is reliable. 

I don’t know that the end of the Open Internet Order would adversely or would have changed our business model significantly 

whether or not that order was in place. 

I do think it is critical that we ensure that our veterans have access to the kind of service that Aira is providing, and I would say 

that, given the relatively underserved group that we are reaching 

out to, my sense is that that’s not a group that probably gets priority under any structure. 

And so, without a company like Aira really pushing that issue 

and in our case having a good partner with AT&T in order to allow 

us to use a priority network, I am not sure that that service would 

be provided—our business model and our service would be provided—in a way that actually works for people in the real world, 

as we have to make it work. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Has Aira come out in favor of Mr. Doyle’s CRA? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. We have not taken a position on any of the bills. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You referred to low latency several times in 

your testimony. Can you explain what that means? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes. Low latency means a connection with no 

delays or minimal delays. And so, in our case, as we said, our video 

needs to be able to move through at, you know, what we’ve estimated currently ideally for Mbps. 

We think, with the new glasses that I am wearing—these are 

called Horizon—by the way, they’re actually made almost entirely 

in San Diego so it’s all U.S.-based, we are proud to say—that we 

may even need a little bit higher bandwidth in order to ensure that 

the quality of the video that these glasses are able to provide gets 

through. 

And the comment about busy streets and crossing streets: While 

Aira makes clear that we do not provide information to somebody 

in the midst of a street crossing because we want them to use their 

other skills, we do note that people need information very rapidly 

and very immediately, including out on the street in order to avoid 

obstacles. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. Welcome to our four witnesses. 

This question is for the entire panel. Just go from your right to 

left. Just give us your thoughts on prioritization. 

My hometown of Houston, Texas, was hit by Hurricane Harvey 

really hard this past August—hit us not once, hit us twice. Some 

parts of my district had 50 inches of rain—almost 5 feet of rain— 

in 2 days. 

127 

The amazing efforts of the Houston law and local first responders 

before, during, and after Hurricane Harvey saved thousands of 

lives. 

With prioritization, isn’t that important for our first responders? 

Shouldn’t their traffic be prioritized in times of emergency? 

Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, Congressman Olson, it certainly should—and, 

as a former Houstonian who lived through Carla, quite sensitive to, 

you know, what went on down there recently. 

FirstNet is primarily—it’s sort of, the value proposition for 

FirstNet, other than interoperability between first responders, is 

the ability to get, what do they call it, prioritized quality—preemption and priority. 

It’s quality, preemption, and priority, so that first responders not 

only can get a connection during times of emergency, civilians want 

to use the networks and, you know, call people and let them know 

they’re OK or they’re not OK, and call for help, and all that. So 

there’s a lot of pressure on the networks from facilities being down 

and high usage and so but, you know, we definitely want first responders to have priority access. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Rysavy, your comments on priority access during 

times of natural disaster like Hurricane Harvey. 

Mr. RYSAVY. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

Yes, absolutely, that’s a perfect example of a situation where certain users such as the first responders do need access. But it’s just 

an example of many, because from there you might consider a surgeon doing remote surgery—they might need prioritization as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Schroeder. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. I think emergencies provide two interesting examples of why Aira is so critical and why making sure that our information is getting through. 

The first one is a lot of the information that is provided during 

an emergency is inherently visual. There’s maps and charts and 

graphics on television screens that indicate where one is supposed 

to go, what the storm pattern is, that sort of thing. 

Without access to Aira, it is very difficult for a person to get that 

information in a reliable sense. When somebody is relocated—if you 

can imagine a person who’s blind, they’re in an unusual setting— 

having access to Aira and a reliable visual assistant will allow that 

person to have better access to the shelter and have, of course, a 

better experience. 

Somebody might say that that’s perhaps not critical. I would disagree. I think if somebody has relocated who’s blind or visually impaired, they certainly need to be able to access the information 

around them successfully just like anybody else who’s been relocated to that area, and Aira—ensuring that our video gets through 

is another way that that person is able to have the information 

about where they are as well as things that they need to know related to surviving that emergency. 

Mr. OLSON. Amen. 

Mr. Wood, your comments on prioritization during natural disasters. 

Mr. WOOD. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman. 

128 

Yes, first responders deserve priority during disasters. I would 

say that was fully permitted under the 2015 rules that have now 

been repealed. 

And the last thing I would want is paid prioritization for first responders. I can’t imagine having the ambulance or the fire department pay an additional toll on their way to the emergency. 

So I think that draws out the distinction we are talking about 

here. 

Mr. OLSON. Good point. 

The final question for you, Mr. Bennett. Your testimony discussed internet optimization, and as you’re well aware, we are at 

the beginning of a huge data boom, another massive data boom. 

Could you elaborate on possible tools that could be used in the 

future to help further efficiencies, to optimize the internet traffic, 

and also what role does AI play in the future? 

Mr. BENNETT. AI is going to be essential, I think, to identifying 

traffic streams and mapping them to applications and determining 

what kind of service they need. 

The capability to do that has sort of increased an awful lot in 

network routers over the years and, well, it’s sort of hard to draw 

the line between sort of better programming and AI. 

I mean, it definitely leans toward the side of AI, the kind of intelligence that networks have to have these days. 

Mr. OLSON. My time has expired. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Engel, 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. 

When Mark Zuckerberg was before our committee last week, one 

of the things I asked him was about foreign influence on our democracy. 

In the FCC’s docket that rolled back the ban on paid 

prioritization and the other net neutrality protections, Americans’ 

identities were stolen and used to comment in support of Chairman 

Pai’s rollback of net neutrality. 

It seems like another attempt at sowing division. 

Mr. Wood, have you received any of these fake comments filed 

in the FCC’s docket? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Congressman. 

Have I seen them? Is that the question? 

Mr. ENGEL. Yes. 

Mr. WOOD. I have seen some sampling of the 24 million comments, yes, and I know that there have been allegations about fake 

comments coming from foreign sources and from all sides. 

Mr. ENGEL. Do you think the FCC has done enough to address 

the fake comments in the record? 

Mr. WOOD. No, I certainly don’t. In fact, the attorney general of 

New York has tried to launch an investigation on behalf of New 

York State residents whose identities were stolen and inappropriately used in the proceeding. 

And I think it’s fair to say the answer they’ve gotten from the 

FCC has been something of a shoulder shrug to this point. So I 

don’t think the FCC has either used all of its own tools or cooperVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:21 Sep 14, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\USERS\WLAUFERT\DESKTOP\115X120PRIORITIZATIONPDFMADE WAYNE
129 

ated strongly enough with other law enforcement agencies who 

want to look into this. 

Mr. ENGEL. What else should they have done? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I mean, I think it’s a good question. We want 

to have maximum participation in these public decisionmaking 

processes. 

So I don’t know if there’s much they could have done to stop the 

inflow of any fake or fraudulent comments. I’ve heard that even 

several Members of Congress had their names used, including their 

street addresses. So it wasn’t just a matter of filling in a fake 

name. 

I don’t know what more they could have done at the beginning. 

But I do think they should have paused and considered what to do 

about the bad comments flowing into the record during the process 

and then maybe should have taken longer to consider what to do 

with them before voting. 

Mr. ENGEL. Would you anticipate legal challenges to the FCC’s 

order repealing net neutrality based on the fake comments? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, we have actually filed suit. Something like 23 

attorneys general, a dozen or more public interest organizations 

like ours, and internet companies as well, and also some local—for 

example, Santa Clara County and the California Public Utilities 

Commission. 

I think that will be part of the case. I can’t tell you how much 

it will be part of the arguments or the judge’s response to it. 

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Wood, let me stick with you. 

You testified that getting rid of paid prioritization would radically change the internet. You said that the ban only prevented 

ISPs from favoring traffic in exchange for payments from third parties or to benefit an ISP’s affiliated video or voice offers. But it did 

not ban user-directed traffic. 

So can you expand on that and explain a little more about how 

user-directed traffic works? 

Mr. WOOD. Certainly. I hope so. The internet protocols that already manage these kinds of different needs for different types of 

applications, that goes on today. I think all the witnesses have spoken about it to some degree, and that kind of process was not prohibited by the paid prioritization ban. 

All that the rule prohibited was having an edge provider or some 

other third party come in and try to alter that natural balancing 

that goes on. 

If the balancing couldn’t happen in what I would call a neutral 

fashion, with the protocols just deciding which applications need 

priority at that particular point in time, then the user could also 

pay their broadband provider, and we have more comfort with that 

because then the internet user remains in control of how their connection is being used, so which content they can get and also which 

type of application and services they might need to or choose to 

prioritize at a particular point in the day. 

Mr. ENGEL. OK. Well, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. 

130 

I want to thank the panel for their testimony as well. 

Mr. Schroeder, as stated in your testimony, the speed of your 

service is near instantaneous, and when you discuss how the service is used not only for work-related tasks but helping people navigate city streets, speed is, clearly, a requirement. Isn’t that the 

case? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes, Congressman Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It seems your partnership with AT&T is central 

to your service. Isn’t that the case? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. It is a very important element, yes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Can you describe how the user experience would 

be different if Aira did not have this partnership and had to compete equally with all other internet traffic? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. I can, because we rolled out the relationship 

with AT&T’s Dynamic Traffic Management Network about over the 

last four to six months. 

Prior to that time, we got many complaints from our users, and 

I am an Aira user myself and I also experienced many dropped 

calls, many significant delays in video, many instances where we 

had an audio connection with the agent but no video and they did 

their best using GPS and other sensor data that we were able to 

get upstream. But the lag in video created not only trouble for our 

business model, because we are a service that people subscribe to, 

but more important created challenges for people who are blind 

who, in the midst of needing a sign read to them, needing to make 

a decision about which direction to go, needing to find that last— 

we often—you talk about the last mile, we often talk about the last 

20 feet, trying to find the right door. And oftentimes that’s when 

the video would, unfortunately, kick out, and so just when you 

needed the information most. 

I know and I know our users experienced what the network situation was like before we had access to a priority network, and it 

was not a good experience. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. So you just described the latency consequences? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. That’s correct. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. OK. Very good. Thank you. 

Next question: As a relatively new company, did you find it difficult to get a partner that would provide the prioritization services 

that your company needs to operate? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. You know, sometimes I am a little bit embarrassed. Aira gets a lot of attention. I think a lot of people find what 

we do to be quite remarkable and quite amazing. 

We actually had no trouble finding interest among carriers to 

work with Aira and to allow us to or to encourage us to work with 

their cell networks. 

AT&T was the company that came through with the best partnership and really showed the most interest in giving us opportunity to work with their priority network as well as, as I mentioned in my testimony, providing support for getting Aira into the 

hands of college students and in working with us in designing some 

of the technology that we are using, for example, to get access to 

prescription medication, which is one of the highest use cases that 

our Aira users often need to ensure that they’re taking the right 

medicine. 

131 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. That’s great. 

I want to commend you for working with our veterans as customers, but also as employees. But I also want to give you an opportunity, because I do have some time, to describe how Aira works 

and how beneficial it is to your customers, if you please. And so, 

if you can elaborate a little bit more on it, because it is fascinating 

and it improves a person’s quality of life. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Thank you for that, Congressman Bilirakis, and 

I appreciate your support as well. We have so many wonderful stories from our Aira users who use the service, of course, in critical 

ways like navigating the Boston Marathon—which, trying to move 

among runners, as you can imagine, is a very dicey proposition, especially in the weather conditions they had yesterday, and it 

speaks to the need for having a very strong network with low latency available to them. 

We’ve also had individuals who have spent a few hours working 

with an agent putting IKEA furniture together, and I don’t know 

if I should mention a specific company. But I think we all know 

how challenging following some of those visual directions if you can 

see can be. 

Many of our users have found Aira to be extraordinarily helpful 

in navigating technology. There’s a lot of great technology, such as 

what I am using here with this Braille device that makes information available to blind people. But it sometimes doesn’t work. It 

sometimes breaks down, and when it breaks down we are suddenly—we are confronted with a blank screen—blank to us because 

we can’t see it—and being able to quickly grab an Aira agent via 

the smart glasses and application allows us to have access to what 

is on that screen so we can hopefully save our work and be able 

to continue to be productive. 

Oftentimes in the past—I know the time is up—but oftentimes 

in the past, it would take several minutes or maybe hours to find 

somebody sighted to come and help figure out what was on that 

computer screen. Now we’ve got that instantaneous with Aira. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, thank you very much. And I know it’s very 

beneficial to our constituents. I appreciate it, and I yield back, 

Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Flores. 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Chair, I would ask to enter into the record an article 

written today by Roslyn Layton of AEI that’s called ‘‘Prioritization: 

Moving past prejudice to make internet policy based on fact.’’ 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. FLORES. Thank you. 

Mr. Bennett, talking about 5G for a minute, the next leap in 

technology for wireless, does China have a ban on paid 

prioritization? 

Mr. BENNETT. Not as far as I know. The telecom carriers in 

China are state-owned enterprises. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. 

Mr. BENNETT. And they’re pretty much able to—— 

Mr. FLORES. How about Japan? 

132 

Mr. BENNETT. Japan, I don’t think it does. 

Mr. FLORES. They don’t? And South Korea? Do they have a ban 

on paid prioritization? 

Mr. BENNETT. No, definitely not. South Korea offers all kinds of 

gradations of internet. 

Mr. FLORES. So we talked about discrimination against rural 

communities. Let’s assume this fact pattern for a minute. You have 

got an ISP that has an internet pipe going into a rural community. 

That rural pipe drives or carries the traffic for a new 5G network 

that we have in that rural community, but it’s a limited-size pipe. 

So you’re going to have 5G traffic. You’re going to have RS traffic 

going over it. You’re going to have FirstNet going over it, hospitals, 

schools, and then on a Saturday night, 80 percent of the traffic is 

going to be coming through because of video. 

If you don’t have paid prioritization, what happens to everybody’s 

traffic under that scenario? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, if you don’t prioritize, then what happens is 

when network load increases and latency increases, and it’s sort of 

every app is affected to some degree, and the more sensitive apps 

are affected more seriously. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. BENNETT. So I think one of the implications is that, for rural 

users, is if you can’t get consistently low latency for Skype, then 

you’re going to have to keep on paying for an old-timey telephone 

connection because your Skype is just never going to be reliable. 

Mr. FLORES. And Mr. Schroeder, what would that do to your Aira 

users, if you’re in that community without a paid—again, there’s 

no paid prioritization. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Yes. We do have users in the rural areas, and 

there is often a struggle to ensure that we’ve got good network access for those individuals. That is something that we certainly look 

forward to, further network development. 

Mr. FLORES. And so, Mr. Woods talked a lot about discrimination 

against different populations because of a paid prioritization. It 

sounds to me like the opposite is true. 

If you have a ban on paid prioritization, it would discriminate 

against your population of sight-limited and also veterans. Does 

that make sense? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. We don’t know—— 

Mr. FLORES. Again, using the same example. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Congressman, we don’t know whether that’s 

true or not. But we suspect—what we do know is that having access to a reliable network is critical, and in this case we are able 

to use a priority network for that purpose. So that is helping. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And so, but if you didn’t have access to that 

paid priority network, then you wouldn’t be able to have that service with the low latency? 

Mr. SCHROEDER. Our service certainly suffered prior to that access. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. 

Mr. Bennett, in order to offset that—again, you have got this 

community, it’s got a new 5G network, it’s got limited last-mile capability—who pays to expand the capacity? 

133 

Mr. BENNETT. In the absence of anyone else coming up with the 

desire to do that, it’s going to be the carrier. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. And so then—— 

Mr. BENNETT. Who is going to pass the cost on to the consumer. 

Mr. FLORES. Right. So essentially, if you don’t have paid 

prioritization, then everybody pays to offset the latency issues that 

are introduced because of a ban on pay prioritization. Is that correct? 

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely, just as today the people who don’t use 

Netflix pay for the capacity upgrades that enable others to use 

Netflix. 

Mr. FLORES. OK. So, again, the cost is being socialized for the 

people that want to use lots of bandwidth across the entire population, even those who don’t use the bandwidth. 

That doesn’t sound fair to me. I mean, we have a population that 

pays for priority TSA pre-check, pays for toll lanes, pays to use 

UPS instead of the mail service, or pays for priority mail. 

It seems to me like folks ought to pay for their fair share. 

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank 

you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Brooks, you’re recognized 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to just clear up and make sure we are all on the 

same page relative to FirstNet—FirstNet, obviously, being the network that has been created most recently to ensure the public safety has the ability to communicate and gets priority in the case of 

emergencies and disasters and is now just beginning to be built out 

across the country and so forth. 

But there is a ban on paid prioritization involving FirstNet, is 

there not? I am a little bit confused. 

Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. There’s not. FirstNet is a special-purpose network 

that’s separate from the regular—or is sort of a supplement to the 

regular mobile network. 

But the preemption of the—or the relocation of the old Title II 

regulations that were enacted by Chairman Wheeler means that 

there is no ban on paid prioritization for anyone. 

Mrs. BROOKS. OK. And so how is it that we can ensure that 

FirstNet, for instance, will receive that priority in an instance of 

a disaster? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, FirstNet is designed to do that. So if it 

doesn’t do that, then it’s failed to meet its primary goal, which is 

quality, preemption, and prioritization. 

But the thing that worries me about FirstNet is, because it does 

so many things that fall outside the realm of what the traditional 

net neutrality advocates have demanded, what’s to prevent one of 

them—Mr. Wood’s organization or some similar organization—from 

simply filing a suit against FirstNet for violating net neutrality? 

Mrs. BROOKS. Mr. Wood, you brought this up a little bit. Can you 

please comment on this? Because I do want to make sure that we 

all are on the same page when it comes to the importance in the 

preemption of FirstNet. 

Can you please comment? 

134 

Mr. WOOD. Certainly, Congresswoman. 

I think my earlier answer was that, yes, emergency services deserve priority. They could have had that under the rules that have 

now been repealed. 

Mr. Bennett is correct that they don’t face any such rules today 

because there are no rules in place at the moment, or at least there 

won’t be when the rule changes take effect here in the next few 

weeks. 

But, again, I think what we keep missing is the distinction 

‘‘prioritization’’ and ‘‘paid prioritization.‘‘ And so, again, the last 

thing I would want is for first responders to have to pay to 

prioritize their traffic during times of emergency. They were able 

to prioritize for any kind of public safety or emergency use case 

under the old rules, and I think that’s what should continue now. 

Mrs. BROOKS. But that’s not being contemplated right now, is it? 

Mr. WOOD. I think what’s being contemplated is FirstNet is actually designed to be a prioritized network for first responders, and 

that would not have violated the 2015 rules that have now been 

repealed. It’s not a violation of anything now. It’s nothing that we 

would fight against. 

We have three lawyers, so we are not really in the business of 

filing more lawsuits than we need to. 

Mrs. BROOKS. OK. So you have no plans on filing any lawsuits? 

Mr. WOOD. Certainly not. 

Mrs. BROOKS. OK. 

Mr. BENNETT. Could I—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. Yes, Mr. Bennett. 

Mr. BENNETT. Can I add something to that? 

Mrs. BROOKS. Yes. 

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Wood says that paid prioritization is not part 

of FirstNet. But first responders pay to be part of FirstNet. 

They pay to use—it’s not a free service, right. So it’s partially 

paid for by fees that States and municipalities give up to be part 

of that network. And so then, once they’ve paid those fees, then 

they get all the prioritization they need. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So how will a ban on paid prioritization implicate 

FirstNet, Mr. Bennett? 

Mr. BENNETT. I am not sure that it would for the use of the primary channel. But first responders—FirstNet is designed actually 

use bandwidth that’s available over regular commercial networks 

as well when, you know, when it needs to. 

And so I think there could be scenarios in that secondary usage 

of the other channels that could subject FirstNet, certainly, to a 

challenge. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Very briefly, Mr. Rysavy, shifting gears a minute, 

can you comment on how 5G will inherently prioritize traffic to 

handle a wider range of applications than 4G? 

Mr. RYSAVY. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 

5G is being designed with a very sophisticated quality-of-service 

architecture with which traffic flows can be managed not only for 

priority but also for latency, possibility of packet loss, guaranteed 

bandwidth, and so forth. So you really need to manage all of those 

aspects to be able to provide services with exactly the type of performance that they need. 

135 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Doyle just told me that baseball players get priority. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And so he favors priority. 

Mr. DOYLE. Good ones. Good ones that are on the committee. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So you are—you’re recognized. 

Mr. RUIZ. Given that I am the only other Democratic Member 

here and that I’ve had my share of splinters collected, sitting on 

the bench, I appreciate that, Coach Doyle. 

Thank you. As a physician, I think we have obligation to make 

sure that we are using the internet and technology to help improve 

the public’s health. 

The FCC’s 2015 net neutrality protections actually came up with 

a very targeted way to ensure specialized services like telehealth 

and public safety technology are allowed to thrive. 

But I am concerned that the current FCC has done the opposite 

by abandoning any protections that prohibit big corporations from 

paying for their services to be prioritized over these telehealth-type 

services. 

So, with that in mind, I would like to introduce a letter for the 

record from the American Medical Informatics Association that expresses these concerns. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you so much. So my first question is for Mr. 

Wood. It’s very simple: Is there anything in the FCC’s most recent 

net neutrality order that will ensure, guarantee hospitals, community health clinics, and local police departments won’t just get 

pushed into slower lanes because they can’t afford to bid against 

the big megacorporations down the road? 

Mr. WOOD. Thank you, Congressman. 

Not to my knowledge. I know that the current order basically 

took away all of the traffic management rules and guidelines and 

left it to the ISPs. It has some transparency obligations that they 

face, but nothing that would speak to their ability to either charge 

for priority or not. 

Mr. RUIZ. Yes. So there are no safeguards to guarantee that 

these vital public health services are protected and not 

marginalized for profit motive? 

Mr. WOOD. That’s right. To my knowledge, there are no safeguards and basically this FCC has washed its hand of the business 

and said that they are not going to have any rules whatsoever 

when it comes to what ISPs try to prioritize or not. 

Mr. RUIZ. OK. And what would you do to ensure those safeguards? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, we have supported the Congressional Review 

Act resolution of this approval to restore the 2015 order. We feel 

it’s important to restore the entirety of the rules that were lost but 

also the FCC’s ability to investigate if something like that were to 

occur. 

So sometimes this is talked about in a competition framework, 

and that matters. But we would certainly want to FCC to have the 

ability to investigate if it were a certain kind of telemedicine or 

136 

health application being discriminated against, even if that were 

not to favor another telemedicine application but simply were a bad 

choice made by the cable or phone company. 

Mr. RUIZ. OK. And, as a lawyer that follows net neutrality closely, can you explain what it means that the FCC’s original net neutrality protections treated telehealth as a specialized service? What 

does that mean? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, it means that they were allowed to be treated 

as specialized services. I would note that I think many telehealth 

applications can and do run over the open internet. 

So it’s not the case that every health application, or every medicine application, even, has to be treated as a specialized service. 

I don’t know if the word has a lot of meaning for folks. I sometimes think of it as dedicated capacity. And so, if you have an application that does not fit well on the open internet, it needs additional protections, then it could be treated as a specialized service—again, usually paid for by the person who has the arrangement with the ISP. 

So not necessarily this additional kind of toll, where they’re paying twice, both for their own connectivity and for priority in the 

last mile, but simply arranging their own kind of delivery privately. 

Mr. RUIZ. One of the biggest challenges that we have is in rural 

America, where you don’t have population centers that can access 

the infrastructure for broadband and other things, even for commercial use. These are exactly the locations where we want to promote telehealth, because they need access to doctors and health 

care services. 

Do you think it’s a valid concern that, without the strong net 

neutrality protections, we might undermine innovation in the medical space and elsewhere? 

Mr. WOOD. I do, Congressman. 

I think that the genius of the internet has been that application 

makers can come up with their ideas and not have to pay an additional toll to bring them to market or to get them through that last 

mile to the user. 

And so, when you do have a small ISP—I have the same concerns, not just that the small ISP might serve as a bottleneck but, 

if they were really were at a bargaining disadvantage with the biggest edge providers, then perhaps that content would be prioritized 

rather than the small application makers or innovators. 

Mr. RUIZ. We are starting to see a lot of tech-medicine-type opportunities for people in rural areas that haven’t been served for 

mental health services. 

And so now you’re seeing folks on their phones or their pads, 

their computers being able to actually have counseling for the first 

time and be connected with other addiction services groups to provide social support networks to get the care that they need. 

And so I am just concerned that this is going to inhibit that 

progress that is being made out there. 

Thank you very much. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Johnson, 5 minutes. 

137 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for joining our panel today. 

Mr. Schroeder, a lot of parties paying attention to this hearing 

have pushed the idea that we don’t need to worry about whether 

an application like Aira could avoid a paid prioritization ban in the 

future, since past net neutrality attempts have always included an 

exception for specialized services. 

Setting aside the problem that past performance does not predict 

future results, that is actually incorrect. The 2015 Open Internet 

Order specifically rejected the, quote, ‘‘specialized services,’’ unquote, carve out, providing instead an exception for ‘‘services that 

are not broadband internet access service unless a service that is 

not broadband internet access service is provided in a manner that 

undermines the purpose of the open internet rules.’’ 

Now, do you understand what that means? Because nobody else 

understands what that means. 

Mr. SCHROEDER. No, Congressman. The way you phrased it, I 

can’t untangle that thicket. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Well, nobody else can either. So Mr. Rysavy, 

your thoughts on this. Would that definition give you any confidence that some of these services we are talking about would 

meet the FCC’s approval? 

Mr. RYSAVY. Congressman, thank you for asking. 

No, not at all. The exception for specialized services is ill defined 

and certainly does not foster innovation or any confidence in moving forward with such applications. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, thank you. 

You know, the devil is in the details. This is one we need to 

make sure we get right, or a paid prioritization restriction could do 

some real harm. 

Mr. Wood, moving on to you, you seem to indicate in your testimony that broadband was considered a Title II service until the 

Bush FCC tinkered with its classifications. 

What you didn’t mention, though, was that the Obama FCC 

agreed with that classification of broadband as an information 

service and left it there in its first attempt at net neutrality rules 

in 2010, and even the 2015 Open Internet Order acknowledged the 

long track record here. 

It spelled out all the history and tied the determination that 

broadband was an information service all the way back to the computer inquiries that the FCC had decided over 50 years ago. 

The Commission was very specific that it was changing its mind 

and disavowing all the previous precedent to reclassify broadband 

into a Title II telecommunication service. 

So do you disagree with the determination by Chairman Wheeler 

that, before 2015, broadband had always been an information service? 

Mr. WOOD. I don’t know that he said it precisely that way, but 

I do disagree with that phrasing. 

Before 2015, you mentioned the first Obama administration attempted at neutrality rules. Like the rules that were adopted at 

the tail end of the Bush administration, those were struck down in 

court. So there’s a reason that we went back to the drawing board 

and talked about it again. 

138 

The dispute here is not so much whether broadband was an information service but whether internet access was, and there are 

two parts of that. There’s the connection that gets you online. Then 

there’s the service or the content you interact with once you’re 

there. 

So there has been some historical dispute about whether something like AOL, for example, was an information service. I would 

say that it was. It was allowing you to browse the internet, but 

only once you got to that site using your phone connection. 

And what we say is that from, really, before 2002 all internet access, that physical connection was Title II. The FCC started to 

change that and said that access over a cable line could be considered an information service, and that’s when the attempts to prevent discrimination on those lines started to fall down in court. So 

that’s why the FCC returned to what we see as the rightful legal 

definition. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Got you. OK. 

Mr. Bennett, most of us subscribe to mass-market retail 

broadband. This means that, rather than each of us having a dedicated pipe to just our home, we are sharing bandwidth with all of 

our neighbors who also subscribe to that same service. 

So, if everyone on my street is streaming videos in the evening 

to broadband speeds, I am getting what might be slower than I 

would experience at another time when not as many users are on 

the connection. 

So here’s my question to you: What happens if there’s an emergency that I need to call 9-1-1 on my voice over IP-enabled phone? 

Since that call goes over my broadband connection at some point, 

will it also be caught up in that video congestion? Will my 9-1-1 

call be degraded so someone can watch a cat video? 

Mr. BENNETT. The short answer is yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. That’s about all I can ask for. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mrs. Walters, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here. 

When talking to my constituents back home about tech issues, 

one of the questions I’ve been asked is how prioritization could impact them. 

I know some of my colleagues have covered a couple of these 

issues, but I would like to ask a few questions that some of my constituents have been asking me. 

One thing that comes up is the issue of degradation and internet 

traffic management. Some people have expressed concerns that 

prioritizing certain traffic over other degrades the traffic that is not 

prioritized. 

Mr. Bennett, in your testimony you mentioned the Differentiated 

Treatment of Internet Traffic report, which, quote, ‘‘demonstrates 

that traffic differentiation is not a zero sum game.’’ 

Could you explain what that means for the average internet consumer? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I can. 

139 

I was a member of the committee that wrote that report. The 

point is that, because applications are not all created equal, a sort 

of a theoretical or a literal degradation of an individual piece of information by a millionth of a second or so may qualify in a legal 

sense as a degradation. 

It’s not a degradation that the consumer will perceive. And so, 

given that we are placing so much importance on polling and—you 

know, which is sort of a question of measuring perception—the 

question is whether there’s a perceptible degradation, and in that 

sense prioritization is certainly provably empirically without a 

doubt unquestionably not a zero sum game. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. 

And Mr. Rysavy, in your testimony you talked about network 

slicing and its relationship to quality-of-service management. Can 

you explain the concept of network slicing in layman’s terms and 

how it affects the average consumer? 

Mr. RYSAVY. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 

Network slicing is an architectural aspect of 5G. Basically, it’s a 

way that the network will present different faces for different usages. 

So, in theory, an operator could develop a slice for autonomous 

vehicles, another slice for a factory automation, and so forth, and 

each of these will require very specific quality-of-service requirements among which traffic prioritization is essential. 

What it translates to the user is that, with network slicing, they 

will see a wide range of new, innovative services coming to market. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you. 

And throughout this hearing, there’s been a discussion about the 

different forms of prioritization, and I think we can all agree that 

there are instances where certain traffic has to be prioritized over 

others, like the example that we’ve been hearing a lot lately is 

prioritizing 9-1-1 call over a cat video. 

Mr. Bennett, can you talk about types of bad prioritization, including types we should actively prevent? 

Mr. BENNETT. You know, I think any sort of negative 

prioritization that’s intended to impair the performance of a competitive product to the carrier is something that should be looked 

at with suspicion. But I think it’s sort of covered under general 

antitrust law. 

I am not a lawyer like Mr. Wood is, so I can’t really justify that. 

But it’s my sense, the way it’s been explained to me, that the violations that we are concerned about are essentially already prohibited under sort of the general laws of regulating business in the 

U.S. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Mr. Wood, would you want to add anything to 

that? 

Mr. WOOD. I could. I think the antitrust could be a remedy for 

some competitors, say, if Comcast decided to block Netflix. I don’t 

think it would be a very useful remedy in all instances, especially 

if there were smaller video providers who were suffering from that 

kind of blockage or deprioritization, and I think all we have to do 

is look at cable TV, where you don’t have some kind of common 

carrier mantra and framework. 

140 

You know, cable TV is not illegal under the antitrust standards. 

Cable providers do pick and choose which content to show you. 

The question is, should we have no safeguards whatsoever and 

make the internet more like cable TV or should we have the same 

kind of two-way open transmission network we’ve had that lets 

people go to any site of their choosing. 

Mrs. WALTERS. And what should Congress consider doing to prevent these types of prioritization activities from occurring? And Mr. 

Bennett and then Mr. Wood, if you’d like to join in. 

Mr. BENNETT. I would rather that Congress adopt a generally 

permissive attitude. There’s been so much demonization and so 

much sort of emotional rhetoric and spin and framing in this discussion that I think we’ve just sort of—we’ve gone way overboard 

on the side of caution. 

So let’s let a few things happen. Let’s allow some experiments 

like Aira to take place and examine the marketplace and then, if 

something is going on, then step in and correct, but preemptively 

allow people to innovate. 

Mrs. WALTERS. My time is up. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Costello for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Rysavy, I enjoyed reading your testimony—— 

Mr. RYSAVY. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTELLO [continuing]. And found it very helpful. I want to 

cite something and ask you this question. Mission critical use-casemodel-type analysis that you provided, you state, ‘‘This category of 

5G application will depend on the ability to deploy traffic 

prioritization.’’ 

Can you just briefly explain why prioritization will be necessary 

for 5G? Is it necessary, and if so, why? 

Mr. RYSAVY. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 

Yes, prioritization is an absolutely essential aspect of 5G in enabling new use cases. The whole motivation for investing hundreds 

of billions of dollars in 5G networks is to expand what can be done 

with wireless technologies, and being able to support mission critical applications is going to be a great expansion of capabilities 

compared to 4G. 

Mr. COSTELLO. And along that line, and I think the terminology 

here—I think everybody supports net neutrality, broadly speaking—certain types of paid prioritization, I think, obviously do fall 

under FTC and are anticompetitive. 

When you speak about prioritization here, what you’re speaking 

about is organizing slices based on the type of data and what it’s 

used for. Is that correct? 

Mr. RYSAVY. That is correct. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Is there a better way for you to—would you embellish on that, if need be, or was that—— 

Mr. RYSAVY. No, the whole point is to recognize that different 

types of applications have different requirements. Some may need 

very high bandwidth but can drop a lot of packets because it won’t 

impact the user experience. Others might be very low bandwidth, 

but the reliability of information carried might be absolutely crucial. 

141 

Mr. COSTELLO. You go on to say, ‘‘But unprioritized and competing with other traffic, the latency ... can be 10 times higher, for 

example,’’ and then you go on. And what you’re saying there, I believe, is that, if we don’t have prioritization, that you will end up 

across the board generalized with slower data getting from point A 

to point B. Is that correct? 

Mr. RYSAVY. Yes. The point I am making is that, if you have to 

treat every packet equally, that you will end up degrading the average quality of experience across the base of applications. 

Essentially, prioritization is an extremely powerful tool for network management, and to ban it really undermines the value of 

these networks, moving into the future. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Wood, what’s your response to that? 

Mr. WOOD. I think it’s just where we began, Congressman: that 

we haven’t called for a ban on prioritization done in a neutral fashion to make sure that applications work. We’ve called for a ban and 

the rules had a ban on paid prioritization, meaning that the edge 

provider, the app maker, whomever we want to think—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. The one you have the content associated with it. 

But don’t you agree that the FTC already has jurisdiction over that 

and is able to enforce? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, the FTC might have jurisdiction, or DOJ might 

if we could make it come to—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. Well, they do or they don’t, don’t they? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, they have jurisdiction over certain kinds of 

anticompetitive conduct. They don’t have jurisdiction if my own 

home connection is suffering because I can’t reach the content that 

I want, and I am focused on the internet user, not just this battle 

between Comcast and Netflix or any other two large providers. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Isn’t in the interest of the company to make sure 

that the user does have access? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think what we are talking about today, 

though, shows that there are use cases for prioritization. So they 

have general interest in making sure that content is available, but 

that they might then pick and choose which content is available at 

which terms for people who pay more. 

Mr. COSTELLO. I had another question. This is tangential, I 

apologize. But the fake comments—what is your—I mean, what is 

a fake comment? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think there are different kinds one could describe as less valuable. We certainly think the petition—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. But isn’t the FCC able to sift through that and 

determine what’s valuable and what isn’t? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I think they said they are not going to decide 

what is fake and what isn’t. So, to me, something that is obviously 

fake or fraudulent is somebody using—— 

Mr. COSTELLO. But what’s fake? 

Mr. WOOD. Somebody using somebody’s else identification and 

name and address to put a comment in. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But the content, isn’t it about the content and not 

who says it? 

Mr. WOOD. Well, I do think people have a right to not have 

things said in their name. So, if somebody put a comment in for 

you supporting Title II, you might care. 

142 

1The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing, except for the Bennett, BITAG, 

and Rysavy reports and Mr. Rysavy’s comments, which have been retained in committee files 

and also are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ 

ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168. 

Mr. COSTELLO. People say that I—fair point. But ultimately, 

though, the FCC would be looking at the content of the comment, 

not who said it. Wouldn’t that be accurate? 

Mr. WOOD. I would hope they would look at the content, but I 

think it matters who said it too because people have a right to 

speak in their own name and not have others speak for them or 

pretend to speak for them. 

Mr. COSTELLO. But the FCC wouldn’t decide something one way 

or the other just because a specific person said it or didn’t say it. 

Wouldn’t that be correct? 

Mr. WOOD. That’s right, and I think that they still have an obligation to make sure their record isn’t tainted by people basically 

engaging in identity theft in order to make comments that are not 

actually their own. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Sometimes we probably wish people wouldn’t 

taint our comments too. 

OK. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Seeing that there are no further Members—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DOYLE. Can I ask unanimous consent, in addition to the letters from pediatricians, telehealth experts, small businesses, and 

others supporting a ban of paid prioritization, I have one additional 

letter from the Consumers Union that I would like to introduce 

onto the record. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. You all have been gracious with your time 

and with getting your testimony in. 

Before we conclude, I do want to submit for the record, and ask 

unanimous consent to do so, tweets of CloudFlare CEO Matthew 

Prince; a report by Richard Bennett, ‘‘Designed for Change’’; a report by BITAG; Daniel Lyons’ article; your comments, Mr. Rysavy; 

a report by Mr. Rysavy, ‘‘How Wireless is Different’’; and an article 

by George Ford.1

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I will remind our Members that, pursuant to 

committee rules, they have 10 days to submit questions in writing 

to you, and you all will have 10 days in which to respond. 

There being no further business to come before the committee, 

we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

143 


31393.095

INC MPAS fUTURE Of COMPETlTlON 

Aprill6, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chainnan 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2266 Rayburn Building 

Washington D.C., 20515 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

239 Cannon House Office Building 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington D.C., 20515 

1200 G STREET, NW, StJITE 350 PH; 202.296.6650 

WASHI:"l"GTON, DC 20005 FX; 202.296.7585 

Re: Communications and Technology Subcommittee Hearing on April17, 2018 

on Internet Prioritization 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

INCOMP AS, the internet and competitive networks association, supports the open 

internet protections that the Federal Communications Commission adopted in 2015. No 

blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, reasonable interconnection practices, and no 

unreasonable conduct that harms the openness of the internet are the cornerstones of net 

neutrality policy. Without each of these protections, the U.S. does not have an open internet, and 

consumers will pay more for slower networks and have less innovative online options available 

to them. 

The Subcommittee's hearing on Tuesday presents an opportunity to further explore why 

preserving a free and open internet tor American consumers is critical for the economy and is 

strongly supported by the American people. Indeed, last year during the FCC's proceeding, 

INCOMPAS conducted a survey of voters (see attachment) wherein 86% of all voters agreed that 

ISPs should treat all websites and content equally. Voters also understood that by repealing net 

neutrality, small businesses would be impacted. When asked if they would be concerned by ISPs 

discriminating against main street businesses, 79% of all voters were concerned. When asked if 

they "agree that small businesses like hardware stores and restaurants should have their websites 

run slower than bigger national chains that can afford to pay more for paid prioritization, or a fast 

lane," 72% of all voters disagreed. Consumers want to be able to access the content, services, 

and applications of their choice online without ISPs controlling their choices. 
144 


31393.096

Once an end-user has chosen an ISP to connect to the internet, there is no alternative 

pathway for content and application providers to send requested traffic to that user, If paid 

prioritization is allowed, ISPs will be able to leverage their control over their networks and 

access to subscribers to allow some websites to be put in front of others at times of congestion. 

Paid prioritization, moreover, only has value if there is congestion. If capacity is abundant, 

prioritization has no value. If allowed to monetize congestion, ISPs will not be incented to 

upgrade their networks and invest in more bandwidth, and with the limited residential 

competition for ISP service-American consumers will be worse off. 1 

Unfortunately, there has been a conflation of paid prioritization, which encourages 

network congestion in order to monetize it, with reasonable network management, specialized 

services, and storage services, like Content Delivery Networks. Reasonable network 

management can involve unique routing of classes of traffic (but never particular services within 

a class) to improve the user experience. By definition, reasonable network management has 

technical, not commercial, motivations. Specialized services are not internet access services at 

all, but rather purpose-built applications of JP technology that are provided over ISP networks, 

such as IP television service, or dedicated telemedicine connections, that are outside the scope of 

net neutrality. Finally, CDNs minimize congestion so networks operate more efficiently for 

everyone. CDNs are not prioritization. They do not flag certain bits to move before or instead of 

others. Content delivery networks provide local storage for content closer to the end-user, so 

that there is less traffic flowing over backbone networks, allowing data to flow at its maximum 

capability. Content from CDNs go onto an JSP's network wherever, and at whatever rate, an ISP 

allows that content to enter its network. The way traffic enters an ISP's network is via ports that 

an JSP controls, this is the same for all CDNs, ISPs, and transit providers. 2 Moreover, the market 

for CDN services is incredibly competitive. There are dozens of CDN services competing 

against one another on price and service, ensuring that even the smallest websites are able to 

store content on a CDN. 

1 Unfortunately, the majority of Americans only have one high-speed lSP choice at home, and two-thirds have, at 

best, a duopoly. However, a number oflNCOMPAS members are small, competitive ISPs who are bringing new 

network options to ISP consumers at home. When our member companies enter, incumbent ISPs respond by 

investing more, increasing their speeds, and dropping their prices. See INCOMPAS Reply Comments, Dr. David 

Evans Analysis, at 35-37, available at 

http://www.incompas.org/files!INCOMPAS%20RIF%20Reply%20Comments-30Auo%20FINAL.pdf. 

2 Some have suggested that edge providers can gain an advantage via the volume of traffic and usc ofCDNs for 

better interconnection arrangements by pressuring network operators, presumably lSPs, to upgrade specific nodes. 

This is preposterous. ISPs control access to their own customers, as well the ability to reach the customers who are 

requesting the content. Edge providers and CDNs have an incentive to send the content requested via the network 

paths that allows for the customer to obtain it as their business models are dependent on serving traffic. As 

!NCOMPAS has previously described, however, lSPs have used their market power and leverage to require edge 

providers to pay tolls in order to avoid blocking and throttling at interconnection. See INCOMPAS Letter, WC 

Docket No. 17-108 (Nov. 20, 2017) (citing the New York Attorney General among others who have found that large 

ISPs were deliberately not upgrading their interconnection infrastructure in order to extract payment-despite the 

fact that it affected the quality of service for consumers), available at 

http://www.incompas.org/files/F!NAL%20!NCOMPAS%20lnterconnection%20Ex%20Parte%20ll 20 2017%20 l. 

pQf. 

2 
145 


31393.097

The conflation of these distinct policies and features seems intended to disguise the key 

issue at stake: Allowing for paid prioritization online would tip the scales in favor of the largest 

companies with the deepest pockets, while punishing small businesses, non-profits, schools, 

churches, and entrepreneurs who are seeking to connect their new ideas, products, and services 

with the world-merely to award large ISPs with the control and ability to impose new tolls 

online. This would divide the internet into haves and have-nots and allow ISPs to profit off their 

ability to create and leverage congestion on their networks, resulting in ISPs picking the online 

winners and losers-rather than American consumers choosing which services and applications 

are the best. This is not consistent with the public interest and should continue to be banned. 

There may be some cases where certain services require a guaranteed quality of service to 

preserve health or safety. For example, telemedicine or enabling autonomous driving only works 

if there is sufficient bandwidth and latency. In these cases, quality of service can be guaranteed 

by buying dedicated capacity to provision these services. The clear distinction between a 

specialized service and broadband internet access is that specialized services do not require 

connectivity to the broader internet. Put another way, two hospitals connected to each other in 

order to perform telesurgery will not need to check their email or watch a movie using that 

dedicated connection. Both the 2015 and 2010 rules have provided for the ability to sell and 

operate specialized services.3 

As INCOMPAS has previously stated, we stand ready to assist the Congress in 

reinstating the FCC's 2015 open intemet policy which ensures that all Americans benefit from 

using the online content, services, and applications of their choice. 

Sincerely, 

Is/Angie Kronenberg 

Angie Kronenberg 

Chief Advocate & General Counsel 

Attachment 

3 Nonetheless, INCOMPAS agrees with the open internet policy that ISPs' internet access service should not be 

impeded, disrupted, or replaced by these services. 

3 
146 


31393.098
147 


31393.099

Methodology 

IMGE, a Republican consulting firm based in Alexandria, Virginia, conducted a national 

survey of 1,502 registered voters between june 26-29, 2017 using a mix of online and 

landline telephone interviews. The margin of error is 2.5%. 

Majority support net neutrality 

Do you support or oppose net neutrality? 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Support 50% 51% 48% 

Oppose 16 15 17 

Broad consensus the internet bas improved under net neutrality 

"Overall, do you think the internet has improved over the last few years?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Yes 70% 71% 70% 

No 20 21 21 

Overwhelming support for net neutrality rules 

"Companies like Comcast, AT&T, Charter/Time Warner Cable, and Verizon provide home 

internet access. Today those internet service providers are prohibited from slowing or 

blocking websites or video services like Netflix. Do you agree that it is necessary for internet 

service providers to continue to follow these rules?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Agree 75% 72% 75% 

Disagree 14 15 15 

Voters like the internet the way it is under net neutrality 

"Do you want the internet to be the internet or do you want the internet to be more like cable?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Be the internet 79% 76% 78% 

More like cable 9 10 9 

Agreement that internet service is a utility and should be regulated like one under 

net neutrality 

"Now I'm going to ask you about a series of statements that have been made in the debate over 

net neutrality. After each statement, please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, 

somewhat disagree, strongly disagree or have no opinion ... " 
148 


31393.100

"! nerne t servrce rs a necessrrv r e water or power at your h om e. 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Agree 71% 72% 69% 

Total Disagree 23 24 25 

"Internet should be treated like any other utility such as gas or electric service" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Agree 53% 58% 58% 

Total Disagree 30 28 28 

Near universal consensus in favor of principles of net neutrality 

"People should be able to access any websites they want on the internet, without any blocking, 

slowing down or throttling by their internet service provider:" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Agree 87% 90% 88% 

Total Disagree 6 6 7 

"Internet service providers should treat all websites and content equallY" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Agree 86% 86% 86% 

Total Disagree 7 9 9 

Voters reject changes to net neutrality that could empower the liberal media 

"Companies that own cable news networks like CNN and MSNBC should be allowed to control 

your access to conservative websites" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Agree 12% 12% 14% 

Total Disagree 79 83 82 

Republicans agree with President Trump's position to block AT&T -Time warner 

merger. break up Comcast 

"President Trump said during the campaign that he would block the AT&T- Time Warner 

merger: Do you agree or disagree with the President's position?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Agree 42% 57% 60% 

Disagree 33 20 18 
149 


31393.101

"President Trump also said that we should 'break up Comcast: Do you agree or disagree with 

the President's position?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Agree 33% 47% 50% 

Disagree 41 26 22 

Voters concerned about how changes to net neutrality wm impact small business 

"More main street businesses are relying upon the internet to sell their services and goods. 

They typically have their own websites and use social media to advertise and boost their sales. 

How concerned would you be if companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon could discriminate 

against main street businesses on the internet?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Concerned 79% 79% 80% 

Total Not Concerned 15 16 15 

"Do you agree that small businesses like local hardware stores and restaurants should have 

their websites run slower than bigger national chains that can afford to pay more for paid 

prioritization, .. or a fi ast I ane. ?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Agree 19% 24% 27% 

Total Disagree 72 67 66 

Voters strongly disapprove ofiSP's selling private data. browser history to advertisers 

"Recently Congress voted to allow internet service providers like Com cast and AT&T to sell your 

private data and browser history to advertisers and other companies. Do you approve or 

disapprove of this action?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Approve 12% 15% 17% 

Total Disapprove 83 81 80 

"Cable companies are looking to find new revenue sources. Would you support or oppose their 

selling your personal data and browser history to advertisers- which would allow cable 

companies to charge websites like Netflix and Twitter more for access to their networks?" 

All voters Republicans Trump voters 

Total Support 10% 12% 15% 

Total Oppose 86 83 82 
150 


31393.102

Fax8471434-8000 

E-mali·k:~dsdocs@aaporg 

www.aaporg 

Executlve Committee 

President 

Colleen A Kraft, MD, FAAP 

President-Elect 

Kyle Yasuda, MD, FAAP 

lmmedlatePastPres!dent 

Fernando Stem, MD, FAAP 

CEO/Executive Vice President 

Karen Remley, MO. FAAP 

Board of Directors 

District! 

Dav1s, MD, FAAP 

District!! 

Warren M Seigel, MD, FAAP 

Brooklyn, NY 

District ill 

David I Bromberg, MD, FAAP 

Fredenck, MD 

D!strlct!V 

DistrictV 

R1chard H Tuck, MD, FAAP 

Zanesv1lte.OH 

District VI 

OistrictVH 

Districtvm 

Martha C M1ddlemist, MD, FAAP 

Centenn1al, CO 

District IX 

FAAP 

District X 

American Academy of Pediatrics 

DEDICATED TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN~!> 

April 16, 20!8 

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) appreciates the opportunity to 

provide comment related to paid prioritization of internet access. The AAP is 

committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being of all 

infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. It is the AAP's position that an 

Open Internet is a vital component in assuring access to health care for children 

and their families. As such, AAP is opposed to the implementation of paid 

prioritization because of its detrimental effects on the elimination of health 

disparities, efficiency of health care, patient safety, and access to health 

information by patients, parents, and caregivers. 

Impact on Health Disparities 

Health disparities have been noted for centuries among populations based on 

socio-economic class and environmental exposure. Children and adolescents are 

one of the priority populations where health disparities have been documented. 

Eliminating health disparities is one of the four ovcrarching goals of Healthy 

People 2020 and one of the four foundational health measure that will serve as an 

indicator of progress towards achieving the goals. 

In fact, Healthy People 2020 defines health equity as the "attainment of the highest 

level of health for all people. Achieving health equity requires valuing everyone 

equally with focused and ongoing societal efforts to address avoidable 

inequalities, historical and contemporary injustices, and the elimination of health 

and health care disparities." Paid prioritization is not compatible with "addressing 

avoidable inequalities" and ''elimination of health and health care disparities," and, 

as such, the Academy would not support its implementation. An Open Internet is 

essential to decreasing health disparities among children and adolescents in the 

United States. 

Further, the Open Internet is necessary to many aspects of health information 

technology (HIT), including electronic health records (EHRs), consumer e-hcalth 

tools, telemedicine, population health information systems, health data registries, 

and health information exchanges. In their briefing paper, Understanding the 

Impact of Health IT in Underserved Communities and Those with Health 

Disparities, the National Opinion Research Center discussed the impact of HIT on 

current disparities in health care with regard to quality of care, access to care, 

health outcomes, patient engagement, and chronic disease management. The 

authors concluded that patient and provider access to the internet is key to 

decreasing health disparities in these areas and improving quality of care for 

children. 

Impact on Efficiency of Care and Patient Safetv 

An Open Internet is important to maximizing efficiency for health care 

organizations and clinicians who may use web-based systems for billing, making 

referrals, and managing other aspects of patient care. If organizations and 
151 


31393.103

clinicians do not have the financial ability to obtain "priority" Internet access, they will be 

limited in their ability to provide the high quality, patient-centered, cost effective care 

recommended as part of the ongoing transformation and reform of our nation's health care 

system. 

With the increasing use of cloud-based HIT, clinical decision support and health information 

exchange, slower response times will have an impact on the safety of children and adults. For 

example, if a patient is in an emergency room and their records at another location can save their 

life, an Open Internet is absolutely essential so that appropriate care can be delivered as quickly 

as possible. There are many other circumstances where an Open Internet can support patient 

safety efforts and where "paid prioritization" will decrease the safety of clinical care. 

Impact on Access to Health Information 

Currently, 94% of pediatricians are using EHRs. Increasingly, the EHRs store patient data in the 

cloud, where it has to be retrieved for episodes of care. Pediatricians also remain among the 

lowest paid group of physicians in the United State. Paid prioritization of Internet access to 

stored EHR data could result in delayed or interrupted care and could become quite costly to 

pediatricians, thus increasing the cost of caring for children. 

In addition, the general public, including parents and caregivers of children, uses web-based 

platforms to access children's medical records, make appointments, and find health information. 

Having slower access to these tools could potentially result in delays in care and seeking 

information and place an undue burden on ready access to quality health care and health 

information. Access to educational resources online, to which pediatricians routinely refer 

patients and their parents, would also become more difficult to access and would hamper efforts 

of engaging patients in their care. 

Finally, the 21st Century Cures Act specifically contained language that discouraged information 

blocking and gave the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human 

Services the authority to investigate claims of information blocking and assign penalties for 

practices found to be interfering with the lawful information sharing between EHRs. Paid 

prioritization could essentially allow information blocking as organizations and clinicians arc 

unable to quickly and efficiently provide access to patient information between EHRs. 

For all of the reasons outlined above, the AAP believes that establishing a system of "paid 

prioritization" is contrary to the health and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and 

young adults. An Open Internet is essential to decreasing health disparities among children and 

adolescents, improving efficiency of health care, assuring patient safety, and improving access to 

health information by patients, parents, and caregivers. 

The AAP appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Open Internet. If the Academy 

can be of any further assistance, please contact Patrick Johnson in our Washington, D.C. office at 

202/347-8600, or pjohnson@aap.org. 

Sincerely, 
152 


31393.104

Colleen A. Kraft, MD, F AAP 

President 

CAK/pmj 
153 


31393.105

[B 

R€Al!Of!' 

NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION of 

REALTORS• 

l~hnbt'th ;.,.kndcnh-'H 

201/\l'rc,;dcnt 

ADVOCACY GROUP 

W'1lham E. ~hlkasun 

Ch1<.-f ,\dwJCacy Officcr/Scntor \'1co.: Prcsld<.'nt 

REAlTOR"' is a registered collective 

membership mark whi<:h may be used Ofll\T by 

real es:tare professlOtlals. who are members of 

the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSY. 

and sub!>cribe to its strict Code of Ethics. 

,\prill6, 2018 

The Honorable tvfarsha Blackburn 

Chair 

House Communications & Technology 

Subcommittee 

2266 Rayburn House Office Building 

\Vashington, DC 20515 

Re: NAR Opposes Paid Prioritization 

The Honorable Mike Doyle 

Ranking Member 

House Communications & Technology 

Subcommittee 

239 Cannon House Office Building 

W'ashington, DC 20515 

Dear Chair Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

On behalf of the 1.3 million members of the National Association ofRE1\LTORS® 

(NAR), I would like to express 0JAR's belief that open internet rules are necessary to 

support a .. vide range of common real estate business practices. These business practices 

rely on rhe Internet, which has improved the ability of real estate professionals to offer 

homebuvers and businesses the tools to make efficient, better-informed decisions when 

looking for a new home or commercial site. Chief among these critically important rules 

is a prohibition on paid prioritization. 

The Internet has been a driving force for innovation for decades, and our members, 

their customers, and local communities arc benefiting from this innovation every day. 

The economic growth and job creation fueled by the open Internet is unprecedented in 

American economic history. This growrh has been fostered by the PCC under both 

Republican and Democratic administrations for oyer a decade. 

Our members, who identify themselves as REALTORS®, represent a '\vide variety of 

real estate industry professionals. REALTORS® have been early adopters of 

technology, and arc industry innovators '\vho understand that consumers today are 

seeking real estate information and services that are fast, convenient and 

comprehensive. Increasingly, technology innovations are driving the delivery of real 

estate services and the future of the real estate sales businesses. Real estate firms vary 

'\v-.ldely in ,;ize, but the overwhelming majority is composed of very small entities. NAR's 

most recent surveys indicate that more than half of all realty firms have less than 

twenty-fi'\·e agents, and the typical sales agent is affiliated with an independent realty 

firm with a single office. 

Streaming video, Voice over Internet Protocol, cloud storage and mobile applications 

arc commonly used in our businesses today. \Vithout protections from the Open 

Internet Order, consumers may experience slow or degraded delivery of home search 

videos creating barriers in first step in the home buying process. In the future, 

new technologies, like telepresence among others, will be available 

that will no doubt reguire open internet access unencumbered by technical or financial 

discrimination. 

Paid prioritization of internet content would be especially harmful to our small business 

members. Small companies v..>ill be at a serious disadvantage as larger firms use paid 

prioritization for anti~ competitive reasons. Since studies show that even small changes in 

web page loading times can have significant impacts on user behavior, a company that 
154 


31393.106

can pay to connect to their users faster will be at a huge advantage. Paid prioritization imposes artificial and arbitrary limits on 

the speed of some traffic in order to prioritize traffic that has paid a toll. It is inefficient and unnecessary from a traffic 

management standpoint, and the only rationale for imposing paid prioritization is to shake down businesses on the internet 

that consumers arc already paying ISPs to access. 

The Open Internet Presenration Act allmvs ISPs to engage in paid prioritization by making dear the 

no over Broadband Internet 1\ccess Service (BIAS) other than to prevent the blocking or 

degradation of lawful internet traffic. As a result, we have serious concerns with this bill. 

The benefits of broadband Internet for innovation and economic development are unparalleled. Ho\vever, the nation will lose 

those tremendous benefits if the Internet does not remain an open platform, where Americans can innovate without 

permission and with low barriers to lalmching small businesses and creating jobs. GiYen this reality, it is important that 

Congress enact strong net neutrality protections including a ban on paid prioriti:t.ation. \Xfe look forward to \Vorking with you 

on this important issue. 

2018 President, ~ationaL-\ssociation of REALTORS® 

cc: House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Page 2 
155 


31393.107

·1 fw {_('n/('r /fll" Cunrwrl<'d Ji<'ulth Puluy is the Federally Designated 

J'Vutionul Td!:'heu/111 Po/ic;.' R!!sourc!:' O>nter 

April16, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chair, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Committee on Energy & Commerce 

2266 Rayburn Building 

Washington, De 20515 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Committee on Energy & Commerce 

239 Cannon HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Comments forthe record on Internet Prioritization 

Dear Chairwoman Blackburn and Representative Doyle: 

info@cchpca.org 

877·707·7172 

1331 Garden Highway 

Sacramento, CA 95833 

On behalf of the Center for Connected Health Policy {CCHP), I am submitting the following comments regarding 

the rollback on net neutrality and discussion of paid prioritization. CCHP is the federally designated national 

tetehealth policy resource center. CCHP provides non¥partisan research, information and technical assistance on 

issues related to telehealth policy to both state and federal policymakers. It has been serving the nation and 

telehea!th community in this role since 2012. CCHP is a program under the Public Health Institute, an independent 

non¥profit dedicated to improving health and wei! ness by discovering new research, strengthening key 

partnerships and programs, and advancing sound health policies. 

The rollback of net neutrality raises several concerns on the potentia! impact such action could have on the use of 

telehea!th, particularly for rural and underserved communities, and impeding recent policies and goals of the 

Administration, Congress and states in addressing various health issues. Telehealth is the use of technology to 

provide health services where the patient and provider are not in the same location. In the past few years, 

telehealth has generated increasing interest in how it could meet health needs and address public health 

concerns, most recently how it could be used to address the current opioid epidemic. Telehea!th, however, 

cannot exist without a reliable, robust connection. Both providers and patients will not utilize the technology if 

the connection is unreliable or uneven. Additionally, dropped connections or pixBated Images during an actual 

consultation could have significant consequences depending on the delicacy of the interaction, for example, 

CCilP is 11 program of the Public Health fnstitute 
156 


31393.108

(lrage2 

during a mental health consultation. Therefore, the limitation of access to connectivity is a significant barrier to 

the use of telehealth. 

Impact on Community Health Centers 

Community Health Centers {CHCs) serve over 27 million people in every state. CHCs save the US health care 

system $24 billion through reduction of unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency room visits. 1 CHCs have also 

found themselves to be at the forefront of addressing the opioid epidemic having received federal funding such as 

the September 2017 Health Resources and Services Administration {HRSA) grants of $200 million to 1,178 health 

centers and rural health organizations in every state to increase mental health and substance use services. A part 

of that funding was specifically used for the Substance Abuse Treatment Telehealth Network Grant Program {SAT~ 

TNGP). Transmission and clinician payment is capped under this program at $90 per session/encounter." Any 

change to the rates for connectivity will impact these programs. 

Beyond recent targeted funding for programs, CHCs have explored or established telehealth programs to meet the 

needs of their communities. !n 2016, 57% of the CHCs in the nation were in the process or began implementing a 

telehealth program. 1

" According to the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC): 

Of these, 523 health centers, or 38% of off health centers, used tete health to deliver needed 

services or help patients monitor their chronic conditions in 2016. Telehealth programs were 

especially popular in rural health centers, where many residents can face long distances 

between home and health provider, particularly specialized providers. In rural communities, 

nearly half (46%} of health centers utilized teleheafth technologies, compared to one-third 

(32%) of urban health centers'~ 

Recent draft legislation in both houses had looked to CHCs as providing services via telehealth to combat the 

opioid epidemic. lf these centers cannot afford the connection, they will not be able to establish such programs. 

While FY 2018 Omnibus Appropriations bill did provide an additional $300 million to CHCs, that amount is 

potentially inadequate to sustain a te!ehealth program that may see significant increases in costs to maintain 

connectivity. 

Paid Prioritization May Not Work for CHCs 

Paid prioritization has been offered as a potential solution to avoid impacts on te!ehealth. However, many CHCs 

operate on slim margins and unlike larger hospitals and health systems, may not have the extra funding to pay for 

the robust connectivity needed in a telehealth interaction. For example, according to a NACHC 2015 survey, 79% 

of health centers reported plans to initiate capital projects, but 75% of those centers reported funding gaps for 

those projects. v The loss of these telehealth programs could then disproportionately impact certain groups more 

given the populations CHCs serve, such as rural and low income communities. 

Potentially, some policy could be crafted protecting and exempting CHCs from possible rates that would price 

them out of using telehealth. However, while policy to protect could be crafted for established health entities llke 

CHCs, the individual consumer that directly utilizes the unique features of telehealth could be dramatically 

impacted by the rollback of net neutrality and there could be further impediment to the growth of telehealth. 

Potential Disproportionate Impact on Individual Use of Telehealth in the Home 

One of the unique features of telehealth Is the ability to use it to provide care anywhere, including in non~ 

traditional health care settings such as the home or schools. Some of the most compelling published research 

CCilP is u program o(the Public Health Institute 
157 


31393.109

Page 3 

around telehealth that highlights the impact on positive health outcomes as we!! as cost savings is related to a 

modality of telehealth known as remote patient monitoring (RPM). This modality is the continuous monitoring of 

patients by a provider from a distance. A lot of the published research examines the use of RPM within the 

patient's home. 

With the elimination of net neutrality and the possibility of paid prioritization, the individual will be asked to pay 

more to ensure they have that a robust connection to access these health services. While policy could be crafted 

to protect health centers or institutions, it would be much more difficult to ensure the individual has that 

comparable protection if they are using their home connection for health purposes. Potential policies would have 

to include subsidies to the individual which raises costs somewhere else and/or monitoring of use which raises 

questions of privacy. 

If the use of the telehealth in the individual's home is impeded, it runs counter to current efforts and policies put 

forward by both the Administration and Congress. These current efforts include: 

• Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS)- Since 2015, CMS has been promoting the 

use of Chronic Care Management (CCM) services that allow services to be provided in the 

home. 

• S 925/HR 2123 -The VETs Act of 2017- Would allow a covered health professional to provide 

services via telehea!th (te!emedicine is the term used in the bill) within the Veterans 

Administration {VA) system regardless of the location of the health professional or patient. 

• Similar language to S 925/HR 2132 is in the proposed rule by the VA allowing telehealth 

delivered services to be provided regardless of the location of the patient and provider. 

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018- Includes the home as an eligible originating site for 

Accountable Care Organizations (A COs) and for patients receiving End Stage Renal Disease 

(ESRD) home dialysis to also receive monthly ESRD~services in the home via telehealth. 

Each of these policies could be hamstrung should individuals find it difficult to purchase adequate connectivity to 

utilize these services, which have shown to be effective, produce beneficial health outcomes and save money. 

Impact on State Policies 

In the years CCHP has served as the federally designated national telehealth policy resource center, we have 

tracked an increased interest and adoption of telehealth policies within state governments. As of October 20171 

nearly all states have some type of reimbursement for telehealth within their Medicaid programs: 

• 48 States & DC reimburse for live video services 

15 States reimburse for store-and-forward (a modality that does not take place in real time 

such as capture of some type of information that is sent to a physician to be reviewed later. 

For example a photo of a skin condition that is sent to a dermatologist). 

• 21 States reimburse for RPMv' 

The limitation of access to connectivity could also greatly impact the efforts states have made in telehealth policy. 

In the 2017-20181egislative session, 167 state bills related to telehealth have been introduced in 37 states. The 

loss of available connectivity could stall the progress and efforts on the state level as well. 

CCHP is a program o{lhe PUblic Health Institute 
158 


31393.110

$Page4 

CCHP urges careful consideration of policies related to net neutrality to avoid any unintended impacts on the 

utilization of te!ehea!th and the people who can benefit from it, especially those that run counter to policies 

proffered and supported by the Administration and Congress. Please fee! free to contact CCHP for further 

information or clarification of these comments. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. 

Respectfully, 

Mei Wa Kwong, JD 

Executive Director 

'National Association of Community Health Centers, "Building Upon A Successful Model",< http://www.nachc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/NACHC-2018-Policy-Paper-Funding.pdf>. (Accessed April 16, 2018). 

''Health Resources & Services Administration, Substance Abuse Treatment Te!ehealth Network Grant Program, Funding 

Opportunity HRSA-17-22, p. 15. 

'"National Association of Community Health Centers, "The Health Center Program is Increasing Access to Care through 

Te!ehealth, February 2018" < http://www.nachc.org/wp-

£Q.JJ!gnt/uploadsDW18/02/Telehealth Snapshot FINAL 2.22.18.pdf>. (Accessed April 16, 2018). 

IV Ibid. 

v National Association of Community Health Centers, "Community Health Center Chart book, June 2017", < 

http:Uwww.nachc.org/wp-content/u.o.J.Qiids/2017/06/Chartbook2017.pdf>. (Accessed April 16, 2018}. 

v. Please note that there are various limitations in each of these categories such as reimbursement to only certain 

providers, services, etc. Policies vary drastically from state to state. 

CCliJ> IS a program O{the PubliC Health lnsti!We 
159 


31393.111

4/17/2018 Prioritization: Moving past prejudice to make internet policy based on fact 

Roslyn layton 

@Roslyn layton 

Aprill7, 2018 6:00am I AE/deas 

Prioritization: Moving past prejudice to make internet policy based 

on fact 

Technology and Innovation, T e!ecomrnunlcations 

The internet has evolved from its original design as a backbone-oriented, end-to-end infrastructure 

for academics to a series of content delivery networks (CDNs) that deliver video entertainment for 

end users. ,\bout So percent of today's internet's tratl:1c is driven by the business models ofGoogle, 

Amazon, and Netflix, companies that are both networks and applications undergirded by massive 

data centers and private networks. \::Vhile their success underscores their business prowess and 

compelling content, today's de facto result is not what the internet's architects had in mind. Had 

they anticipated that video would be the main use, they would have selected a different network 

design. 

Via Twenty20 

http://www.ael.org/pub!icationfprioritization-moving~past~prejudice-to-make-internet-policy-based-on-fact/?utm_source=news!etter&utm_medlum=paramount&utm_ 
160 


31393.112

4/17/2018 Pnorit1zation Moving past preJudtce to make mternet policy based on fact 

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) 201S Open Internet Order made a blanket ban 

on something it called "paid prioritization," or "the management of a broadband provider's network 

to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic." The implication is that internet 

service providers (ISPs) can "speed up" traftlc, but this is not possible because packets cannot be 

retransmitted by a network any faster than it receives them. The FCC failed to cite real-world 

examples of the practice or evidence proving its harm. Within network engineering, prioritization 

refers to scheduling and queuing technologies, which could be envisioned as a bike path and a 

walking path. If some traffic uses the bike path, it does not disadvantage the walking path traffic. 

However, the question remains whether the FCC banning the bike path altogether disadvantaged 

some services, as \'oice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) co-founder Dan Berninger notes in his 

petition at the Supreme Court. While CDl\s perform a service that amounts to paid prioritization, 

hosting content dose to users to shorten the distance it travels for a fee, leading CD'\' provider 

Akamai succeeded in its effort to carve out its services from regulation, as the order's footnotes 

attest. 

Today's !louse Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tl\), 

is a step toward addressing the wrongs of the Open Internet Order by removing its incentives for 

arbitrage and ensuring that specific measures regulating network capabilities (e.g., prioritization) 

arc based in science and engineering. Here arc some key points paraphrased from the submitted 

testimony of today's witnesses. 

Richard Bennett: 

While Ro percent of the bandwidth is consumed by a few giant players (which essentially don't 

contribute to the cost of last mile networks), a diverse pool of users and applications compete for 

access to critical network resources such as bandwidth, latency, packet loss, and jitter. New 

networking product lines such as WAN edge infrastructure, software defined networking, and 

managed services overcome shortcomings in the internet's design by enabling dynamic routing or 

path selection. These devices enable the internet to replace costly private lines for many enterprise 

applications. lSI's can do the best job of traffic optimization when they can identify the nature and 

requirements of individual packet strean>s. The most effective way to do this- while preserving 

privacy- is to allow application developers to register applications requiring special treatment and 

even to pay for such treatment in some circumstances. While the average speed of US broadband 

networks has increased 35 percent per year for a decade, web performance has remained stagnant, 

even decreasing in 2016. The interests of innovators are best served when they are able to purchase 

the network services they need without undertaking the breathtaking expense of building the 

networks of data centers owned by the five largest US firms. 

Peter Rysavy: 

http·ttwww.aei.org/publicatlon/priorltization-moving-past-prejudice-to-make~intemet-policy-based-on-fact/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=paramount&utm_ 
161 


31393.113

4/i?/2018 Pnorit1zat1on: Moving past prejudice to make internet policy based on fact 

sG, the next and flfth generation mobile wireless standard, is new network typologv and 

architecture designed to handle different kinds of traffic flows and a wider range of use cases than 

3G and 4G. These include autonomous vehicles with crash sensing and mitigation, health biometric 

sensing and response, tdemedicinc, and proactive monitoring of critical physical infrastructure 

such as transmission lines. These applications require minimal delay and high reliability, and this 

can't be guaranteed without prioritization. Importantly, prioritization increases the quality of 

experience across the subscriber base~ however, bright-line lllies against prioritization will deter 

service development and investment incentives, threatening and undermining America's leadership 

insG. 

Paul W. Schroeder, Aira Tech Corp: 

Aira helps the visually impaired enjoy a level playing field with those who can see by leveraging the 

capabilities of emerging sG networks. It offers its blind customers instant, next generation wireless 

access to visual information through smart glasses, augmented reality, machine learning, 

geolocation, sensors, and trained human agents. Aira won't work with best efforts as it requires a 

robust network with dependable connectivity. Aira employs AT&T's Dynamic Traffic Management 

solution to ensure users low latency and robust connectivity for the transmission of streaming 

video. Aira's customers or "explorers" use it to navigate city streets and airports, review printed 

material, catch public transportation, and get real-time assistance for job applications, shopping, 

and travel. 

Claims against prioritization and the counterarguments 

Witness and Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood's testimony was not available at the time of 

writing, but advocates against prioritization counter that the 2015 order had carve outs for 

telemedicinc, suggesting that it preserved the "good" uses cases for prioritization. But it's not logical 

that only telemcdicinc should be able to enjoy unrestrained innovation while other apps for 

transportation, supply chain, public safety, and so on would be denied. Such technologies, whether 

purchased by consumers or companies, can ensure users, for example, a quality video signal during 

an online job interview when the network is congested or the prioritization of public safety signals 

during emergencies. 

A second claim is that innovative services will never be delivered on the public internet because 

developers will opt for private networks. Such an option is prohibitively expensive, would increase 

the cost for end users, and deter innovative service adoption. :Vloreover. it's inet!icient to build 

separate networks when the public internet can offer these services the capabilities they need. 

http:l/www.aei.org/publication/priorltizatlon~moving-past-prejudice-to-make-internet-policy-based-on-facU?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=paramount&utm_ 
162 


31393.114

4/17/2018 Pnorittzation· Mov1ng past prejudice to make mternet po!1cy based on fact 

The use of prioritization will no more slow the internet than the usc of Fed Ex slows the mail. 

Indeed Amazon avails its Amazon Prime customers to priority delivery via the United States Postal 

Service. 

None of America's key competitors in sG-Japan, South Korea, or China- have adopted bans on 

paid prioritization. They would not be so stupid to handicap their citizens and innovators with rules 

that constrain an advanced network's capability. 

The US now faces a global competition for sG leadership and can't afford to be captured by 

emotional calls to imaginary harms. The committee is taking forthright, evidence-based leadership 

in making policy and investigating the facts before making up rules. It's a standard that all 

regulatory agencies should adopt. 

Learn more: Paid prioritization: Debunking the myth of fast and slow lanes 

(http:/ /www.aei.org/publication/paid·prioritization-debunking-the-myth-of·fast-and-slow-lanes/) 

I States join the net neutrality #resistance: Will it make a difference? 

(http:/ /www.aei.org/publication/states-join·the-net-neutrality-resistance-will-it-make-a-differencel: 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Net neutrality, Regulation, Telecommunications 

http·/fwww.aei.org/publication/prioritization-movtng-past-prejudice-to-make-internet-policy-based-on-fac!/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=paramount&utm_ 
163 


31393.115

/\lVII/\ 

INFORMATICS PROFESSIONALS. LEADING THE WAY. 

April16, 2018 

Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Energy & Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Energy & Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

The American l\ledical Informatics Association (£\MIA) applauds the House Energy & Commerce 

Committee's continued exploration into the challenges and opportunities presented by our everexpanding Internet-based economy and application ecosystem. The topic of your hearing, "From 

Core to Edge: Perspective on Internet Prioritization," is a central consideration in the ongoing 

debate over the role of government in balancing support for consumer protections with support for 

innovation. 

;\MIA is the professional home for more than 5,500 informatics professionals, representing frontline clinicians, researchers, educators and public health experts who bring meaning to data, manage 

information and generate new knowledge across the health and health care enterprise. As the voice 

of the nation's biomedical and health informatics professionals, AMIJ\ plays a leading role in 

advancing health and wellness by moving basic research findings from bench to bedside, and 

evaluating interventions, innovations and public policy across settings and patient populations. 

As a membership-driven organization dedicated to the science of data collection, analysis, and 

application, Al\!IA strives to deliver evidence-based policy recommendations that focus on the 

opportunities and challenges of implementing health informatics tools, such as electronic health 

records (EBR), health information exchanges, clinical decision support, and other kinds of analytics 

tools to support health, care, and research. 

AMIA posits that (1) access to high-speed broadband greatly determines the trajectory of 

individuals' health; (2) increasingly, care is delivered outside the four walls of our traditional 

healthcare system and more data are being exchanged across geographic and organizational 

boundaries to support such care; and (3) individuals are being empowered and incentivized to 

leverage consumer technologies to prevent and manage disease through Internet-connected devices. 

Together, these factors presage a need to ensure a robust health broadband economy driven 

by public policy that encourages low-cost broadband options with open access and 

transparent terms of service. This is especially needed for medically underserved Americans, who 

are more likely to reside in poor and rural areas of the country where existing broadband options are 

inferior. 
164 


31393.116

/\Mil\ 

Broadband as a Social Determinant of Health 

While it is difficult to know defmitively how paid prioritization might impact connectivity, latency, 

and speed at a systems level, the removal a basic consumer protection coupled with a loss of 

oversight authority makes for dubious circumstances. What we do know is that lack of access to 

broadband Internet services in the home or community negatively impacts individuals' health, and 

the problem is magnified for racial and ethnic minorities, persons of lower socioeconomic status, 

and other disadvantaged groups.'· 2

' 3 It is, therefore, possible to conclude that diminished access to 

broadband- and the applications that comprise the emerging broadband health ecosystem- will 

have similarly negative effects. 

In our view, the role of public policy should be one that encourages low-cost broadband options 

through increased competition with open access (i.e. no additional cost to connect to specific kinds 

of applications and content) and transparent terms of service (i.e. clearly stated performance 

expectations). Arguably, paid prioritization runs counter to the goal of open access. While we 

acknowledge that there could be defmable instances where prioritization could be useful, such as for 

telehealth services, we also question the need for paid prioritization given the existence of 

exemption options for non-Broadband Internet Access Services, also referred to as non-BIAS data 

serviccs. 4 

As a practical matter, the oversight of a system that docs not allow for paid prioritization, except for 

under clearly articulated aud thoroughly considered conditions, would be easier to manage than a 

system that allows for such prioritization unless or until there is inappropriate behavior. The number 

and types of regulatory controls that would need to be in place to understand and substantiate 

claims of inappropriate behavior would negate any perceived gains in removing the prohibition on 

paid prioritization. AMIA recommends a thoughtful examination of exemptions, rather than 

wholesale removal of the prohibition, as a reasonable and responsible next step. Congress 

could review the number and nature of exemption applications, as well as consider the impact of the 

exemptions once granted. Fundamentally altering the existing "best efforts" basis upon which 

Internet traffic is delivered should not be a step taken lightly. 

Distributed and Virtual Care Delivery 

1 Perzynski A., Roach, 1LJ., Shick, S. et al; Patient portals and broadband internet inequality. JAm ~fed Inform Assoc 

2017 ocx020. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx020 2 Graetz I, Gordon N, Fung V, et al. The Digital Divide and Patient Portals: Internet Access Explained Differences in 

Patient Portal Use for Secure Messaging by Age, Race, and Income. /\led Care. 2016 ;\ug;54(8):772-9. doi: 

10.1 097/~ll.R.0000000000000560. 

3 Gibbons, ?\I. C., \Xrilson, R.F., Samal, L. et al. Consumer health informatics: results of a systematic evidence review and 

evidence based recommendations. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. (2011) 1: 72. doi:10.1007/s13142-011-0016-4 

'FCC Order 15-24 states on pg. 58 "[W]e note that telemedicine services might alternatively be structured as 'non-BIAS 

data services,' which are beyond the reach of the open Internet rules,", aPailable 

at. https: //transition.fcc.gov /Daily Releases /Daily Business/2015/ db0312/FCC-1 S-24,-\1.pdf. 

2 

American Medical Informatics Association I AMIA 

4720 Montgomery Lane, Suite 500 I Bethesda, Maryland 20814 
165 


31393.117

AMI/\ 

While speculative, there are numerous scenarios involving the use of Internet-reliant health 

informatics tools that could be impacted negatively by a tiered servicing scheme that results in fewer 

service options or increased costs. These tools are both institution-focused as well as- and 

increasingly- individual-focused. 

Healthcare delivery has undergone a digital transformation in the last five years. More than 96 

percent of U.S. hospitals' and 83 percent of U.S. office-based physicians' have adopted EHR 

systems. Some of these EHR systems are cloud-based, requiring fast, reliable Internet to access 

stored data. There is also a fledgling effort by the federal government to establish a network-ofnetworks for all EHRs to exchange health data, known as the Trusted Exchange Framework and 

Common Agreement, or TEFCA 7 Under this policy, a physician in Oregon can access a vast 

network of patient records beyond her own EHR by connecting to a local hub. The government 

hopes that the same network can deliver bulk access to many patient records at one time for quality 

and cost assessments. A 

Other Internet-reliant tools include telehealth and telcmcdicine, many of which utilize highresolution images, video, and voice confcrcncing. Various healthcare organizations are 

experimenting with remote patient monitoring, fitness trackers, and mobile health applications that 

rely on Internet connections to better develop pictures of their patients' health, as well.' 

While some institutions may have the resources to easily handle increased prices for prioritization, 

many others will not. And given that individuals increasingly rely on Internet-based consumer 

electronics to manage and prevent disease, the unknown variables of paid prioritization beg caution. 

Numerous hospitals that would benefit from telehealth and remote patient monitoring service rural 

areas, which are already at a disadvantage when it comes to Internet access. 10 Introducing paid 

prioritization may be helpful in delivering reliable broadband, but if such services are not affordable, 

the benefits arc lost. 

Patient Empowerment 

Recent updates to Apple's iPhonc and iPad give individuals the ability to view their health records." 

While this may not seem a momentous feat, it could be the catalyst for a nascent ecosystem of 

5 Henry,J, Py1ypchulk, Y., et ttL Office of the ~ational Coordinator for Health IT, "Adoption of Electronic Health 

Record Systems among U.S. Non~Federal Acute Care Hospitals: 2008-2015," Data RricfNo. 35, !vfay 2016 

6 Heisey-Greve, D., Vaishali, P. Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, ".Any, Certified, and Basic: 

Quantifying Physician EHR Adoption through 2014," 0.0lC Data Brief, No. 28, Sept. 2015 7 Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement. 

https: I I www.healthit .gov I topic I in tempera bility I trusted-exchange-framework -and -common-agreement 

• Ibid. 

9 See also "Redefining Our Picture of Health: Towards a Person-Centered Integrated Care, Research, Wellness, and 

Community Ecosystem:" A \Xibite Paper of the 2017 A~IL\ Policy Invitational. }wailable at: 

https:/ / www.amia.org/ sites/ default/ files/ API -2017-\'l;'hite· Paper-Redefining-our-Picture-of-Health. pdf 

w Connect2HealthFCC. Mapping Broadband Health in :\merica 2017. !VIap available at: https:/ /www.fcc.gov/reportsresearch/maps/connect2health/#il=40,-95&z=4&t=broadband&bbm=fixed_access&dmf=none&zlt=county 

11 Farr, C. "Apple will let you keep your medical records on your iPhonc," CNBC. January 24, 2018 

3 

American Medical Informatics Association I AML". 

4720 Montgomery Lane, Suite 500 I Bethesda, Maryland 20814 
166 


31393.118

/\Mil\ 

consumer-driven health-related mobile applications. Much like access to, and utilization of, highquality health care and prevention strategies, mobile Health (mHealth) technologies that rely on 

broadband services have a wide adoption variance based on geography, population density, and 

socioeconomic status. Vulnerable groups face specific challenges related to inadequate access to 

affordable and consistent high-speed Internet. Race, ethnic, and age clisparities in patient portal usc 

and readiness and preferences for using digital communication for health-related purposes have 

shown to be significant," and this, in turn, reduces their ability to participate in many new and 

exciting mHealth solutions. These t,>Toups would benefit from an environment that fosters low-cost 

broadband options with access that would be open and as ubiquitous as possible. 

It is difficult to know how the current exemption system might treat this ecosystem, as patients and 

inclividuals are the impetus for such technologies, not hospitals and health systems. Nevertheless, 

should paid prioritization result in content- or producer-dependent pricing and performance 

variance, we would expect a widening of the digital divide and a worsening of health clisparities. 

Conclusions 

Given that so much is unknown about the future impact of paid prioritization, AMIA strongly urges 

caution. Congress would do well to favor legislative options that can substantiate claims of benefit as 

well as claims of harm. Leveraging the existing pathway of non-BIAS exemption is the responsible 

way to test such claims. Such an approach allows for measured experimentation, while keeping 

important oversight mechanisms in place to mitigate growing health clisparities among those that can 

afford to participate in our increasingly digital health system, and those who cannot. 

We appreciate this opportunity to submit this statement for the record. Should you have any 

questions or require additional information, please contact AMIA Vice President for Public Policy 

Jeffery Smith at jsmith@amia.org or (301) 657-1291 ext. 113. We look forward to further clialogue 

on this issue. 

Sincerely, 

Jeffery R. L. Smith, M.P.P 

Vice President of Public Policy 

AMIA 

12 Gordon N.P., Hornbrook ~f. C. Differences in Access to and Preferences for Using Patient Portals and Other eHealth 

Technologies Based on Race, Ethnicity, and Age: A Database and Survey Study of Seniors in a Large Health Plan. J ?\fed 

Internet Res. 2016 Mar 4;18(3):e50. doi: 1 0.2196/jmir.51 05. 

4 

American Medical Informatics Association I 1\MTA 

4720 Montgomery Lane, Suite 500 I Bethesda, Maryland 20814 
167 


31393.119

ConsumersUnione 

POLICY & ACTION FROM CONSUMER REPORTS 

Aprill7,2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports,' writes to express our 

views on the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology's hearing, "From Core to Edge: Perspective on Internet Prioritization" being 

held today. The hearing will discuss "paid prioritization" on the internet and its place in the 

larger net neutrality debate. In a nutshell, should paid prioritization be allowed and is it good or 

bad for consumers? 

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted net neutrality rules 

banning paid prioritization, where an internet service provider (ISP) like Comcast or Verizon can 

charge consumers and edge providers more for a dedicated "fast lane" to the internet, including 

specific websites we visit or apps we use on our smartphones. Paid prioritization would allow 

those content providers and consumers who can pay more to skip to the front of the line or use a 

special lane apart from the whole of internet traffic, thus enjoying better access to faster-loading 

content. But for the rest of us who cannot afford prioritized access, it would make it harder for 

smaller companies to compete and consumers may be stuck with a slower, congested internet. 

Fast forward three years later and the FCC, under new leadership, decided to lift the ban 

on paid prioritization, along with rules that barred ISPs from blocking or throttling access to 

websites and apps. The Commission decided it was better to have no rules at all, believing 

broadband internet access is not a telecommunications service worthy of basic, nondiscriminatory common carrier rules. This absence of regulations-not upon the internet but 

1 Consumer Reports is the world's largest independent product-testing organization.lt conducts its policy and 

mobilization work in the areas of telecommunications reform, as well as financial services refonn, food and product 

safety, health care reform, and other areas. Using its more than 50 labs, auto test center, and survey research center, 

the nonprofit organization rates thousands of products and services annually. Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports 

has over 7 million subscribers to its magazine, website, and other publications. 
168 


31393.120

upon service providers like AT&T -leaves ISPs to tinker with new business models bound by 

few, if any, consumer protections. And, to be very clear, nothing will stop ISPs from blocking 

internet traffic or erecting toll booths that will have the effect of restricting content and consumer 

choice. 

Consumers Union has been a long-time supporter of net neutrality rules and has opposed 

paid prioritization for a variety of reasons. Granting ISPs the power to charge tolls for access to 

both consumers and content on the internet gives those same JSPs control over who wins and 

loses on the internet. Unlike edge providers like Amazon or YouTube, ISPs possess "last-mile" 

entry into consumers' homes and devices, and that represents genuine gatekeeper power in the 

marketplace. With many consumers only having one, or maybe two choices for broadband 

service, there is little option but to tolerate the fees charged by, and the business practices 

engaged in, (be it blocking or paid prioritization), by their ISP. And, make no mistake, the 

primary reason that lSPs want to be free to engage in paid prioritization schemes is not to benefit 

consumers, but to increase their bottom line. 

We are sure to hear a slew of arguments in favor of paid prioritization at this hearing, 

many of them pushed by ISPs for years. Some might even suggest that consumers will actually 

want the option of paying more for new, prioritized fast connections. It is not clear exactly what 

these new offerings will look like. And while ISPs promise a better overall online experience 

with these products, it is very possible that consumers will have to pay more just to maintain the 

service they have today. We find it difficult to imagine how adding a new cost to access the 

internet will help improve the consumer experience. 

Another claim pushed by the industry is that paid prioritization is necessary for dedicated 

internet access to service a patient's pacemaker or other telemedicine application. Without it, 

they argue that these services-which could also include home security monitoring systems or 

remote energy thermostats-will not be prioritized and get lost in the shuffle with everything 

else online. 

This is simply false. 

When the FCC adopted net neutrality rules in 2015, it carefully considered that critical 

services-like a medical device or autonomous vehicle sending data back and forth over the 

internet-required dedicated, priority access outside of the consumer or commercial internet that 

the rest of use on a daily basis to surf online or stream video. That's why the Commission 

created an exception for these "specialized services," or what is now referred to as "non-BIAS 

(broadband internet access service) data services." The FCC even saw that this exception could 

be used to facilitate important, life-saving telemedicine devices and applications. This carve-out 

designed for critical or emergency services came with one condition: it could not be used as a 

loophole to avoid the rules that applied to the larger, commercial internet. 

The FCC went even further beyond the non-BIAS data service exception and allowed 

ISPs a more general exception by permitting "reasonable network management" to ensure that 

some services, (e.g., an emergency alert) could be prioritized over others. To imply that paid 

2 
169 


31393.121

prioritization is needed to ensure that a life-or-death service dependent upon an internet 

connection ignores the plain text of FCC rules already in place. 

Paid prioritization is a practice that not only gives ISPs control over how we access the 

internet, but would also give them control over the content that we are able to access. It 

fundamentally changes the nature of the internet as we have come to know it, where content is 

treated the same by ISPs and everyone competes on a level playing field. If an ISP can persuade 

lawmakers that for an extra fee, it will make sure that a loved one's heart monitor will prioritized 

2417 over your neighbor's Netflix binge watching, we could all end up paying more for 

something we are already entitled to under the law. 

For these reasons, Consumers Union remains opposed to paid prioritization, and will 

work to restore the net neutrality protections recently stripped away by the FCC. 

cc. The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee 

The Honorable Frank Pallone 

Jonathan Schwantes 

Senior Policy Counsel 

Consumers Union 

1101 17th Street, NW Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20036 

Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee 

3 
170 


31393.122

Josh Constine. @JoshConstine · Nov 22 v 

Some tech billionaire, please buy out the locaiiSP(s} where FCC chairman 

Ajit Pai lives and give him 14.41< dial-up speeds for killing net neutrality 

24 409 

Matthew Prince. 

@eastdakota 

UK 

v 

HPt'>IU!I"\!1 tO 

I could do this in a different, but equally effective, way. 

7:20 22, 2017 

110 Retweets 428 Likes 

v 

32 

Matthew Prince. @eastdakota · Nov 22 v 

sent note to our GC to see if we can without breaking any laws. 

12 164 

Josh Constine. @JoshConstine · Nov 22 v 

~ 

" 

Thanks for doing your and please let me know how this goes. If he 

wants an unregulated internet, he might not like what he gets 

2 51 

Matthew Prince. @east dakota · Nov 22 

indeed. 

3 51 

v 
171 


31393.123

4/4!2018 Paid prioritization: Debunking the myth of fast and slow lanes 

Daniel lyons 

@ProfDanlellyons 

April 2, 2018 6:00am IAE!deos 

Paid prioritization: Debunking the myth of fast and slow lanes 

Technology and lnnovalion, T elecommur:ications 

Last \Ycek, on a panel at the Free State Foundation's always excellent Annual Telecom Policy 

Conference, Cisco Systems Vice President Jeffrey Campbell highlighted that paid prioritization is "one 

of the most misunderstood issues" in the telccom policy space. His concerns match a recent op,.ed by 

Sen, Lisa :Vlurkowski (R-, \K), which reiterated the importance of the open internet but nonetheless 

discussed the value of prioritization in capacity-constrained areas such as rural /\laska. 

VH Twenty20 

Both~ Iurkowski's and Campbell's remarks reflect a growing realization that prioritization can play a 

positive role in network traffic management. But to understand why, we need to get beyond the "fast 

lanes, slow kmcs'' metaphor that has too often dominated the net neutrality debate. 

The myth offast lanes and slow lanes 

hftps:!!www.aei.org/publ:cation/paid-prioritization-debunking-the~myth-of-fast-and-s!ow-lanes/ 114 
172 


31393.124

4/4/2018 Paid pnont1zation. Debunkmg the myth of fast and slow lanes 

:'-Jet neutrality ad\'ocates often argue that without a ban on paid prioritization, internet service 

providers (lSPs) would divide the network into "a fast lane for those who can afford it- and a slow 

lane for the rest of us." Playing, perhaps, on the 1990s imagery of the internet as an "information 

superhighway," this rhetoric envisions broadband networks as segmented into various lanes of travel, 

with packets sorted into channels that move at different maximum speeds at all times. 

But as Campbell explained, this is a myth. All internet traftlc on a network moves at the same speedthe speed at which the electrons propagate on the wire. The problem is congestion: what happens 

when users want to transmit more data than the wire can physically manage at a particular moment. In 

this case, the network must drop some packets and allow others to go through. The dropped packets 

then must be resent, which delays the delivery of the service. 

The inevitability of congestion and the danger of prioritization bans 

Of course, congestion is not constant; it is more likely to occur at times of peak use. The solution to 

chronic congestion is to expand network capacity. But additional capacity is expensive. It is often 

uneconomic to build a network with zero congestion at peak time because this would create significant 

excess capacity at off-peak periods. And a zcro .. congcstion network today may nonetheless face 

congestion in the future, as consumers' appetites for data grow. So some amount of congestion is 

inevitable. 

So how can we address that congestion? One can drop packets randomly, which seems to align with net 

neutrality's ethos that all traffic should be treated the same. But there's a problem with this model: 

Different internet content and applications have different susceptibility to congestion. A user loading 

an email or a wcbpage is unlikely to notice if some packets are dropped and resent. But streaming video 

or FaceTimc may buffer, which erodes the consumer's experience and makes the product less reliable. 

c\s Campbell notes, an alternative would be to drop packets intelligently, by deprioritizing traffic that is 

less sensitive and prioritizing traffic that is more sensitive to congestion. This would improve the 

experience for streaming video (for example) without measurably degrading the web surfer's 

experience. 

See also: States join the net neutrality #resistance: Will it make a difference? 

(https:/ /www.aei.org/publication/states-join-the-net-neutrality-resistance-will-it-make-a-difference/) 

Importantly, Campbc11 explained that a ban on prioritization is cffecth·elya ban on internet-based 

services that arc sensitive to congestion. \ Vithout the ability to secure a minimum quality-ofCservicc 

guarantee, an edge provider of a congestion-sensitive service is less able to deliver its product to 

consumers. ~[urkowski highlights the importance oftelemedicine and tele-education applications, both 

of which involve congestion-sensitive video transmissions that suffer when aU traffic is treated 

hltps://www.aei.orgfpubUcation/pa!d-prioritization-debunking-the-myth-of-fast-and-slow-!anes/ 214 
173 


31393.125

4!4!2018 Paid prioritization: Debunking the myth of fast and slow lanes 

"equally" at congested nodes. As ?vlurkowski explains, the inability to prioritize congestion-sensitive 

traffic most adversely affects rural areas, where these video applications are useful and where capacityconstrained networks may experience congestion more often. But Campbell's point is that 

prioritization bans affect all of us, by deterring innovators from developing new internet -based services 

that need some protection from congestion. 

The role of price 

\Vhcn pressed, some net neutrality adYOcates will concede the value of intelligent traffic management. 

The problem isn't prioritization, they claim, but paid prioritization: the protection against congestion in 

exchange for a fcc. 

But once one acknowledges the need to prioritize traffic, one then needs a method of prioritization. 

One solution is a central planning model: An expert (likely either a government bureaucrat or a 

broadband company engineer) can develop a master list of all internet-based applications and sort it by 

priority. This raises difficult questions about the sorting rule. Is it based entirely on how quickly the 

service erodes, or is the expert choosing, say, telcmcdicine over cat videos because he or she feels 

telemedicine is more important? This raises the prospect of government or ISPs picking winners and 

losers, which is precisely what net neutrality is supposed to prevent. The expert may miscalculate an 

application's sensitivity. And even if the expert gets the list right, it's hard to maintain in a dynamic 

environment where new services are being added and existing services are being improved, which 

makes today's congestion-sensitivity calculations less relevant tomorrow. 

Alternatively, we can use the price mechanism, which is the way we generally allocate scarce resources 

(like bandwidth) in a capitalist society. l!ayck taught that prices reveal information that markets can 

use to sort claims on a decentralized basis. An edge provider will only purchase prioritization if its 

service is congestion-sensitive. VVhen it is 'Willing to do so, and at what price, reveals how susceptible it 

is compared to other apps. This sorts apps with less error and fewer value judgment than a centrally 

planned solution. 

The concern, of course, is that the price mechanism harms those who cannot afford to pay for 

prioritization. But these concerns are somc\vhat overrated. First, apps that are not congestion-sensitive 

have no need to pay for plioritization. Second, even in a net-neutral world, there are other ways that 

well-funded companies can- and do- pay to reduce their exposure to congestion, such as using 

content delivery networks to bypass the public internet. Finally, although players have incentives to usc 

prioritization in an anticompetitiYc manner, antitnJst law protects consumers from such harm, just as it 

shields us from anticompetitive conduct elsewhere in the American economy. 

It's always difficult to understand telecom policy by metaphor, as anyone knows who has tried to teach 

the llrandX case's distinction between justice Thomas's internet-as-car-dealership analogy and Justice 

Scalia's preferred conception of internet-as-pizza-delivery. Too often, metaphors are taken too literally 

https:/fw.Nw.aei.org/publicatlon/paid~prioritization.debunking-the-myth-of-fast-and-slow-lanes/ 3/4 
174 


31393.126

4/4/2018 Paid prioritization· Debunking the myth of fast and slow lanes 

in ways that harm the policy debate. I share Campbell's hope that we can move beyond the misleading 

fast lanes/slow lanes metaphor, which hides the significant potential benel1ts of prioritization to 

consumers and app developers alike. 

Learn more: After the vote: What's next for the Restoring Internet Freedom Order 

(https:/ /www.aei.org/publication/after·the-vote·whats·next·for-the·restoring·internet-freedom-order/ 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Innovation, Net neutrality, Regulation, 

Telecommunications 

https://www.aei,org/pub!ication/pald·prioritization·debunking.the-myth~of.fast.and-stow·lanes/ 4/4 
175 


31393.127

Reclassification and Investment: 

An Analysis of Free Press' "It's Working" Report 

Dr. George S. Ford' 

May 22,2017 

Introduction 

Free Press, a zealous proponent of Internet 

regulation, recently released a report on the 

capital expenditures of broadband service 

entitled, It's Working: How the Intemet 

and Online Video Markets are cl7zriving in tlze 

Title II Era (hereinafter "Free Press Report'').' The 

Free Press Report, authored by S. Derek Turner, 

claims that capital spending by Broadband 

Service Providers ("BSPs") "accelerated" 

following the Federal Communications 

Commission's ("FCC") reclassification of 

broadband Internet access connections as a Title 

II common carrier telecommunications service in 

its 2015 Open Internet Order, increasing by 5.3% 

between 2013-2014 and 2015-2016.2 The Internet 

Alliance, a trade group representing the interests 

of companies supporting reclassification, 

appears to use the Free Press' data to support the 

same claim.' 

Free Press' as usual, fails to meet the 

most basic professional standards, and 

involves nothing more than tl1e adding up of 

nominal total capital expenditures for a sample of 

BSPs and comparing the sums between two 

periods. Such simple-minded analysis is 

incapable of measuring the effect of a policy 

change." The relevant question is not whether 

capital spending rises or falls in any given year or 

pair of but whetl1er such expenditures are 

below levels they would have been "but for" 

the regulatory intervention. To answer tl1at 

question, we need a counterfactual. That is, if 

absent a regulatory intervention capital spending 

was scheduled to rise by 10% next year (the 

counterfactual), but rises by only 5% due to an 

intervention, the intervention reduces 

investment despite the fact expenditures were 

higher. Unlike recent research finding sizable 

harmful effects from reclassification, the Free 

Press Report offers no counterfactual, so their 

Report adds notl1ing serious to the analysis of Net 

Neutrality and reclassification.' 

Free Press' analysis, as usual, fails 

to meet the most basic of 

professional standards, and 

involves nothing more than the 

adding up of nominal total capital 

expenditures for a sample of BSPs 

and comparing the sums between 

two periods. Such simple-minded 

analysis is incapable of measuring 

the effect of a policy change. 

That said, the Free Press Heport does add 

something to the debate. Once the most basic 

adjustment to the data is made- accounting for 

inflation- Free Press' data show that capital 

spending fell significantly in 2016 (-2%). Had 

investment grown in 2016 by the amount claimed 
176 


31393.128

PERSPECTIVES 

in the Free Press Report (another 3.5% in 2016), the 

difference between the predicted and actual 

capital spending would be $4 billion. Free Press' 

own data, therefore, provides support for the $3.7 

to $5.1 billion investment decline cited by 

Chairman Pai when announcing his intent to 

review of the 2015 Open Internet Order.' Like 

recently released data by USTelecom and CTIA, 

multiple sources are finding substantial declines 

in capital spending in 2016.7 While Free Press 

wishes to peddle the fairy tale of positive 

investment effects, in fact their Report 

demonstrates that reclassification has been a 

nightmare for the rest of us. 

Once the most basic adjustment to 

tl1e data is made-accounting for 

inflation-Free Press' data shows 

that capital spending fell 

significantly in 2016 (-2%). ***While 

Free Press wishes to peddle the fairy 

tale of positive investment effects, in 

fact their Report demonstrates that 

reclassification has been a 

nightmare for the rest of us. 

Free Press Shows a Decline in Investment 

As Free Press has done in the past~ its most recent 

Report draws strong conclusions about 

investment based on the flimsiest of evidence.8 

For example, Free Press compares the sum of 

2013-2014 capital expenditures (in nominal 

dollars) to 2015-2016 capital expenditures, 

reporting a 5.3% increase.' Absent a 

counterfactual, such evidence says nothing about 

the policy change. Also, the FCC's Open Internet 

Order was released in March of 2015, long after 

investment decisions were made for that year 

(and perhaps a few more years out). 

Separating the data into annual spending and 

adjusting for inflation tells a much different story 

PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVES 17-04 

than that offered in the Free Press Report. Table 1 

summarizes the real capital expenditures for the 

BSPs on a year-to-year basis.1o As shown in the 

Table 1, capital expenditures rise between 2013 

and 2014, and again rise between 2014 and 2015. 

However, the year after the 2015 reclassification 

decision, capital spending fell by nearly 2%, or 

$1.3 billion. Investment after the 2015 Open 

Internet Order is, in fact, down. This decline in 

expenditures is hidden by Free Press' summing 

of 2015 and 2016 capital expenditures data and by 

their failure to adjust for inflation.11 

Table 1. Change in Capital Expenditures 

(2013-2016) 

Capital Change from Year Expenditures Prior Year(%) (2015 dollars) 

2013 $71,106,649 

2014 $71,429,876 0.6% 

2015 $73,738,162 3.2% 

2016 $72,394,467 -1.8% 

Source: Ft('e Press Study; Author's Calculations. 

The decline in capital spending demonstrated by 

Free Press is consistent with recent data from 

other industry sources. CTIA, for instance, 

showing a stunning 17% decline in real capial 

spending between 2015 and 2016.12 Estimates of 

capital spending constructed by USTelecom, 

which are at present preliminary, also indicate 

that capital spending declined between 2016 and 

2015.1' These data are summarized in Table 3. 

For once, all sides of the debate agree-capital 

spending is down in 2016. 

Table 3. Investment Growth into 2016 

Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Free Press 

0.6% 

3.2% 

-1.8% 

Cf!A 

-3.0% 

0.0% 

-17.0% 

USTelecom 

0.1% 

-1.7% 

-4.5% 

Of course, investment levels vary year-to-year for 

a variety of reasons, sometimes substantially. In 

PAGE2 
177 


31393.129

PERSPECTIVES 

some cases, it is the FCC's "objectionable and 

questionable" actions that alter investment 

levels.14 As a consequence of the FCC s DirectTV merger Order, for instance, the Commission is 

forcing AT&T to make substantial investments in 

building network to places it may not have gone 

otherwise." The Charter-Time Warner merger 

included similar conditions.16 Such mandates 

show up in capital spending but do not reflect 

genuine economic incentives or necessarily 

increase social well-being. The true effects on 

investment of reclassification are hard to 

decipher given former FCC Chairman Tom 

Wheeler's forceful attempts to cover up such 

effects using what amounts to extortion during 

merger reviews.17 

Anything Useful from the Data? 

Two interesting questions come to mind when 

looking at the decline in investment indicated by 

the Free Press data. First, does this $1.3 billion 

decline in investment measure the true effect of 

reclassification, or is the actual investment effect 

smaller or larger? Second, is the 1.8% decline in 

capital spending consistent with the annual 

variability in capital spending or is it 

extraordinary in its size? Free Press answers 

neither question. 

... the year after the 2015 

reclassification decision, capital 

spending fell by nearly 2%, or $1.3 

billion. *** This decline in 

expenditures is hidden by Free Press' 

summing of 2015 and 2016 capital 

expenditures data and by their 

failure to adjust for inflation. 

With such limited data, it is difficult to say much 

of anything about the effects of reclassification on 

capital spending, since so little data precludes the 

construction of a counterfactual. All we really 

PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVES17-04 

know from the Free Press Report is the capital 

spending fell in 2016. If capital spending in 2016 

would have grown by the amount claimed in the 

Free Press Report (5.3%), investment would have 

increased by 3.5% in 2016, then total spending in 

that year would have been $77.3 billion.lB The 

loss in capital spending from reclassification is 

nearly $4 billion dollars. 

In support of its new Report, Free Press' press 

release barked: "Sorry, Chairman Pai: Your 

Investment Numbers Don't Add Up."19 Yet, 

Chairman Pai's claims of a $3.7 to $5.1 billion 

reduction in capital spending following 

reclassification is entirely consistent with the data 

and claims of the Free Press Report.'" Rather than 

rebuttal, Free Press' data supports Chairman 

Pai's claims (at least under the assumptions I've 

made). 

Conclusion 

While the central problem with the FCC's 

reclassification decision is legal, the debate over 

the investment effects rage on.'' Free Press' latest 

entry into the controversy claims to show that 

investment has risen since the reclassification 

decision. Yet, the Free Press data indicate 

otherwise: investment in 2016 is down, and 

down $4 billion below the political-interest 

group's claim. The downward move in capital 

spending is consistent with the investment 

estimates by other industry sources. 

In support of its new Report, Free 

Press' press release barks: "Sorry, 

Chairman Pai: Your Investment 

Numbers Don't Add Up." *** Rather 

than rebuttal, Free Press' data 

supports Chairman Pai's claims ... 

While Free Press hoped its study would counter 

Chairman Pai' s recent observation that 

investment in the industry in down after 

PAGE3 
178 


31393.130

PERSPECTIVES 

reclassification, their Report actually lends 

support to the Chairman's claims. Perhaps 

inadvertently, Free Press has added to the 

growing body of evidence of the harmful effects 

of Title II on industry investment. That said, my 

official position is that Free Press' analysis is too 

PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVES 17-04 

poorly done and their data are too limited to say 

much of anything about the policy effects of Net 

Neutrality or reclassification. 

PAGE4 
179 


31393.131

PERSPECTIVES 

NOTES: 

Dr. GeorgeS. Ford is the ClziefEcouomist of the Phoenix Ceuter for Advanced Legal and Ecouomic Public Policy Studies. 

The views expressed iu this Perspective do not represent the views of the Phoenix Ceuter or its staff. Dr. Ford may be contacted 

at ford@phoeuix-center.org. 

S. Derek Turner, It's Working: Hmo the fntemet Access and Online Video Markets are Thriving in the Title II Era, Free Press 

(May 2017) (available at: https: I I www Jreepress.net/ sites/ default/ files I resources I internet·access-and-online~videomarkets-are-thriving-in-title-Il-era.pdO. 

I d. at p. 2; Protecting and Promoting tJw Open lntemet, REPORT AND ORDER ON RE:v1AND, DECLARATORY RULING AND ORDER, 

GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24, 80 Fed. Reg. 19738 (rel. Mar. 12, 2015) (hereinafter" 2015 Open Internet Order"), affd, United 

States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016), pet. for rehearing en bane denied,·-·- F.3d _(May 1, 2017). 

3 INTERNET ASSOCIATION REPORTS: PRELIMINARY NET NEUTRALITY FINDINGS, Internet Association (available at: 

https://intemetassociation.org/net~neutrality~~ (claiming a 5.3% "increase in telecom invesbnent among Publicly traded 

companies from 2013-2014 to 2015-2016"). 

See, e.g., J.D. Angrist and J.S. Pischke, MOSTLY HARMLESS ECONOMETRICS: AN EMPIRICIST'SCOMPANJON (2008). 

5 G.S. Ford, Net Neutrality, Reclassificalion and Investment: A Counte1jactual Analysis, PHOENIX C!-:1'-iTERPOUCY PERSPECriVE No. 

17-02 (April 25, 2017) (available at: http:f/phoenix-center.org/perspectives/Perspective17-02Final.pdf); G.S. Ford, Net 

Neutrality, Reclassification and Investment: A Further Analysis, PHOENIX CENTER POlJCY PERl3PECT1VE No. 17-03 (May 16, 2017) 

(available at: http: I I phoenix-center .erg/ pt?rspectives/ Perspi?'Ctive17 -03Fina1. pdO. 

Remarks of fCC Chairman Ajit Pai at the Newseum (Washington, DC), T1te Future of Internet Freedom (April 26, 2017) 

(available at: http:/ltransition.fcc.gov /Daily Releases/Daily Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf). The $3.7 billion 

figure is for 12 firms, but the largest 12 firms make up nearly all the total industry investment. 

7 P, Brogan, Broadband Investment Heads in lhe Wrong Direction, USTELECOM BLOG (May 5, 2017) (available at; 

http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/broadband-investment~heads-wrong~din.~ction). More detail was provided in a telephone 

conservation with Patrick Brogan (May 19, 2017); Annual Year-End 2016 Top-Line Suruey Results, CTIA (May 2017) (available 

at: https:// www .ctia.org/ docs/ defau It-source/ defau lt-docurnent-library I annua1-year-end-2016-top-Hne-survey-resultsfinal.pdf?sfvrsn=2). 

See, e.g., G.S. Ford, rindmg the Bottom: A Review of Free Press's Analysis of Network Neutra.Tityand Investment, PHOEN!XCENTER 

PERSPECflVE No. 09~04 (October 29, 2009) (available at: http://www.phoenix-center.org/perspectives/Perspcctive09-

04Final.pd0. 

Free Press Report, supra n. 1 at Figure Al. 

10 Nominal values are converted to 2015 dol1ars using the GDP deflator (available at: 

https: I I fred.stlouisfed.org/ series I GDPDEF#O). 

11 It may be, of course, that 2015 is the peculiarity here, not 2016. 

12 CTIA, supra n. 7. 

13 Brogan, supra n. 7. 

Statement of Commissioner Michael O'Reilly, In {fie Matter 

Cable Inc., and Aduancefl'Jewhouse Partnership, FCC 17-34, ORDER ON KE<Cm"If>ER.ATI<)N, 

(available at: https://apps.kc.gov I edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-17-34A4.pdf). 

15 See T.R. Beard, G.S. Ford, LJ. Spiwak, and M. Stern, Erodmg the Rule of Law: Regulation as Cooperative Bargaining at the FCC, 

PHOENIX CE;\ITER POLICY PAPER No. 49 (October 2015) (available at: httQ://www.phoenix-center.org/pcpp/PCPP49Final.pd0. 

16 J. Eggerton, FCC Votes to Reverse Charter Overbuild Condition, BROADCASTING & CABLE {April 3, 2017) (available at: 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc~votes-reverse-charter-overbuild-condition/164581). 

17 See Charter Order on Reconsideratiou, supra n. 13 at~ 8 ("The Commission's transactional review is not an opportunity for 

the Commission to advance unrelated policy objectives by extracting commitments from the transacting parties in exchange 

for regulatory approval.") (available at: https://apps.fcc.gov /edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-17-34A1.p@; see also Beard et 

al., supra n. 11. 

18 This figure assumes an average 5.3% growth rate betvveen 2013-2014 and 2015-2016. 

PHOE~IX CE!'>iTER PERSPECTIVES 17-04 PAGES 
180 


31393.132

PERSPECTIVES 

NOTES CONTINUED: 

zo Remarks of Chairman Pai, supra n. 6. 

G.S. Ford and LJ. Spiwak, Tariffing Internet Termination: 

Telecommunications Seroice, 67 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS LAW }OURNAL 

content/uploads/2015/02/Tariffing-Internet-Termination.pdf). 

PHOENIX CENTER PERSPECTIVES 17-04 

(available 

of Classifying Broadband as a Title II 

(available at: htt:p://www.fclj.org/wpPAGE6 
181 


31393.133

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Richard Bennett 

Founder 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

<!tongnss of tbc ilnitcb ~tatcs 

;!)ou~c of l\cprc~cntatibt~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 (202)225-2927 

(202)225-·3641 

May 2, 2018 

High Tech Forum 

869 South Cole Drive 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

Dear Mr. Bennett: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

on Tuesday, April 17, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "From Core to Edge: Perspective on 

Internet Prioritization." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record 

remains open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the 

record, which are attached. To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to 

these questions with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Wednesday, May 16, 2018. 

Your responses should be mailed to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to 

Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

~ Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Micbael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology 

Attachment 
182 


31393.134

HighTech FORUM 

High Tech Forum 

869 South Cole Drive 

Lakewood, Colorado 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

April17, 2018 

Responses to Additional Questions 

Richard Bennett 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn: 

Please find my answers to your additional questions following. Thank you again for allowing me 

to testify before your committee. 

1. During the hearing, pre-emption and prioritization over the FirstNet network were used as 

examples of public safety applications that could benefit from prioritization. Can you elaborate on 

the need for prioritization and optimization among other applications? 

Prioritization is necessary in packet switched networks in order to make the best use of 

network bandwidth. These networks rely on statistical multiplexing, a technique that shares 

communication channels with multiple users and multiple applications. This is similar to grocery 

store checkout lines. While the channel or line may have an average delay that's tolerable to 

the customer, there are always some periods of time in which a number of users happen to 

show up at the same time. This increases delay for all. 

Network management is capable of re-ordering information packets in such a way that the 

applications that require low delay can obtain it; these are typically voice and conferencing 

applications. Re-ordering information packets in this way adds subtle delays to non-prioritized 

information, but this delays are typically small enough that they're not noticed by consumers. 

This is an information processing-intensive task that goes over and beyond the basic 

requirements of telecommunication service; it is therefore reasonable for firms to charge for 

performing the service. 

In the case of First Net, video communication is often necessary for assessing the situation on 

the ground. If a dispatcher in the headquarters location needs to see, for example, the water 

flow in a river swollen with heavy rain, glitches in the video stream can create false impressions. 

It's therefore important for these pictures to be transmitted in real time with a minimum of 

delay and variation. 

Applications such as Aira have a very similar challenge, as video glitches caused by excessive 

delay or packet loss impair the guide's ability to direct the user. 
183 


31393.135

2. From a network engineering perspective, can you describe what a "user-directed" prioritization or 

optimization environment might look like? 

a. How would the user implement their choice to optimize or prioritize certain services or 

applications? 

User-directed prioritization requires communication in the form of messages from the user to 

the network service provider. This can take place in a number of ways, all of which require an 

application to send the message: 

1. The user may have access to a web page that allows them to identify the applications in 

need of prioritization. This would be similar to the configuration pages in home routers 

that allow the user to configure Quality of Service options. One unresolved question is 

how the user would identify inbound data streams in order to specify their treatment. 

The simple solution, often promoted by advocates of heavy Internet regulation, would 

rely on IP addresses. But services requiring special treatment do not always come from 

known IP addresses, and not all traffic from any given IP address requires special 

treatment. The same problems exist for domain names; google.com represents a large 

number of different services. 

Other approaches would rely on the ISP doing packet inspection (AKA "deep packet 

inspection") or heuristics such as packet length, frequency, or port numbers. The only 

reasonable solution requires services to stick to known domains or IP addresses in 

combination with restricted port numbers and other factors. In most cases, the user will 

need to know several pieces of information that will sound mysterious and complicated 

to the average consumer. 

2. The application the user wishes to prioritize- such as a video conferencing applicationcan also send a message to the ISP requesting special treatment. In engineering, this is 

known as an "Admission Control" message. These messages function like concert 

tickets, verifying that the party is authorized to enter the theater and occupy a certain 

seat. The Admission Control message will typically operate in conjunction with a web 

authorization or similar technique. This is the method used by Wi-Fi and by the 

Internet's Integrated Services standard. 1 

Admission Control messages need to be authenticated in real time, a process that's 

reasonable when performed between the ISP and the service, but unreasonable when 

the consumer's direct consent is needed for each such transaction. This practice can 

only be made to conform with the user consent requirement by delegating real-time 

1 R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker, "RFC 1633 Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: An Overview" 

June 1994, http:/ /tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1633.txt. 
184 

Æ 


31393.136

processing to the ISP and forcing cooperation between the application provider and the 

ISP. 

3. The message can be embedded in information packets sent by the ISP user to the 

service of their choice and also in the packets sent by the service to the user. This is the 

method specified by the Internet's Differentiated Services protocol. 2 1t is also used by 

IEEE 802 standards for Ethernet (802.10) and W-Fi (802.11e) 3 This method is not 

exclusively user-controlled since the user has no ability to embed signals in the 

information passing from the service to the user; the user can only control the messages 

he or she sends. Hence, the use of this service requires communication between the 

user and the ISP to authorize the service's use of priority signaling. 

In practice, this is very complicated. For practical use, it's most convenient for the user 

to delegate signaling and authorization to a third party application to manage on the 

user's behalf. Many features of the Internet assume a high level oftechnical knowledge 

in the part of the user because it was originally a research network. In today's world, 

users often have very little network management knowledge, so decisions that affect 

network operation and leading-edge application performance are best left to experts. 

One of the leading advocates for "user-controlled prioritization" is Barbara van Schewick 

of the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. She presented a paper at the TPRC 

Conference in 2010 making the argument that users alone should be allowed to make 

prioritization decisions.4 When I asked her if users should be allowed to delegate this 

power to ISPs and third party application providers, she answered that she didn't know 

and would have to think about it. I'm still waiting for her answer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to answer these questions and please feel free to contact me in 

the future. 

Sincerely yours, 

/signed/ Richard Bennett 

'S. Blake et al., "RFC 2475 ·An Architecture for Differentiated Services" December 1998, 

http:/ /tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2475. txt 

' IEEE Computer Society et al., IEEE Std 802.11e'M-2005: IEEE Standard for Information Technology 

Telecommunications and Information Exchange between Systems--Local and Metropolitan Area Networks--Specific 

Requirements. Part 11, Amendment 8, Part 11, Amendment 8, (New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers, 2003), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?punumber~10328; IEEE Computer Society; International 

Electrotechnical Commission; International Organization for Standardization; Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers; IEEE Standards Board, IEEE Std 802.1D'M- 2004 (New York, N.Y. USA: Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers, 2004), 1. 4 Barbara van Schewick, "Network Neutrality: What a Non-Discrimination Rule Should Look Like," SSRN Scholarly 

Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, September 20, 2010), 

https:/ /papers.ssrn.com/abstract~1684677.