On Monday, a remarkable letter [
pdf, 71KB] was filed with the FCC.
Of particular note was the signature line – 6 leading academics who describe themselves as “professors of law who have spent many years devoted to research on the architecture of the Internet and its related policies.”
- Jack Balkin, Yale
- John Blevins, South Texas College of Law
- Jim Chen, University of Louisville
- Larry Lessig, Harvard
- Barbara van Schewick, Stanford
- Tim Wu, Columbia
In their letter, the authors note that several have testified or filed comments with the FCC, and they have published widely on the topic of Network Neutrality and related internet issues. Why did they collaborate on this special letter?
We submit this extraordinary early letter only to flag what we believe are two ambiguities in the Notice that we hope can be addressed early to provide a clearer foundation for comments.
The ambiguities are “Defining Non-Discrimination” and “Reasonable Network Management.”
Regarding the second point, these distinguished professors of law ask if the FCC is asking for comment on what the standard should be, or proposing no clear standard at all? The letter suggests that the FCC should consider the distinction used by the CRTC in defining certain tests for an acceptable internet traffic management practice.
These US law professors seem to be squarely at odds with the statement by the NDP’s critic, Charlie Angus:
South of the border, the FCC has taken clear steps toward the establishment of internet neutrality on U.S. networks.
The professors say that the FCC’s statement is ambiguous and they point north of the border for clarity. Who should we believe?
Nowhere in the FCC draft principles will one find the suggestion that higher prices for Internet access is an acceptable method of network management. By contrast, Canada’s regulator, through its policy statement, has further eroded Canada’s standing in international Internet metrics.
On Monday, the same day that the academics cited the CRTC’s approach, CAIP issued another press release that said:
Despite putting in place proceedings that appear like they are progressive thinkers, the Commission has been issuing regressive decisions related to competitive issues.
Both press releases from CAIP play loosely with language, saying that the CRTC’s approach was calling for “higher prices for Internet services” to deal with growing demand.
The letter to the FCC from the US internet law professors seems to contradict CAIP’s assertions that the CRTC’s decisions are regressive.
We stand by our observation that Canada is a leader in setting out the world’s first clearly defined framework for managing internet traffic.
I have only one issue with User Based Billing to manage network traffic. A company should not profit from it's short comings. There is no impetus for improvement if they profit from congestion.
Having said that, if this is strictly to 'Manage Traffic' and these are in fact CAIP customers then whatever amount deemed appropriate by the CRTC should be collected and kept by CAIP members.
Perhaps this will give them the resources to build new infrastructure and bring true competition.