The Federal Communication Commission’s National Broadband Plan - Adoption, Usage, and Global Impact of Broadband Technologies - page 59

providers to increase the capacity of their
existing advanced networks.

Warner argue in their comments in the NOI that
no such regulatory protection is necessary given
the competitiveness (as a result of inter-modal
platform competition) of the advanced broadband
access service market. Moreover, they argue that
such regulations are affirmatively harmful for they
reduce the incentive of network providers to invest
and innovate in next generation broadband access
networks. There is a clear disagreement among
stakeholders regarding the competitiveness of the
advanced broadband access service market that
will be explored in this chapter.
At present, ISPs' conduct involving the ways
that they can manage their advanced broadband
networks is only constrained by the Internet
Policy Statement that identifies four principles
the FCC issued in 2005 (FCC, 2005b). In 2008,
the FCC used the Internet Policy Statement to
sanction Comcast for engaging in unreasonable
network management in its use of its broadband
access network to block/delay a peer-to-peer video
applications protocol (FCC, 2008). This policy
statement is not a set of rules but rather a set of
four principles. Whether these principles should
be enacted in a rulemaking process by the FCC is
an outstanding issue to be explored in this chapter.
In addition, there is controversy to be explored
over whether there should be a fifth principle of
non-discrimination added to the FCC's enforce-
ment arsenal for broadband access services.
Recent trends have elevated into the political
and public spotlight the issue of the degree of
freedom that broadband Internet access service
providers should have to interfere with the trans-
mission of data to manage their networks. First,
there has been and continues to be an explosion
in the growth of global Internet traffic, led by
bandwidth-hungry applications such as online
video and file-sharing. Second, there is a desire
by network providers to vertically integrate into
applications and content markets (e.g., Internet
Protocol television service) raising concerns that
ISPs have the ability and incentive to favor their

To what extent can the implementation of the
concepts of openness and competition help the
FCC achieve its broadband goals in an effective
and efficient manner? For instance, one major
thrust of this chapter focuses on the business
relationships between broadband Internet ac-
cess service providers (ISPs), such as Comcast,
Time Warner, Cox, AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest
and applications and content provider, such as
Google, Amazon, and Vonage. Specifically, one
critical issue involves the meaning of the concept
of openness to advanced broadband networks.
No stakeholder seems to dispute the value of an
open Internet. Nevertheless, there is disagreement
about the exact meaning of the term and whether
exceptions to the term should exist.
In one sense, the concept of openness can be
disaggregated into two components: (1) man-
dated open access to the physical layer of an
ISP's network involving openness of broadband
transmission conduits (cable modem, DSL, fiber-
optic line) to unaffiliated Internet access service
providers, and (2) a version of network neutrality
which includes mandating openness by incumbent
ISPs to unaffiliated upper layer applications and
content providers of services such as streaming
video, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and
interactive e-commerce.
A related issue to openness involves the
meaning of non-discriminatory behavior by ISPs.
Recent Supreme Court and FCC orders have freed
ISPs from Title 2, common carriers obligations
that have traditionally applied to telephone com-
panies' provision of dial-up and DSL service.
These recent agency and judicial actions involv-
ing ISPs' provision of broadband Internet access
service will be chronicled. These obligations were
intended to prevent telephone companies from
leveraging their market power in Internet access
to upper layer applications and content markets.
Incumbent ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon, and Time