Joshua Breitbart Policy Director People’s Production House October 17, 2007 My name is Joshua Breitbart. I am the Policy Director of People's Production House. I am also a researcher and consultant with The Ethos Group and I write regularly on municipal broadband for outlets such as GovTech, Gotham Gazette, and WireTap. People's Production House has been teaching students in New York City public schools and members of local community based organizations to be radio journalists since 2000. In my capacity as Policy Director, I coordinate our Digital Expansion Initiative, through which we educate the public about important broadband-related issues and promote meaningful Internet access for all New Yorkers. We launched our Digital Expansion Initiative in 2006 because the Internet is the ideal medium to distribute the kind of stories our members produce – community journalism for a very specific audience – but many of our members and most of the people in their target audience have limited access to the Internet. What do I mean by limited access to the Internet? We no longer see a stark, binary digital divide between those with Internet access and those without. We now see a spectrum of access and usage based on subtle factors like the speed of your connection, the age and speed of your computer, how many computers per person in your household, and the accessibility of online content. A Verizon salesman will be the first to tell you that there is a qualitative difference between digital subscriber line service over old copper wires and a new, fiber optic connection. When I say the Digital Expansion Initiative promotes meaningful Internet access, what do I mean? That means we want to do more than give people a base minimum of service. We want people to use the Internet to its full potential to enrich their lives and we want to participate actively in shaping the Internet's future. We want to realize the Internet's democratic promise that everyone in our society can make robust contributions to our information, cultural, and commercial economies. We do our part at People's Production House. We provide people with production equipment, train them how to use it, and give people access to our Verizon business class DSL connection to upload it to the Internet. For many of our members, that moment when their story goes out over the Internet is the first time they have seen or heard people from their communities represented in the media. Every time, it is a great moment for the reporter, a great moment for our organization and, I truly believe, a great moment for our democracy. But then they see on the cover of the New York Times that Verizon can censor the messages that travel over their network. And they ask me about it and I give some caveat about mobile phones and short message services, but then I admit that yes, they can, and sometimes they do. When people find this out, they are often shocked. The notion of net neutrality is so intertwined with the popular understanding of the Internet, based on 30 years of network performance and all of the grand claims of the medium's democratizing power, that to offer a service without net neutrality and call it Internet is practically fraud. The average Internet user assumes that the Internet involves a straightforward exchange: I send, you receive; you send, I receive. Indeed, this is the basis of TCP/IP, the protocol on which the Internet is based. If you told the average user that, on Verizon's network, I send and you receive only if my message is not too controversial, that person would call that service something other than "Internet." They would probably call it a name I would not repeat in this forum. While the people who are used to a free and open Internet service face increasing harm from a shift to a non-neutral network, those on the other side of the digital divide will suffer even more. With the persistent digital divide in New York, letting net neutrality end now is like changing the rules of the game before some people even get to start playing. We should be making the Internet more open with proactive legislation, not closing it so only Verizon-approved messages get through. This principle holds just as true for mobile wireless networks. As part of the Digital Expansion Initiative, we are conducting extensive, citywide research into Internet usage and access to technology. Preliminary results suggest that mobile phones are a significant source of Internet access for New Yorkers, especially for low-income consumers. Those who have to choose between owning either a mobile phone or a computer tend to choose the mobile phone. I spoke with members of the New York City AIDS Housing Network (NYCAHN) recently. They have found that desktop computers are not sufficient for their communication needs, in large part because many members and staff members do not have computers at home. So they use cellular devices. Despite their limitations in functionality and screen size, not to mention the monthly fees, those devices have succeeded in getting more people communicating, checking their email, and engaging in the community organizing work of NYCAHN. The people I spoke with appreciate having a device of their own that they could get to know and could customize. This is much more like the one-computer-per-person ratio we tend to see in wealthy homes and larger companies than like the shared computer experience in the NYCAHN office, at the public library, or at NYCAHN members’ homes, if there is any computer at home, or even a home. In addition, the people I spoke with were more likely to have extensive experience using a cell phone than a computer. They described a cell phone as a much more common possession among people they knew than computers, except perhaps for households with school age children. If our research determines that separate classes of people are accessing the Internet through distinct platforms, we believe it is government's role to make sure that the mobile wireless Internet experience is as open and potentially enriching as Internet access over phone, cable, or fiber optic lines, or a fixed wireless connection. I would refer you to an excellent paper on this topic written by Professor Tim Wu from the Columbia University School of Law with the title, “Wireless Net Neutrality: Cellular Carterfone and Consumer Choice in Mobile Broadband” (February 15, 2007. See http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/wireless_net_neutrality). He paints a damning picture of an oligopoly using its vertically integrated control over the device, applications, and connectivity to stifle innovation and extract high fees from users. Professor Wu makes four key recommendations for improving mobile wireless service:
- Cellphone Carterfone – The basic and highly successful Carterfone rules in the wired world allow any consumer to attach any safe device to his or her phone line through a standardized jack. The same rule for wireless networks would liberate device innovation in the wireless world, stimulate the development of new applications and free equipment designers to make the best phones possible.
- Basic Network Neutrality Rules – Wireless carriers should be subject to the same core network neutrality principles under which the cable and DSL industries currently operate. Consumers have the basic right to use the applications of their choice and view the content of their choice. Wireless carriers who offer broadband services should respect the same basic freedoms. Carriers can tier or meter pricing for bandwidth without blocking or degrading consumer choice.
- Disclosure – Consumer disclosure is a major problem in the wireless world. In addition to the disclosure of areas lacking coverage and rate-plan information, carriers should disclose—fully, prominently, and in plain English—any limits placed on devices, limits on bandwidth usage, or if devices are locked to a single network.
- Standardize Application Platforms – The industry should re-evaluate its “walled garden” approach to application development, and work together to create clear and unified standards for developers. Application development for mobile devices is stalled, and it is in the carriers’ own interest to try and improve the development environment.
These policy recommendations should be considered in deliberations over net neutrality and in the development of new broadband infrastructure. If we want to promote competition, innovation, and deployment, then the device, content or applications, and connectivity should all be separate and should interact based on open standards. That kind of marketplace would give New Yorkers the widest range of opportunities to get online and it would spur innovation, especially at the end user level. So, I want to commend Assembly Member Brodsky and his colleagues for the proposed Omnibus Telecommunications Act (S.5124 / A.3980B). You are taking an aggressive approach to a multifaceted problem. The buildout provisions would help ensure near-universal access to the Internet in New York and the net neutrality provisions would ensure that, when people in low-income and rural communities finally get online, they have a free and unfettered ability to participate in the digital public sphere. I would like to take the final moments of my prepared testimony to suggest other mechanisms for ensuring the communications networks in our state remain neutral and non-discriminatory. Net neutrality is not solely the province of the federal government. State governments are increasingly undertaking actions to strengthen the open Internet within their borders.
- Procurement – The legislature can restrict the state's telecommunications purchases to service providers that make a contractual commitment to network neutrality.
- Interconnection – The State should undertake an assessment of its own fiber optic assets, plus utility poles and other rights of way, and provide interconnection only to neutral and non-discriminatory networks.
- Disclosure – The legislature should consider requiring service providers to disclose fully and in plain language to their consumers in New York the restrictions they place on usage, including data transfer limits and content restrictions, plus, for wireless carriers, any limits placed on devices or if devices are locked to a single network. The legislature should investigate prohibiting these harmful practices and should work with the State Attorney General to make sure providers are not deceiving their customers.
- Resolution – The legislature can consider a non-binding resolution endorsing net neutrality. The Maine legislature recently passed such a resolution. This is a step towards mobilizing the State's lobbying resources in support of federal net neutrality legislation.
The legislature would benefit from surveying the various efforts underway in other statehouses across the country. The proposed Omnibus Telecommunications Act is certainly a leading example, but states such as Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, and Massachusetts are taking or considering some very interesting steps, as well. I have included some additional notes on these states' measures in my written testimony and would be happy to provide additional information if the committee believes that would be helpful. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
State-level measures
Maine
In June, the State Legislature passed LD 1675, affirming that,"full, fair and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet is critical to the ability of Maine citizens to participate in the information economy and is an important element of citizens’ access to information necessary to their roles as informed participants in our nation’s democracy." It directed the Public Advocate to "monitor and review state and federal activity on issues relating to full, fair and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet" to report a summary of its observations by February 1, 2008. Maine has also been considering LD 218, authorizing a General Fund Bond Issue of $2,000,000 in "matching funds to communities to build the infrastructure necessary for the provision of high-speed Internet access in underserved areas of the State."
Ohio
Through a July 27 executive order, the new Governor is leveraging state-owned assets. His "Executive Order 2007 - 24S" directs "state agencies to use the [state-owned] Broadband Ohio Network rather than the patchwork of public and private networks agencies presently use, allowing the state to realize cost savings and efficiencies." The order also forms the Ohio Broadband Council to expand the Broadband Ohio Network.
Iowa
The Iowa State Legislature held a hearing in July to discuss two measures. One would, similar to the Ohio measure described above, open a state-owned fiber network to non-governmental/non-educational use. The second bill, would authorize the expenditure of $100,000,000 to construct a wireless network covering the last mile between all Iowa residents and the fiber network.
Illinois
The proposed HB1258 would offer non-discriminatory leased access to the state's extensive fiber network and redirect the state's existing digital divide programs towards developing access to this network.
Vermont
In his inaugural address, the Governor proposed a Vermont Telecommunications Authority with a bond fund of $40,000,000 looking to leverage $200,000,000 in private investment so that "by 2010, Vermont be the nation’s first true 'e-state' – the first state to provide universal cellular and broadband coverage everywhere and anywhere within its borders."
Massachusetts
In June 2006, the Legislature, as part of an economic development package, established an office of the state Director of Wireless and Broadband Development to assess and expand broadband access statewide. The new Governor has already assessed which areas in the state need service and is pushing for a $25,000,000 Broadband Incentive Fund to promote both public and private investment in those areas.