Congressman Jim Matheson: responding to your email

1 message

Congressman Jim Matheson <ut02ima@mail.house.gov>

Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:41 PM

To: ————–

Website – Services – D.C. Tours – Legislative Info – Signup for my e-newsletter

April 8, 2011

Dear Mr. D———,

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding regulation of the internet by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I appreciate your interest in the issues facing our country and state, and I am glad for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By contacting me on issues important to you, I am better able to represent Utah in Congress.

I support efforts to maintain the high-quality internet experience Utahns have come to enjoy and expect. Historically, the government has said that telecommunications services fall under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, which means that consumers are entitled to important protections, including non-discrimination rules which allow everyone the same access to the web. Although most of us think of the internet as the last frontier, it has never been completely unregulated because our government has insisted on certain user protections.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that broadband should be considered an interstate information service and is subject to less stringent federal regulations. Just a few months later, the FCC also ruled that telephone company internet access services were also subject to Title I regulations. Therefore, both telephone and cable companies were no longer required to adhere to the stricter non-discrimination laws originally required under Title II.

In 2007, the FCC determined that Comcast violated the agency’s Internet Policy Statement when it blocked certain peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing applications on its network. Specifically, the FCC found that Comcast’s blocking of P2P file sharing programs was not “reasonable network management.” In response, Comcast appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit ruled on April 6, 2010, in Comcast v. FCC, that the FCC could not base ancillary authority found in Title I to regulate cable internet services solely upon broad policy goals contained elsewhere in the Communications Act. This ruling had significant implications, as it called into question the FCC’s authority to set reasonable rules of the road for internet traffic.

Subsequently, on December 21, the FCC approved new net neutrality regulations through its “Open Internet Order.” In the rules, both wireline and wireless broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would be subject to transparency and anti-blocking requirements. Additionally, wirelineproviders are also subject to a rule against unreasonable discrimination. Because of the finite amount of wireless spectrum, mobile broadband providers are allowed a greater degree of flexibility to manage traffic over their networks.

The Open Internet Order is being challenged by Congress and again in court. The House of Representatives recently passed a resolution of disapproval (H.J.Res. 37) that, if signed into law, would overturn the FCC’s Open Internet Order. I voted against this resolution. I believe that similar types of internet traffic should be treated comparably by internet service providers in order to maintain the undisputed value of the internet. I do not believe that service providers should be able to degrade or block service to websites, nor should they be able to provide better service only to their own subsidiaries or to websites with which they have set up preferential service agreements. If these kinds of agreements are to be the future of the internet, I believe that the World Wide Web will no longer be an open market-driven forum. Instead, it will be much more like television or even a shopping mall, where stores or content providers must purchase space in order to exist.

The last reauthorization of the Communications Act was in 1996, when broadband internet was in its infancy. The court cases and subsequent questions over how broadband internet should be regulated during the last fifteen years clearly demonstrate the need for the law to be updated to reflect changes in telecommunications services and the shift toward broadband. The Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over telecommunications issues, has already begun the process of engaging stakeholders in discussions regarding a comprehensive rewrite of the Communications Act. As a member of this committee, I will be actively involved in this process, and will continue work to ensure that the internet remains open and accessible while allowing for growth, innovation, and infrastructure investments in this rapidly-changing industry.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,

JIM MATHESON

Member of Congress

Please do not reply to this email, as this box is unattended. Instead, please use the webform on my website if you have any further comments

Contact Information:

2434 Rayburn HOB | Washington, DC 20515 | Phone: (202) 225-3011 | Fax: (202) 225-5638

240 East Morris Ave. #235

South Salt Lake, UT 84115

Phone: (801) 486-1236

Fax: (801) 486-1417

321 North Mall Dr., #E101B

St. George, UT 84790

Phone: (435) 627-0880

Fax: (435) 627-1473

Carbon County Courthouse

120 East Main Street

Price, UT 84501

Phone: (435) 636-3722

Fax: (435) 613-1834

Toll-Free Number 1 (877) 677-9743