The Association of Research Libraries (ARL), together with 10 other library and higher education groups, filed comments with the FCC on net neutrality. These comments largely expand on the points made in the Net Neutrality Principles jointly filed by library and higher education groups on July 10, going into greater detail and making specific suggestions to strengthen the proposals made in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The comments point out that library and higher education organisations depend on the open Internet, or net neutrality, to carry out their missions and ensure the protection of freedom of speech, education achievement, and economic growth. The organisations note that the essential character of the Internet is an open platform, promoting 'the open exchange of information, intellectual discourse, research, free speech, technological creativity, innovation, and learning.' The comments recommend that the FCC's final order recognise the value of net neutrality for education, research, and freedom of speech.
Specifically, the comments note that public libraries provide Internet access to their patrons, a particularly necessary service for the approximately one-third of the population that does not have broadband access at home but relies on such access to complete homework assignments, locate e-government services, find health information, apply for jobs, share digital content, and other activities. Higher education institutions make Internet access available to their students, faculty, researchers, and administration. Many students today are also involved in distance learning—including MOOCs—or hybrid courses and therefore depend on the availability of high-bandwidth Internet access. Degradation of Internet transmission speeds would detrimentally impact these populations and activities.
The comments also provide seven specific examples of projects and services by libraries and higher education institutions that provide important access to information and culture but depend on net neutrality to disseminate.
The joint comments lay out several specific proposals to strengthen those proposed rules published in the FCC's NPRM. The comments clearly note that if the FCC reclassifies broadband Internet service as a Title II 'common carrier' service, it would provide valuable certainty in the market place and ensure that the goal of prohibiting discrimination. However, if the FCC chooses not to reclassify and use its Title II authority, it may act under its Section 706 authority.
The comments recommend, however, that should the FCC exercise its Section 706 authority rather than choosing to reclassify broadband Internet services, the agency should use an "Internet reasonable" standard rather than a "commercially reasonable" standard because "a 'commercially reasonable' approach could be interpreted to allow any broadband and edge provider to reach a contract to provide 'paid prioritization." If the two companies reach an agreement that they mutually believe to be in their commercial interests, it might be found 'commercially reasonable' even if it has the effect of degrading the Internet service used by other parties (such as higher education institutions and libraries) sharing the same network."
The comments note that an "Internet reasonable" standard would recognize the Internet's unique character and propose four rebuttable presumptions that the FCC could use to evaluate the reasonableness of an Internet provider's actions. The following four activities should be considered presumptively unreasonable: (1) requiring approval to carry lawful content, applications, or services; (2) allowing paid prioritization; (3) undermining the open architecture of the Internet; and (4) degrading the level of service provided and discouraging investment in greater bandwidth to a non-prioritized party.
