Tech Companies Warn Congress of Paid Peering ‘Abuse’
Tech companies united to tell Congress to ensure broadband Internet providers don’t engage in any “market abuse” of paid peering arrangements. The Internet Association submitted comments Friday in response to the House Communications Subcommittee white paper issued as part of its Communications Act update process, one of many comments from stakeholders such as Comptel, T-Mobile and USTelecom (CD Aug 11 p7).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"When a broadband Internet access provider allows alternative routes to become congested or otherwise inadequate, in order to obtain an access charge from a company seeking to terminate its traffic requested by the network operator’s customer, this is an abuse of the provider’s gatekeeper position,” said the Internet Association, whose members include Amazon, AOL, Facebook, Google, Groupon, LinkedIn, Netflix, reddit, Twitter, Uber, Yelp and Yahoo. “Requiring the ’sender’ to pay to terminate Internet traffic is contrary to the way the Internet has traditionally operated. ... Policymakers should ensure that broadband Internet access providers are not engaged in any market abuses through peering arrangements.”
The response was the Internet Association’s first foray into the Communications Act update process. The association has not responded to any of the previous three white papers the House Republicans have issued this year, nor have its member companies typically responded individually. Google and Netflix are not filing their own comments to this white paper, their spokespeople told us. Tech companies have spent big money lobbying Congress, however, with Google a chief spender. Netflix also just hired Corley Consulting to lobby on its behalf, including on issues of interconnection and net neutrality, according to a lobbying disclosure form posted last week.
ISPs have the incentive and tools to discriminate and block Internet traffic, the Internet Association told Congress. “Open Internet protections that guard only against pay-for-play and pay-for-priority on the last mile can be easily circumvented by moving the discrimination upstream -- to the broadband Internet access provider’s terminating access point,” it said.
Dan Rayburn, principal analyst at Frost and Sullivan, questioned much of the Internet Association comments. “I would disagree they have incentive,” Rayburn told us of the ISPs. “Pissing off their customers? Where’s the incentive?” Rayburn also questioned the Internet Association’s contention that the payments of paid peering run contrary to the way to the Internet has operated, at least in the U.S. He expressed surprise to see some of the associated companies, noting this has primarily been a concern of Netflix among Internet Association members. The ISPs have the tools to discriminate and block Internet traffic but so does Netflix and everyone else, he said. He also suggested the Internet Association’s position could come back to hurt the companies, given they're pushing for free peering but not mentioning anything about quality or performance.
Others have warred over whether Communications Act Sections 251 and 252 obligations should apply to IP interconnection agreements. CTIA protested and backs a “uniform regulatory regime” for interconnection, with no individual state role, according to its comments to Congress. Voluntary agreements should be the “primary mechanism,” CTIA said. “Internet peering agreements have also flourished without government intervention.”
Keep a “hands-off approach,” AT&T told Congress, judging current peering arrangements a success. “In this vein, the Commission should have no rulemaking authority to regulate Internet interconnection or other forms of IP interconnection that has not been expressly granted by Congress,” AT&T said.
"While the FCC is gathering information on peering and other Internet interconnection arrangements, there is every reason to expect that the information it gathers will confirm that this traffic-exchange market is robustly competitive and operating efficiently,” said Broadband for America, which has ISPs among its members, in its comments. NetCompetition agreed, referring to the “unparalleled success, growth, and resiliency of the unregulated model for the Internet backbone peering marketplace” in its comments (http://bit.ly/1pLjyVm). NetCompetition members include AT&T.
"Parties who seek to exclude IP interconnection from the purview of any regulatory oversight portend hazard for consumers whose ability to obtain services at fair and reasonable rates, terms and conditions, could be compromised if commercially-negotiated interconnection agreements without a regulatory backstop become the standard,” NTCA countered, calling for Section 251 and 252 oversight as well as a coordinated federal and state oversight role. (jhendel@warren-news.com)