    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           FROM EDGE TO CORE: PERSPECTIVE ON INTERNET PRIORITIZATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 17, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-120

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                     __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    31-393 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    FRED UPTON, Michigan                 BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GENE GREEN, Texas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     JERRY McNERNEY, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             PETER WELCH, Vermont
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            PAUL TONKO, New York
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             Massachusetts
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           TONY CARDENAS, California
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       RAUL RUIZ, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina

                                     7_____

                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                          MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     Chairman
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              RAUL RUIZ, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee           JERRY McNERNEY, California
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York              FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota               officio)
    MIMI WALTERS, California
    RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Tennessee, opening statement..........................     2
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Richard Bennett, Founder, High Tech Forum........................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   181
    Peter Rysavy, President, Rysavy Research.........................    55
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
    Paul W. Schroeder, Director, Public Policy and Strategic
      Alliances, Aira Tech Corporation...............................    65
        Prepared statement...........................................    67
    Matthew F. Wood, Policy Director, Free Press and the Free Press
      Action Fund....................................................    79
        Prepared statement...........................................    81

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of April 16, 2018, from Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate
      and General Counsel, INCOMPAS, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle,
      submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   143
    Statement of American Academy of Pediatrics by Colleen A. Kraft,
      President, April 16, 2018, submitted by Mr. Doyle..............   150
    Letter of April 16, 2018, from Elizabeth Mendenhall, President,
      National Association of Realtors, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr.
      Doyle, submitted by Mr. Doyle..................................   153
    Letter of April 16, 2018, from Mei Wa Kwong, Executive Director,
      Center for Connected Health Policy, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr.
      Doyle, submitted by Mr. Doyle..................................   155
    Letter of April 26, 2017, from Engine, et al., to Ajit Pai,
      Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,\1\ submitted by
      Ms. Clarke
    Article of April 17, 2018, ``Prioritization: Moving past
      prejudice to make internet policy based on fact,'' by Roslyn
      Layton, AEI, submitted by Mr. Flores...........................   159
    Letter of April 16, 2018 from Jeffrey R.L. Smith, Vice President
      of Public Policy, American Medical Informatics Association, to
      Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle, submitted by Mr. Ruiz............   163

    ----------
    \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
    available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168.
    Letter of April 17, 2018, from Jonathan Schwantes, Senior Policy
      Counsel, Consumers Union, to Mrs. Blackburn and Mr. Doyle,
      submitted by Mr. Doyle.........................................   167
    CloudFlare tweets, November 22, 2017, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn   170
    Report of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
      ``Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet
      Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate,'' September 2009, by
      Richard Bennett,\1\ submitted by Mrs. Blackburn
    Report of the Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group,
      ``Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic,'' October
      2015,\1\ submitted by Mrs. Blackburn
    Article of April 2, 2018, ``Paid prioritization: Debunking the
      myth of fast and slow lanes,'' by Daniel Lyons, AEI, submitted
      by Mrs. Blackburn..............................................   171
    Declaration of Peter Rysavy, Rysavy Research, July 17, 2017,\1\
      submitted by Mrs. Blackburn
    Report of Rysavy Research and Mobile Future, ``How Wireless is
      Different: Considerations for the Open Internet Rulemaking,''
      September 12, 2014,\1\ submitted by Mrs. Blackburn
    Article of May 22, 2017, ``Reclassification and Investment: An
      Analysis of Free Press' `It's Working' Report,'' by Dr. George
      S. Ford, Phoenix Center Perspectives, submitted by Mrs.
      Blackburn......................................................   175

    ----------
    \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also is
    available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168.

           FROM EDGE TO CORE: PERSPECTIVE ON INTERNET PRIORITIZATION

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:16 a.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
    Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores,
    Brooks, Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle,
    Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo, Engel, Matsui,
    McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator,
    Communications and Technology; Daniel Butler, Staff Assistant;
    Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
    Kristine Fargotstein, Detailee, Communications and Technology;
    Sean Farrell, Professional Staff Member, Communications and
    Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions;
    Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief
    Counsel, Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty,
    Counsel, Communications and Technology; Austin Stonebraker,
    Press Assistant; Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications
    and Technology; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs;
    Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jennifer Epperson,
    Minority FCC Detailee; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel,
    Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich III, Minority
    Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; Dan Miller,
    Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall, Minority Director of
    Communications, Outreach and Member Services; and C.J. Young,
    Minority Press Secretary.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology will now come to order.
        You notice that we are starting just a couple of minutes
    late. We understand that the Environment hearing downstairs
    started a couple of minutes late, and we are trying to
    accommodate the chairman of the full committee and the ranking
    member of the full committee to get up here for their opening
    statements.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Good morning, everyone, and to our witnesses, thank you for
    being here, and welcome. We are here to talk about
    prioritization. Not just paid prioritization--all
    prioritization online.
        Despite what some of my colleagues sometimes seem to think,
    prioritization is not a dirty word. The internet, in fact, is
    based on it.
        In the net neutrality conversation, there is a common
    misconception that the internet is one big highway where all
    the cars travel at the same speed and we cannot allow for any
    fast lanes to exist without causing a big traffic jam for
    everybody else.
        It is something like the picture that we are going to put
    up on the screen. It ran into a jam.
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, we are in need of some prioritization
    here. OK. No, that's the wrong picture. See if we can--OK.
        Our witnesses today know that this could not be further
    from the truth, and the next picture we are going to put up in
    fact is probably a lot closer to reality, but it is still an
    oversimplified idea of the internet: different connections,
    agreements, prioritization, depending on the needs.
        And the amazing new capabilities that we will experience on
    next-generation networks will be realized not only through
    innovation in the chips and the servers and the infrastructure,
    but also through even more efficient and effective
    prioritization.
        I would also point out that, in real life, all sorts of
    interactions are prioritized every day. Many of you sitting in
    this room right now paid a line-sitter to get priority access
    to this hearing.
        In fact, it is commonplace for the Government itself to
    offer priority access to services. If you have ever used
    Priority Mail, you know this to be the case.
        And what about TSA pre-check? It just might have saved you
    time as you traveled today. If you define paid prioritization
    as simply the act of paying to get your own content in front of
    the consumer faster, prioritized ads or sponsored content are
    the basis of many business models online, as many of our
    Members pointed out during the Facebook hearing last week.
        Prioritization is sometimes crucial from a public policy
    standpoint. Just as we all want the ambulance and the fire
    truck to be prioritized over the rest of the traffic on the
    highway, there is a need for voice packets to be prioritized
    over data packets to make sure that your 9-1-1 calls get
    through first, and there are lots of other examples where we
    can all agree that certain data and certain applications should
    be prioritized on the network.
        One of our witnesses is pioneering a technology to provide
    real-time audio support to the visually impaired, describing
    the surroundings and the nonverbal interactions taking place
    around the user.
        Other examples that our witnesses will discuss today
    include telemedicine and autonomous vehicles. Prioritization of
    data on the network is not unique or uniquely harmful.
        It may be an uphill climb, but what we are trying to do
    with this hearing is to leave aside the simplistic ``fast
    lane'' talking points and kick off a more realistic discussion
    on the subject.
        My net neutrality bill left out the old language banning
    all paid prioritization because I believe that we need a more
    nuanced approach and a more thorough and thoughtful discussion.
        For the Government to consider a ban on any prioritization
    on the internet, paid or unpaid, we need a better understanding
    of what specific harmful conduct we are trying to address and a
    better understanding of how to leave the door open for the
    beneficial prioritization that's necessary to keep the internet
    as we know it working and to bring even more benefits to
    consumers.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn

        Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our witnesses. We
    are here to talk about prioritization. Not just paid
    prioritization--all prioritization online. Despite what some of
    my colleagues sometimes seem to think, prioritization is not a
    dirty word. The Internet is based on it.
        In the net neutrality conversation there is a common
    misconception that the Internet is one big highway, where all
    the cars travel at the same speed and we cannot allow for any
    fast lanes or toll lanes to exist without causing a big traffic
    jam for everybody else. Something like this picture:
        *Picture of traffic jam*
        Our witnesses today know that this could not be further
    from the truth. This picture is a lot closer to reality, in
    fact it probably still gives you an oversimplified idea of the
    internet. Different connections, different agreements, and
    different prioritization, depending on needs.
        *Picture of mixing bowl interchange*
        And the amazing new capabilities that we will experience on
    next generation networks will be realized not only through
    innovation in the chips and the servers and the infrastructure,
    but also through even more efficient and effective
    prioritization.
        I would also point out that in real life, all sorts of
    interactions are prioritized every day. Many of you sitting in
    this room right now paid a line-sitter to get priority access
    to this hearing. In fact, it is commonplace for the Government
    itself to offer priority access to services. If you have ever
    used Priority Mail, you know this to be the case. And what
    about TSA pre-check? It just might have saved you time as you
    traveled here today. If you define paid prioritization as
    simply the act of paying to get your own content in front of
    the consumer faster, prioritized ads or sponsored content are
    the basis of many business models online, as many of our
    Members pointed out at the Facebook hearing last week.
        Prioritization is sometimes crucial from a public policy
    standpoint. Just as we all want the ambulance and the fire
    truck to be prioritized over the rest of the traffic on the
    highway, there is a need for voice packets to be prioritized
    over data packets to make sure that your 9-1-1 call gets
    through first. And there are lots of other examples where we
    can all agree that certain data and certain applications should
    be prioritized on the network. One of our witnesses is
    pioneering a technology to provide real-time audio support to
    the visually impaired, describing the surroundings and the
    nonverbal interactions taking place around the user. Other
    examples that our witnesses will discuss today include
    telemedicine and autonomous vehicles.
        Prioritization of data on the network is not unique, or
    uniquely harmful. It may be an uphill climb, but what we are
    trying to do with this hearing is to leave aside the simplistic
    ``fast lane'' talking points and kick off a more realistic
    discussion on the subject. My net neutrality bill left out the
    old language banning all paid prioritization because I believe
    that we need a more nuanced approach, and a more thorough and
    thoughtful discussion. For the Government to consider a ban on
    any prioritization on the Internet, paid or unpaid, we need a
    better understanding of what specific harmful conduct we are
    trying to address, and a better understanding of how to leave
    the door open for the beneficial prioritization that's
    necessary to keep the Internet as we know it working, and to
    bring even more benefits to consumers.

        Mrs. Blackburn. Now I recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Doyle, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing
    and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us. I'd
    like to in particular thank Matt Wood, a proud Pittsburgher,
    for being here today.
        This subcommittee is once again discussing net neutrality
    and the fallout from Chairman Pai's repeal of the 2015 Open
    Internet Order.
        This short-sighted act has created an uncertain landscape
    where innovators and entrepreneurs trying to develop new
    services, applications, and devices can be taxed, tolled, or
    blocked at any time by an ISP.
        Prioritization practices that were once required to meet
    the standard of reasonable network management as judged by
    Federal experts and network engineering, telecommunications,
    and competition policy at the FCC will now be determined by an
    ISP's bottom line.
        As I've talked to companies large and small that developed
    and deployed new applications in the wake of the 2015 net
    neutrality rules, their message was clear: that the certainty
    created by the rules was stoking investment and giving
    certainty to investors and that consumers were benefitting from
    these new offerings.
        A number of companies I talked with were working to deploy
    services that directly competed with ISPs' own offering at
    lower prices, bringing what we can all agree is a much needed
    competition to a stagnant marketplace.
        I am deeply concerned that, as we move forward in a world
    without the open internet rules, ISPs will once again act in
    anticompetitive ways intended to tamp down competition and
    consolidate their hold over their consumers.
        We have already seen ISPs zero-rate data from their own
    services and their affiliates while forcing users to either
    limit usage on competing apps or pay costly overage fees.
        If we look at the history of the internet before net
    neutrality, we find a number of instances where ISPs used their
    market position to stifle innovation and prevent competitors
    from bringing new products to market, all while coming to
    Congress and the Government arguing that they were only
    thinking about the consumer.
        Today, it seems we are adding another chapter to that book.
    Today, we are talking about the prioritization of the internet
    content.
        If the testimony of a number of our witnesses is to be
    believed, paid prioritization can bring great benefits to the
    internet. They claim that the coming flood of data can only be
    dealt with by prioritizing it and creating incentives and
    opportunities for Web sites and edge providers to pay to get
    their packets to consumers before their competitors.
        Well, frankly, I don't believe it. We have heard these
    arguments before. The truth is, giving ISPs the ability to play
    gatekeeper only benefits the ISPs and their shareholders, and
    it significantly hurts innovators and consumers.
        More than that, it fundamentally undercuts the level
    playing field and open marketplace that defines the internet
    economy.
        Now, I have a bill that has 160 co-sponsors in the House
    with companion legislation with bipartisan support in the
    Senate to fix this mess.
        Our CRA would reinstate the 2015 open internet rules and
    restore the FCC to its expert oversight role over ISP network
    practices.
        When you look at the polling on this issue, these rules
    have overwhelmingly bipartisan support with a vast majority of
    Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and I hope to work
    with my friends on the other side of the aisle to make this
    bill bipartisan as well.
        Madam Chair, I'd also like to raise a process issue leading
    up to today's hearing. Mr. Bennett, who was first to submit his
    testimony, amended his submission yesterday afternoon in
    meaningful ways.
        I am concerned that many of the changes to Mr. Bennett's
    written submission were of a substantive and factual nature,
    and that is of great concern to us.
        I don't believe the committee should get into the practice
    of allowing such last-minute changes. When we have witnesses do
    this, the committee process breaks down, and it also--it leads
    to many of us just questioning whether the testimony will be
    credible.
        I'd also like to note that baseball season is starting here
    in Congress. I had my team out on the field for the first time
    today, and like baseball, these markets cannot function without
    clear rules and a ref to call balls and strikes.
        The word is that ISPs want us to live in one where there is
    no referee and where there are no rules. The game only ends
    when the other team and all the fans go home because they are
    just sick of watching one team playing by their own rules.
        I don't want to live in that world, and neither do the
    American people.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Michael F. Doyle

        Thank you Madam Chairman for holding this hearing, and
    thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us. I'd like to
    thank Matt Wood, a proud Pittsburgher, for being here in
    particular.
        This subcommittee is once again discussing net neutrality
    and the fallout from Chairman Pai's repeal of the 2015 Open
    Internet Order. This short-sighted act has created an uncertain
    landscape where innovators and entrepreneurs trying to develop
    new services, applications, and devices can be taxed, tolled,
    or blocked at any time by an Internet Service Provider or ISP.
        Prioritization practices that once were required to meet
    the standard of ``reasonable network management,'' as judged by
    Federal experts in network engineering, telecommunications, and
    competition policy at the FCC, will now be determined by an
    ISP's bottom line.
        As I have talked to companies large and small that
    developed and deployed new applications in the wake of the 2015
    net neutrality rules, their message was clear: that the
    certainty created by the rules was stoking investment and
    giving certainty to investors, and that consumers were
    benefiting from these new offerings. A number of companies I
    talked with were working to deploy services that directly
    competed with ISPs' own offerings at lower prices, bringing
    what we can all agree is much-needed competition to a stagnant
    marketplace.
        I am deeply concerned that as we move forward in a world
    without the Open Internet Rules, ISPs will once again act in
    anticompetitive ways intended to tamp down competition and
    consolidate their hold over their customers. We've already seen
    ISPs zero-rate data from their own services and their
    affiliates--while forcing users to either limit usage on
    competing apps or pay costly overage fees.
        If we look at the history of the internet before net
    neutrality, we find a number of instances where ISPs used their
    market position to stifle innovation and prevent competitors
    from bringing new products to market--all while coming to
    Congress and the Government arguing that they were only
    thinking about the consumer. Today we are adding another
    chapter to that book.
        Today, we're talking about the prioritization of Internet
    content. If the testimony of a number of our witnesses is to be
    believed, paid prioritization can bring great benefits to the
    Internet. They claim that the coming flood of data can only be
    dealt with by prioritizing it and creating incentives and
    opportunities for Web sites and edge providers to pay to get
    their packets to consumers before their competitors.
        Frankly, I don't believe it. We've heard these arguments
    before. The truth is that giving ISPs the ability to play
    gatekeeper only benefits the ISPs and their shareholders--and
    significantly HURTS innovators and consumers. More than that it
    fundamentally undercuts the level playing field and open
    marketplace that defines the Internet economy.
        Now I have a bill that has 160 cosponsors in the House and
    companion legislation with bipartisan support in the Senate. To
    fix this mess. Our CRA would reinstate the 2015 Open Internet
    Rules and restore the FCC to its expert oversight role over
    ISPs network practices. When you look at the polling on this
    issue, these rules have overwhelming bipartisan support with
    the vast majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
    I hope to work with my friends on the other side of the aisle
    to make our bill bipartisan as well.
        Madame Chairman, I'd also like to raise a process issue
    leading up to today's hearing. Mr. Bennett--who was the first
    to submit his testimony--amended his submission yesterday
    afternoon in meaningful ways. I'm concerned that many of the
    changes to Mr. Bennett's written submission were of a
    substantive and factual nature. What's more, the committee
    cannot get in the practice of allowing such last-minute
    changes. When witnesses play games like this it undermines the
    credibility of these proceedings.
        I'd also like to note that baseball season is starting here
    again in Congress, and I had my team out of the field for the
    first time today. Like baseball, these markets cannot function
    without clear rules and a ref to call balls and strikes. The
    world that ISPs want us to live in is one where there is no ref
    and there are no rules. The game only ends when the other team
    and all the fans go home because they are sick of watching one
    team play by their own rules. I don't want to live in that
    world, and neither do the American people.

        Mr. Doyle. Madam Chair, I'd like to ask unanimous consent
    to have the following documents into the record: letters from
    INCOMPAS, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National
    Association of Realtors, and the Center for Connected Health
    Policy.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, you're
    recognized for 5 minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. I thank the chairman.
        Thank you all for being here. We appreciate your expert
    testimony as we try to wade into this issue and get to the
    facts.
        This subcommittee in particular has long led the way in
    exercising oversight over the internet. As we will hear today,
    the internet looks nothing like it did when it was first fully
    commercialized back in 1995.
        Back then, networks were in their nascent stage and network
    management presented a different set of problems. But today,
    with users sending over a hundred exabytes of data per month,
    networks have had to continually adapt to manage congestion and
    will need to do so even more adeptly and efficiently in the
    future.
        The development of these networks and their ability to
    handle the ever-growing traffic demands users place on them is
    truly an innovative feat and not one that consumers often think
    about because, when you turn on your computer or unlock your
    phone, the network--the internet just works.
        Because it appears so simple, it's easy for consumers to
    think about the internet connections being managed by their
    ISP--their internet service provider--from one end to the
    other, and for years consumers were told the internet was an
    information superhighway, giving the false impression that all
    internet traffic is moving the same direction on an equal plane
    at the same time.
        We even use the word ``traffic'' to describe the movement
    of information and data across the internet, but it's actually
    a lot more complicated than that.
        The internet is not a highway, where there can be so-called
    fast and slow lanes. The internet is actually a network of
    networks with many layers managing the data that flows across
    it.
        There are applications layers that establish the connection
    and encrypt data. There is the transport layer that prepares
    data for transport. And there is the network layer which
    identifies the packet routing sequence.
        Within these layers there are many different players aside
    from your ISP involved in managing traffic. Devices, software,
    Wi-Fi routers, and content delivery networks, or CDNs, can all
    load, manage, and relay traffic in different ways.
        We will hear from our witnesses today a more in-depth
    explanation of how the internet actually works, not just
    talking points, and the role prioritization plays in operating
    networks.
        But in a basic sense, prioritization has nothing to do with
    traffic speed. Rather, it's putting certain bits over others to
    ensure that all packets arrive to their destination on time.
        A complete ban on prioritization would not permit this and
    would not allow some services and applications to operate
    smoothly. In other words, prioritization currently exists
    across the internet architecture and is necessary to ensure the
    internet functions properly.
        It's also worth noting that, while we have heard a lot from
    our friends at the edge providers about how prioritization is
    bad for business, those operating at the edge pay to prioritize
    traffic every day through the use of various interconnection
    agreements, including CDN.
        In order to facilitate high-demand applications like video
    streaming, many of the most popular content providers don't
    send data over the public internet. Rather, they directly
    interconnect with the CDN, allowing the edge providers' traffic
    to be prioritized to provide a better user experience. It's
    estimated that, by 2021, CDNs will carry 71 percent of global
    internet traffic.
        Today is not the first time this committee has considered
    how to best legislate the issue of prioritization. I released
    draft legislation last Congress that would establish rules of
    the road to ensure the internet remains open to all.
        Similarly, Chairman Blackburn introduced her Open Internet
    Preservation Act at the end of last year. Rather than waste our
    efforts on partisan legislation like the CRA, we hope our
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join our effort to
    development legislation that will provide lasting solutions to
    some of the outstanding questions regarding internet traffic
    management.
        What exactly do we mean and what harms are we trying to
    address in restricting internet prioritization, whether paid or
    unpaid, whether the content's affiliated or not?
        So I agree with Chairman Blackburn that, in order to move
    forward toward a long overdue legislative solution, we need to
    be able to have this conversation in a nuanced, in-depth manner
    and figure out a common ground.
        So I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses. I
    would just tell you we have another hearing going on
    downstairs, so a lot of Members have to bounce back and forth.
    But we do have your prepared testimony, and we appreciate your
    participation in this very important discussion about the
    future of the internet.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses.
        The Energy and Commerce Committee has the broadest
    jurisdiction in all of Congress. And that jurisdiction includes
    one of the most important social and economic tools in the
    history of the world--the internet.
        This subcommittee in particular has long led the way in
    exercising oversight over the internet.
        As we will hear today, the internet looks nothing like it
    did when it was first fully commercialized in 1995. Back then,
    networks were in their nascent stage and network management
    presented a different set of problems. But today, with users
    sending over 100 exabytes of data per month, networks have had
    to continually adapt to manage congestion, and will need to do
    so even more adeptly and efficiently in the future.
        The development of these networks, and their ability to
    handle the ever-growing traffic demands users place on them is
    truly an innovative feat. And not one that consumers often
    think about--because when you turn on your computer, or unlock
    your phone, the internet just works.
        Because it appears so simple, it is easy for consumers to
    think about their internet connection as being managed by their
    Internet Service Provider, or ISP, from end to end. And for
    years, consumers were told the internet was an `information
    superhighway' giving the false impression that all internet
    traffic is moving the same direction on an equal plane at the
    same time. We even use the word `traffic' to describe the
    movement of information and data across the internet--but it is
    actually a lot more complicated than that.
        The internet isn't a highway, where there can be so-called
    fast and slow lanes. The internet is actually a network of
    networks, with many layers managing the data that flows across
    it. There are application layers that establish the connection
    and encrypt data, there is the transport layer that prepares
    data for transport, and there is the network layer, which
    identifies the packet routing sequence.
        Within these layers, there are many different players aside
    from your ISP involved in managing traffic. Devices, software,
    Wi-Fi routers, and content delivery networks, or CDNs, can all
    load, manage, and relay traffic in different ways.
        We will hear from our witnesses today a more in-depth
    explanation of how the internet actually works--and the role
    prioritization plays in operating networks.
        But in a basic sense, prioritization has nothing to do with
    traffic speed, rather it is putting certain bits over others to
    ensure that all packets arrive to their destination on time.
        A complete ban on prioritization would not permit this and
    would not allow some services and applications to operate
    smoothly. In other words, prioritization currently exists
    across the internet architecture and is necessary to ensure the
    internet functions properly.
        It is also worth nothing, that while we've heard a lot from
    our friends at the edge providers about how prioritization is
    bad for business, those operating at the edge pay to prioritize
    traffic every day through the use of various interconnection
    agreements, including CDNs.
        In order to facilitate high demand applications like video
    streaming, many of the most popular content providers don't
    send data over the public internet, rather they directly
    interconnect with a CDN, allowing the edge provider's traffic
    to be prioritized to provide a better user experience. It is
    estimated that by 2021, CDNs will carry 71% of global internet
    traffic.
        Today is not the first time this committee has considered
    how to best legislate the issue of prioritization. I released
    draft legislation last Congress that would establish rules of
    the road to ensure the internet remains open to all. Similarly,
    Chairman Blackburn introduced her Open Internet Preservation
    Act at the end of last year.
        Rather than waste our efforts on partisan legislation like
    the CRA, we hope our colleagues on both sides will join our
    effort to develop legislation that will provide lasting
    solutions to some of the outstanding questions regarding
    internet traffic management.
        What exactly do we mean and what harms are we trying to
    address in restricting internet prioritization, whether paid or
    unpaid, whether the content is affiliated or not?
        I completely agree with Chairman Blackburn that in order to
    move forward toward a long overdue legislative solution, we
    need to be able to have this conversation, in a nuanced, in-
    depth manner, and figure out the common ground.
        I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.

        Mr. Walden. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Pallone, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The internet is a powerful engine of economic growth and a
    potent platform for free speech. With a working broadband
    connection, anyone can work from home, sell their own products
    online, and connect with companies a world away.
        And in the past few years, we have seen how the internet
    can help everyday people launch a worldwide political movement.
        But the power of the internet is rooted in the principles
    of net neutrality. These principles are simple and well
    understood. Broadband companies cannot pick internet winners
    and losers by blocking or slowing down content or charging
    extra for fast lanes.
        It's a question of fairness, and there are no loopholes.
    Until the Trump administration took over the FCC, even the
    broadband providers themselves supported these principles,
    including a flat ban on fast lanes.
        The largest providers told us time and again that they
    agreed that paid prioritization should be prohibited. They said
    that they had no intention of charging anyone extra for faster
    speeds.
        But recently those voices have gone silent, and that
    silence presents a real threat to small businesses and speech
    online. Where there was once agreement on a prohibition on fast
    lanes, some now want to add loopholes to net neutrality. The
    reasoning is convoluted and confusing. They argue that somehow
    allowing broadband providers to charge small companies extra
    for internet fast lanes is good for small business. But that
    makes no sense, and no one's buying it.
        Small businesses oppose having to pay extra for fast lanes.
    So do telemedicine companies, disabled veterans groups, self-
    driving-car companies, churches, nonprofit, and the list goes
    on.
        Net neutrality advocates have spoken loud and clear. We
    want everyone to have a faster internet, not just the chosen
    few who can afford to pay extra, and that's why Democrats on
    this committee introduced the LIFT America Act to bring faster
    broadband to everyone.
        The only ones who want broadband providers to charge money
    for fast lanes are the broadband providers, and despite these
    latest attempts to muddy the water and create confusion,
    banning paid prioritization is not a new issue.
        The FCC solved this problem when it passed net neutrality
    in 2015. At that time, the FCC correctly banned these fast
    lanes with the exception of certain specialized services like
    health care.
        The FCC got it right in 2015 and the Trump FCC got it wrong
    when it killed net neutrality last year, and that's why I
    support the legislation introduced by Ranking Member Doyle that
    would restore the well-crafted and balanced 2015 protections,
    and I encourage any of my colleagues who support real net
    neutrality to sign on to Ranking Member Doyle's CRA as well.
        The CRA is the best way to put net neutrality back in place
    and support small businesses, and I'd like to yield the
    remaining time to Ms. Eshoo.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        The internet is a powerful engine of economic growth and a
    potent platform for free speech. With a working broadband
    connection, anyone can work from home, sell their own products
    online, and connect with companies a world away. And in the
    past few years, we have seen how the internet can help everyday
    people launch a worldwide political movement.
        But the power of the internet is rooted in the principles
    of net neutrality. These principles are simple and well
    understood: broadband companies cannot pick internet winners
    and losers by blocking, or slowing down content or charging
    extra for fast lanes. It's a question of fairness, and there
    are no loopholes.
        Until the Trump administration took over the FCC, even the
    broadband providers themselves supported these principles,
    including a flat ban on fast lanes. The largest providers told
    us time and again that they agreed that paid prioritization
    should be prohibited. They said that they had no intention of
    charging anyone extra for faster speeds. But recently, those
    voices have gone silent, and that silence presents a real
    threat to small businesses and speech online.
        Where there was once agreement on a prohibition on fast
    lanes, some now want to add loopholes to net neutrality. The
    reasoning is convoluted and confusing-they argue that somehow
    allowing broadband providers to charge small companies extra
    for internet fast lanes is good for small business.
        This makes no sense and no one is buying it.
        Small businesses oppose having to pay extra for fast lanes.
    So do telemedicine companies, disabled veterans groups, self-
    driving car companies, churches, non-profits, and the list goes
    on.
        Net neutrality advocates have spoken loud and clear: we
    want everyone to have a faster internet, not just the chosen
    few who can afford to pay extra. That's why Democrats on this
    committee introduced the LIFT America Act to bring faster
    broadband to everyone.
        The only ones who want broadband providers to charge more
    for fast lanes are the broadband providers.
        Despite these latest attempts to muddy the water and create
    confusion, banning paid prioritization is not a new issue.
        The FCC solved this problem when it passed net neutrality
    in 2015. At that time, the FCC correctly banned these fast
    lanes, with the exception of certain specialized services like
    healthcare. The FCC got it right in 2015 and the Trump FCC got
    it wrong when it killed net neutrality last year.
        That's why I support the legislation introduced by Ranking
    Member Doyle that would restore the well-crafted and balanced
    2015 protections. And I encourage any of my colleagues who
    support real net neutrality to sign on to Ranking Member
    Doyle's CRA as well. This CRA is the best way to put net
    neutrality back in place and support small businesses.
        Thank you.

        Ms. Eshoo. I thank our ranking member, and good morning,
    everyone. And to the witnesses: Welcome, and thank you for
    being here.
        We are now a decade into the fight to protect net
    neutrality, and throughout that time there have been many
    arguments from those who oppose it: that it will kill jobs, it
    would harm investment, or hurt the free press.
        All of these have been refuted each in turn. This is
    actually, I think, a very simple issue. It's about fairness and
    equal access to an essential resource, the internet.
        The 2015 Open Internet Order created the strongest, most
    reliable rules to protect that level playing field for
    innovation. The courts and the FCC both acknowledged that net
    neutrality was critical to the virtuous cycle that has enabled
    the internet to act as a tool of growth, of innovation, of
    investment, and of free expression.
        That same FCC found that paid prioritization is inherently
    harmful to that fruitful cycle that fuels education, jobs, and
    our economy.
        Yet now we have the same companies who proclaim in full-
    page newspaper ads that they support net neutrality, but they
    are pushing for an exception for prioritization.
        This is about money. This is about money. We should just
    all acknowledge that and have a debate about it. But it's all
    about money.
        We may be a decade down the road, but it's about the same
    thing that it always has been about, and that is who controls
    the onramps to the internet, being able to pick winners or
    losers, and that's based on pay to play. It is about money.
        I don't blame companies for wanting to make money. That's
    what they are in the business to do. But we have an obligation
    to the public, and I think that's what this debate is about.
        So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I
    think everyone knows exactly where I stand on this.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Eshoo. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Pallone
    yields back, and this concludes our Member opening statements.
        I will remind the committee that each Member's opening
    statement will be made a part of the permanent record for the
    committee.
        We thank our witnesses for being here today, and you all
    are going to have the opportunity to give your opening
    statements, followed by a round of questions from our Members.
        Our panel today: Mr. Richard Bennett, founder of High Tech
    Forum; Mr. Peter ``Ree-sa-vay''--am I saying that properly?
        Mr. Rysavy. ``Ri-sah-vy.''
        Mrs. Blackburn. Rysavy, president of Rysavy Research; Mr.
    Paul Schroeder, director of public policy and strategic
    alliances at Aira Tech Corporation; and Matt Wood, policy
    director at Free Press.
        We appreciate each of you for being here today and for
    providing your testimony.
        Mr. Bennett, we begin with you. Please, each one of you as
    you speak, turn your microphones on. And, Mr. Bennett, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

    STATEMENTS OF RICHARD BENNETT, FOUNDER, HIGH TECH FORUM; PETER
        RYSAVY, PRESIDENT, RYSAVY RESEARCH; PAUL W. SCHROEDER,
      DIRECTOR, PUBLIC POLICY AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES, AIRA TECH
     CORPORATION; MATTHEW F. WOOD, POLICY DIRECTOR, FREE PRESS AND
                       THE FREE PRESS ACTION FUND

                      STATEMENT OF RICHARD BENNETT

        Mr. Bennett. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, and hello to
    Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Doyle, and Ranking Member
    Pallone, and members of the committee, especially Ms. Eshoo,
    whose district I used to live in and who gave me a really hard
    time the first time I testified before this committee, but I
    probably deserved it.
        Prioritization has been part of the internet's design from
    the beginning in that there is a type of service field in the
    internet protocol header, and it's been refined through
    integrated services, a standard design in the 1990s, then
    differentiated services, so there is not by itself anything
    controversial about prioritization.
        And I think it's fair to say that, while it was
    controversial for a time, it's come to be recognized there is a
    consensus sort of support that, done correctly, prioritization
    is beneficial to applications.
        So we have reached this consensus, I think, after about 15
    years of debate around what we call net neutrality now, that
    it's legitimate for ISPs, CDNs, transit networks, and purpose-
    built networks like WebEx to accelerate time-sensitive traffic.
        If you go back to the original paper that Chairman Wheeler
    wrote on net neutrality, he points out that the internet is
    inherently biased against real-time applications as a class and
    biased in favor of content applications, and I think if we are
    not careful about how we treat paid prioritization we can make
    that bias worse, and that's something we should try to avoid.
        I think we also--going back to the consensus question--we
    also believe that competition is a good thing. We want tech
    policies that increase that.
        So prioritization and the related technologies such as
    resource reservation, traffic shaping, and dynamic path
    selection have not only become commonplace, but I think they
    are widely regarded as essential to certainly the real-time
    applications part of the internet.
        And this is good, because no matter how much capacity
    networks have, we can also always make their operation more
    efficient if we apply optimization techniques. There are
    certain problems that we solve without optimization that you
    can't really build your way out of simply by throwing more
    capacity at the problem.
        It's like trying to solve, you know, throwing money at
    problems that you don't really understand.
        And I think we appreciate that prioritization mechanisms
    such as the IEEE 802.11(e) standard that I helped design are
    beneficial to real-time applications such as voice in the same
    way that LTE bearers are.
        The fact that one is provided free on a closed enterprise
    network and the other is sold as part of a bundle that includes
    carrier grade voice I think doesn't really impact on their
    utility. These are useful things. We found that, by
    prioritizing voice and Wi-Fi, we get four times as many voice
    calls through a Wi-Fi network.
        But it's hard to explain the continual increases in
    broadband speed we have seen in the U.S. over the last 10
    years--speed improves 35 percent per year--without giving some
    credit to the expectation of profit.
        The fact that web speeds have stagnated over this same
    period, even declining in 2016, suggests something is wrong
    with the web's financial model, and I think you, the committee,
    explored that last week.
        But leaving the consumer broadband market questions aside,
    paid prioritization internet optimization is very important to
    enterprises that have to connect, say, branch offices to
    headquarters.
        The traditional way to do that was to lease--and in some
    cases still is widely done--people lease business data services
    lines like a T1 for $300 a month, and it only gives you 1.5
    megabits per second.
        But with prioritization, you could actually--with the
    proper management, you could actually use a public common
    internet connection to connect the branch office to the
    headquarters.
        And so now you're getting 50 to 250 megabits per second for
    less than $100 a month. But this only works--you can only have
    that cost savings if someone is prioritizing the traffic on
    that pipe.
        So let's bear in mind that, while there are fees for these
    things, the alternatives can also be quite costly.
        So it's important, I think, to recognize the internet is no
    longer just a research network. The internet is the network. It
    has replaced all the other--I mean, not quite completely, but
    in the next few years, all the other networks are going to be
    subsumed by the internet.
        So we can't apply the sort of, oh, like, research network
    standards to the internet. We have to recognize that the
    fundamental requirement is that it serves all the needs of all
    the used cases of all the people who connect to it.
        And I think whatever it takes to do that is fine, you know,
    given the proper oversight.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.

                       STATEMENT OF PETER RYSAVY

        Mr. Rysavy. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
    other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
    the opportunity to testify at this important hearing.
        I am president of Rysavy Research, an analyst in the
    wireless industry with more than 25 years of experience. When I
    started, the hot new wireless technology was 1G.
        I am an expert in wireless technology. I've worked with
    many dozens of firms and have published more than 175 reports
    and articles. My testimony is on 5G.
        5G will start to be deployed as early as this year--end of
    this year--and will become the dominant wireless technology
    through the 2020s. It is being designed and developed by
    organizations, individuals from all over the world, and will
    employ sophisticated mechanisms to handle different kinds of
    traffic flows.
        This is critical because 5G is being designed to address a
    much wider range of use cases than prior generations of
    technology.
        Many of the applications envisioned for 5G are of a control
    nature, and that means they need minimal delay and high
    reliability.
        These types of applications, whether it's controlling
    drones in real time or robots or sending emergency messages to
    autonomous vehicles, will depend on traffic prioritization.
        5G's reliance on traffic prioritization should not be
    viewed as problematic for internet traffic that will not be
    prioritized. Traffic differentiation and prioritization is not
    a zero sum game.
        You can prioritize certain traffic flows without adversely
    affecting other users' applications. The goal in managing
    network traffic is to maximize the quality of experience across
    the entire subscriber base.
        5G needs QoS management not only for traffic prioritization
    to support mission critical applications but also enable a
    fundamental architectural component called network slicing.
        Again, 5G is being designed and developed for cellular
    operators to deploy on a global basis. Network slicing,
    implemented through virtualization, will allow an operator to
    provide different services with different performance
    characteristics customized for the specific use cases involved,
    such as those needing low latency enhanced reliability.
        Even with new spectrum and expected peak throughputs that
    will exceed a gigabit per second, 5G networks will still have
    to manage latency, reliability, massive numbers of connections,
    and a mix of stationary and mobile users.
        Capacity alone is not the solution. The United States has
    assumed global leadership in 4G. It enjoys deep LTE 4G
    penetration, leading smartphone platforms and the vibrant
    application ecosystem. But globally, countries and companies
    are investing in and concentrating on what will come next with
    5G.
        Constraining 5G with rules that restrict traffic management
    necessary for the traffic flows anticipated with 5G
    applications could threaten U.S. leadership in mobile
    technology and deployment.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rysavy follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Schroeder, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and I will
    give you a warning at 30 seconds. How's that?

                     STATEMENT OF PAUL W. SCHROEDER

        Mr. Schroeder. Thank you very much. Good morning. I think
    the microphone is on.
        Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, members of the subcommittee.
    Very pleased to be with you this morning. My name is Paul
    Schroeder, and I am here on behalf of Aira, a San Diego-based
    technology company.
        Our groundbreaking service provides instant access to
    visual information for people who are blind or visually
    impaired. As such, our service relies on the transmission of
    streaming video from the network edge through mobile up to the
    internet without interruption at high speeds to ensure ultra-
    low latency connection between the blind individual and the
    remotely located sighted assistant who is providing information
    based on the video feed.
        We leverage mobile communications as well as innovative
    technologies such as the smart glasses that I am wearing, and
    yes, there is a camera in the middle of these glasses that is
    connected to an agent as we speak. We also use GPS and other
    sensors, augmented reality, and are incorporating machine
    learning.
        Besides the technology, Aira's success really depends on
    our human agents. They are highly trained, they are paid, they
    are held to a confidentiality requirement, and they do undergo
    background checks before they serve as an agent.
        Our customers--we call them explorers--pay for access to a
    fixed number of minutes per month. We are, though, working with
    agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs to ensure
    that blind veterans have access to this critical service.
        I also want to note that Congressman Peters and Congressman
    Rutherford have been very helpful in leading a bipartisan
    effort to ensure that the VA is paying attention to these new
    technologies.
        This week, Aira has designated the congressional office
    buildings as free Aira zones. This was a choice we made because
    there is a large group of individuals who are blind visiting
    this week, and we know that this will help them navigate the
    halls of Congress more effectively.
        We encourage others to do this, and I do want to note for
    Chairman Blackburn, your home State airport of Memphis was the
    first one to join the Aira Airport Network, paying for the
    minutes of Aira users at Memphis airport in order to get around
    the airports more effectively.
        Yesterday, two of our Aira explorers ran the Boston
    Marathon using Aira. Now, most of us, blind or sighted,
    probably aren't going to run a marathon. But the test of a low-
    latency available network was put to the test at the marathon,
    and many of us will have opportunities to test that in other
    environments, for example, hustling through an airport trying
    to find the gate for our airplane, checking out bus signs in a
    crowded bus garage to figure out the one that we need, quickly
    looking at a chart or slide in a meeting or a classroom, or
    maybe a congressional hearing, in order to get the information
    from that slide as a person who's blind, putting information
    into these kiosks that are popping up everywhere in order to
    order or confirm a reservation, and, of course, reading a
    medication label to ensure that we are actually taking the
    right medication.
        For those of us who are blind or visually impaired using
    Aira, we need instant access to this information. We need a
    network that is reliable and a network that has low latency,
    because our video is able to stream upward from the mobile
    edge.
        We are particularly pleased to note our partner AT&T has
    offered dynamic traffic management to Aira to ensure that our
    users have the low-latency network and reliable connectivity
    that they need and our agents need as well.
        I am pleased to say this morning I am joined by an agent--
    Amy, are you there?
        Agent. I am. Good morning, Paul.
        Mr. Schroeder. Oh, I left the speaker by the phone. Do you
    want to do a very quick description of the room, please?
        Agent. Absolutely. I see three rows of a desk and that have
    white wood on the bottom of them and then a darker mahogany on
    the top of the desk and they are separated by an aisle in the
    middle, and the very back of the room has a single panel of
    speakers. I see the chairwoman is in the very middle of the
    room. A gentleman to her left is waving at me.
        [Laughter.]
        Agent. American flags that are flanking the center----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Thirty seconds.
        Agent [continuing]. Three windows directly across----
        Mr. Schroeder. I am going to have you hold up, and we'll
    come back to you if there's a question for the agent.
        We are investing in artificial intelligence as well so that
    we can bring automation to our service, and we are, of course,
    looking forward to the emergence of 5G, which will help our
    low-latency network and service be even stronger.
        Finally, I just want to say we encourage policymakers to
    support policies and programs that will promote and expand
    reliable access to visual information such as what Aira is
    providing as a right to those of us who are blind or visually
    impaired.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schroeder follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Wood, 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW F. WOOD

        Mr. Wood. Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for having me here today
    to testify.
        Free Press is a nonpartisan nonprofit with 1.4 million
    members, and we were founded 15 years ago to elevate people's
    voices in policy decisions that shape our media.
        Today, we believe that achieving racial justice and social
    justice require equitable access to technology and information.
    That's why we work on net neutrality.
        We supported the strong rules recently and wrongly repealed
    by the FCC, and we support Congressman Doyle's resolution to
    restore them, and we are not alone.
        Hundreds of members have cosponsored that resolution in the
    House and Senate. Thousands of businesses and organizations and
    State and local officials support it, too.
        Millions of people have made their voices heard, first at
    the FCC and then in these halls, opposing that repeal and
    calling on you to pass the CRA.
        That's not surprising, because, as Mr. Doyle noted, poll
    after poll shows the net neutrality rules enjoy tremendous
    popular support across party lines.
        One poll last summer showed that 72 percent of Republicans
    supported the 2015 rules. Another taken before the FCC's
    December vote found that 83 percent of all respondents oppose
    that repeal.
        Free Press supports restoring the entire 2015 order because
    we need more than three bright lines to preserve the open
    internet. We need FCC authority to prevent new forms of
    discrimination and also to address digital divides, protect
    privacy, and promote competition.
        Yet some people claim that paid prioritization bans are
    harmful and they say that ISPs should be able to charge new
    kinds of fees and that internet users and businesses would
    benefit from such new charges.
        They also say this would help with last-mile congestion
    without explaining its scope or accounting for the ways the
    networks already deal with that.
        As a general matter, prioritizing rather than building
    capacity to solve any last-mile congestion over a sustained
    period would let ISPs profit from artificial scarcity.
        It would let them charge more to get through the bottleneck
    rather than building a bigger path. So paid prioritization is
    not just a solution in search of a problem, it's a toll booth
    in search of a traffic jam.
        ISPs' own data shows that under Title II, both broadband
    investment and deployment speeds increased markedly in rural
    and urban areas alike.
        Despite that evidence, some still insist that strong rules
    made ISPs invest too little. Now, funnily enough, we are told
    that the rules may make ISPs invest too much by requiring them
    to build both excess capacity instead of prioritizing their way
    out of congestion.
        Whatever the investment incentives of the paid
    prioritization ban, discarding this rule would cause a radical
    change to the internet.
        That ban prohibited ISPs favoring traffic only in exchange
    for payment from a third party or to benefit an ISP's
    affiliates such as video or voice offers.
        In other words, it did not ban the kinds of user-directed
    and application-driven traffic management techniques praised by
    others here today.
        Those kinds of practices leave ISPs' customers in control
    when it comes to choosing how to use those connections, and
    those customers already can and do choose to buy faster speed
    tiers when they so desire.
        They could even buy what's called a quality of service tier
    to use on applications of their choosing and at times of their
    own choosing.
        Longstanding network protocols also can and do make these
    kinds of choices neutrally. ISPs don't need to inspect our
    internet traffic as they transmit it or to second guess how to
    treat it.
        The paid priority rule banned none of these network
    management techniques. It applied only if the ISP tried to make
    a content provider pay extra just to reach broadband customers
    or just to cut in line ahead of other traffic.
        People already pay for their connections. The websites and
    apps they visit should not suddenly be asked to do so too. So
    if I visit marshablackburn.com or mikedoyleforcongress.com on
    my home connection, those websites don't have to pay my ISP to
    reach me.
        Let me be clear. I am not here to defend big edge providers
    from such payments. I represent internet users. But letting
    gatekeeper ISPs impose new tolls would distort the choices
    users have and ISPs undoubtedly would get together with those
    largest edge providers to set the terms and prices for any such
    advantages.
        It would be inefficient for every edge provider to have to
    strike such deals with every ISP in the country, and signing up
    for such deals means they'd be double charged for data that ISP
    subscribers already paid to receive.
        Academics can speculate that in a different kind of access
    market such new fees might reduce subscriber costs. They still
    do not explain why ISPs facing so little competition would have
    any incentive to lower their retail prices.
        So when ISP executives talk about paid prioritization, they
    don't describe it as a way to reduce revenues or to replace the
    source for those revenues. They talk about it as a chance to
    increase their revenues.
        That's why the notion that new ISP fees might benefit
    internet users and reduce their prices brings to mind a joke
    I've heard on several occasions. But with all due respect to
    the originator of that joke, I think that the most terrifying
    words in the language may be, ``I am from the cable company. I
    am here to save you money.''
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        This concludes the testimony from our witnesses. We thank
    you for that, and we will now move to our questions and
    answers. I will begin and recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bennett, I want to come to you first. I want to discuss
    a tweet from Matthew Prince, the CEO of CloudFlare, from last
    November.
        This exchange occurred on the day the FCC made its
    Restoring Internet Freedom order available to the public.
    Someone tweeted a wish that a tech billionaire would buy out
    the local ISP where Chairman Pai lives and throttle his
    internet access in retaliation for reversing the previous
    Commission's order.
        Matthew Prince tweeted in reply, ``I could do this in a
    different but equally effective way.'' He went on to say he had
    sent a note to his general counsel to see if CloudFlare could
    throttle Pai's access without breaking any laws.
        This tweet certainly raises a number of questions, and in
    fact it gave us the idea for this hearing. Was Matthew Prince
    right, and if so, how could he have done this?
        Mr. Bennett. Thank you for the question, Chairman
    Blackburn.
        I remember that exchange. I got involved in it myself,
    actually. And I think what it illustrates is how the
    construction of the internet, the structure of the
    architecture, has changed since the sort of founding days of
    even really since Tim Wu came up with the idea for net
    neutrality.
        So instead of it being a system that consists of users
    attached, you know, with their computers and mobile devices to
    an infrastructure that's provided only by internet service
    providers, the infrastructure is actually--there's a lot going
    on in the infrastructure today that didn't used to be there in
    the very beginning, and content delivery networks have been
    mentioned several times, and that's one example. Technically,
    content delivery networks are edge services, but it turns out
    that all parts of the edge are not equal. So if you put a
    content delivery network on a portion of the edge close to the
    end user, then you, by that very act of simply locating the
    data there, you have moved the data to the head of a line that
    other suppliers of information that could be, say, on an
    average of half a nation away would have to join at the back--
    you know, CDNs put you at the front.
        So CloudFlare has a number of--they're actually quite
    innovative products the company has. So it's sort of a--it's
    hard to--I am not completely a fan, but some of the things
    they're doing I think are very beneficial.
        I think their primary product is the DDoS protection
    mechanism so that, you know, sites can be subject to denial-of-
    service attacks if they are on the wrong side of popular
    opinion on certain topics, and CloudFlare came up with a way to
    protect sites that are being hammered with denial-of-service
    attacks by simply putting a really high bandwidth kind of
    firewall in front of the site that could absorb the denial-of-
    service attack and allow the website to continue to function.
        Of course, that doesn't always work the way it's planned. I
    used to be a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise
    Institute, and we published a blog called Tech Policy Daily,
    and we used CloudFlare's free service to protect the blog from
    denial-of-service attacks. AEI's the kind of organization
    that's sort of a target for a lot of that sort of antisocial
    behavior.
        But I ran into a situation once where I was unable to
    access a post that I would written for the blog from my home in
    Colorado due to a misconfiguration of the CloudFlare.
        The CloudFlare had changed some IP addresses. They hadn't
    told the people at AEI, and so the AEI server, which was not
    actually owned or controlled by CloudFlare--it was just behind
    the CloudFlare firewall--was unreachable to me. But people in
    DC could see it just fine. So it's, like, they were saying,
    ``Why is this a problem?''
        Mrs. Blackburn. Let me interject and ask you one more
    question on this. You talked about the CDNs, and as we look at
    an individual user's access to certain content, who else within
    this ecosystem would have the opportunity to control that
    access or to control the speed of the individual's access?
        Mr. Bennett. Well, the CDNs dump so much traffic on the
    internet I think, as it's covered in the background memo for
    the hearing, that they're actually in a position to affect the
    rate at which non-CDN users can get their jobs done.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. My time has expired.
        Mr. Doyle.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        A number of witnesses mentioned that 5G will precipitate
    the need for greater prioritization. If we dramatically
    increase the capacity of the network service, do we also need
    to dramatically increase our ability to manage the scarcity of
    it?
        Mr. Wood. I think not. Congestion doesn't solve every
    problem, I heard other witnesses say, but it can solve a lot of
    them, and as I noted in my testimony, certain kinds of
    prioritization actually do happen already. The question really
    is who's being made to pay for that.
        Mr. Doyle. You know, a number of witnesses also said in
    their testimony, they talked about the benefits of ISPs
    prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others--for
    instance, live video, telemedicine, and online games.
        But what happens when you take the choice away from
    consumers of which packets get to them first and ISPs are
    allowed to decide which applications and application providers
    will have optimized access to consumers and which ones won't?
        I mean, to me it seems like the ISPs get to pick who wins
    and who loses. What do you think?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congressman.
        Yes, we agree. We think retaining that user choice and the
    rights that users have is very important. And so you're right
    that certain kinds of traffic might have different network
    needs at different times.
        It should really be up to the user to choose not only which
    kinds of traffic they might wish to pay for or prioritize but
    also the source of that traffic. So will all video applications
    be treated the same way? That's a very tough question to answer
    when we are leaving that all within the ISPs' control.
        Mr. Doyle. You know, let's talk a little bit about
    competition. If ISPs were allowed to implement paid
    prioritization for services such as telemedicine or other
    services, do you think that would increase or decrease the
    number of competitive offerings in that space?
        Essentially, do you think small, rural health practices or
    small startups would want to compete against large health
    systems and the ISPs themselves or other large institutional
    players?
        Mr. Wood. Yes, Congressman. Thank you.
        I think it would decrease the amount of competitors further
    upstream, if you will. There's some notion that paid priority
    could be used to level the playing field, I suppose, and let
    the small businesses compete with the large businesses.
        I can't see how that would work. I think that, if there
    were paid prioritization allowed, then naturally the companies
    with the deepest pockets and the providers with the biggest
    bank accounts would pay for that prioritization.
        It wouldn't be used to level the playing field. It would
    just be used to tilt it even further.
        Mr. Doyle. You know, a number of witnesses here today have
    alleged that the Open Internet Order severely restricted the
    types of network management an ISP could engage in.
        They also alleged that certain types of specialized service
    offerings such as telemedicine work prohibit it. Further, they
    claim that prioritization is necessary to ensure the quality of
    certain services, services, it seems to me, that might be best
    served using business data services, which I see are claimed to
    be too expensive.
        What do you make of that?
        Mr. Wood. Well, there's a lot there. I do think that the
    Open Internet Order of 2015 did allow for reasonable network
    management. It was the term of art used for several of the
    rules. So even for blocking or for throttling, there were
    network management exceptions.
        For a prioritization, there was no such exception, but, of
    course, as I noted this morning, the ban only applied to third-
    party payments or prioritization done to benefit an affiliate
    of the internet service provider.
        So all kinds of applications could receive network
    management. You mentioned specialized services and other kinds
    of dedicated capacity. Those were fully allowed by the 2015
    order, and, again, even when there is a use case for
    prioritization on the open internet without going to a
    specialized service or dedicated capacity, there are protocols
    and methods for doing that today.
        They just simply don't require the edge provider to pay on
    top of what the broadband user is already paying for their
    service.
        Mr. Doyle. Right.
        Mr. Wood, the ban on paid prioritization, or pay to play,
    that was a fundamental part of net neutrality, and throughout
    the proceeding to eliminate neutrality protections, Chairman
    Pai repeatedly said that the 2015 net neutrality order was a
    departure from the past.
        Yet, as far back as the 1970s the Commission had identified
    the potential harmful effects that could result when just a
    handful of gatekeepers could control consumers' access to the
    internet.
        Has the internet always been open and free?
        Mr. Wood. We certainly think so. In the old days, you might
    call it, broadband providers were Title II providers. Your
    dial-up service worked over a phone line, and that phone
    company was subject to nondiscrimination rules.
        So, although the legal ground for net neutrality has
    shifted somewhat over the last decade as different
    administrations have tried to do it in different ways, the
    protections have always been there, and we think the 2015
    version did the best job of restoring the protections we've
    always had.
        Mr. Doyle. So why were guardrails needed when the FCC
    opened its proceeding that resulted in the recently overturned
    net neutrality protection?
        Mr. Wood. I am sorry. You said why were guardrails needed?
        Mr. Doyle. Yes.
        Mr. Wood. I am not sure I completely understand the
    question. But we do think that keeping the protections we've
    always had was the right move. I am not sure what guardrails
    you're referring to in the new proceeding.
        Mr. Doyle. No, in the recently overturned proceeding.
        Mr. Wood. Yes. Well, I mean, again, these are fundamental
    rights that we think deserve protection and always have had it
    in some form or another, and so that's why we are looking to
    restore it now.
        Mr. Doyle. I see my time has expired.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Shimkus, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Great hearing, interesting issue, contentious views. I want
    to start with Mr. Schroeder, and I want to, one, thank you for
    being here, and secondly, I was watching your hands. Were you
    reading Braille or how was--how did you read to us your
    testimony? What was going on down there?
        Mr. Schroeder. Yes, I was. I am reading off of a small
    Braille device. It's essentially a Braille computer that has my
    summarized testimony.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. And where is the lady who's assisting
    you through your glasses and the video? Where is actually she
    physically located?
        Mr. Schroeder. Amy is in San Diego currently.
        Mr. Shimkus. Great. Great. So----
        Mr. Schroeder. I am taking the headphone out so she can
    talk if you have a question for her.
        Mr. Shimkus. I hope that you have a good working
    environment, Amy.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Schroeder. You know, one of the things we found when
    our agents--and Amy was our lead agent and the person that
    developed a lot of the training that the agents now go
    through--she is a company employee in San Diego.
        But our agents love Aira, as you can imagine. They are
    paid, as I mentioned. It's largely home-based employment, and
    as long as they've got a good internet connection, they are
    able to provide the support for Aira users, and there's a lot
    of satisfaction, I know, among our agents and the kind of work
    that they do from the tedious work of getting somebody through
    an airport or the very exciting work of actually being able to
    work with somebody who's touring Paris.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. In your testimony then--you can put her--
    you can put her down.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Shimkus. I don't think I've got questions for----
        Mr. Schroeder. I'm putting you down, Amy.
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. In your testimony you talked about your
    relationship with AT&T and then the Aira accessibility of
    Government buildings this week or while there are numerous
    people who have impaired vision that's on the Hill.
        And so it's tied into this hearing. Why do you think you
    were invited here to testify?
        Mr. Schroeder. I think Aira has an interesting case to
    make. We've been clear from the beginning we don't really--as
    you know if you looked at our company references, we don't
    really have--we haven't stated a position on this particular
    topic.
        But Aira has a very interesting case to make regarding
    prioritization, and as I noted it's an upstream priority. So
    typically when we talk about this issue of prioritized content
    and access to content, it's usually ensuring that users have
    access to content, and the discussion tends to revolve around
    making sure that the content goes downstream in an orderly
    fashion.
        We are the other side of that case. We need to send video
    upstream and, as you know, often upload speeds don't match
    download speeds.
        And so our critical case to make is that our service can't
    work if we don't have priority low-latency access. I think we
    talk about 80 milliseconds is what we try to achieve, or
    better, of latency because, if somebody is out and about
    moving, they really do need that instant video feedback that
    the agent can then provide--that that video in the opposite
    direction of what we usually talk about in these networking----
        Mr. Shimkus. Yes. It's excellent testimony, and you can
    just see someone trying to cross a busy street and then being--
    feedback is delayed. That's a dangerous proposition to be had.
        I just think it really does speak to--it's not as simple as
    people like to portray this debate.
        And I want to go to Mr.--``Ri-say-vy''?
        Mr. Rysavy. ``Ri-sah-vy.''
        Mr. Shimkus. Rysavy. You say it's not a zero sum game.
    Explain that. Because that's the whole debate. You know, net
    neutrality--there's winners and losers--Mr. Wood articulates
    that very--but you say it's not. You can't put it in that--in
    that----
        Mr. Rysavy. It is absolutely not a zero sum game.
        Mr. Shimkus. And explain that.
        Mr. Rysavy. The reason is that different applications have
    different requirements. If I am trying to send a short message
    to an autonomous vehicle that there's a pedestrian in the road
    around the corner that the car can't see, that traffic does not
    have to adversely affect a video streaming application that
    already has a buffer and already has tolerance for delay in how
    it receives its packets.
        Mr. Shimkus. So, and then someone else mentioned it's
    really not a highway. It's a network of networks.
        Mr. Rysavy. Yes.
        Mr. Shimkus. And so there's other--and Mr. Bennett, in your
    testimony you talk about how you can manipulate a portion of
    the network to actually slow up the process where the, quote,
    unquote, ``pie'' may get the original one.
        Great hearing, Madam Chairman. I wish I had more time, but
    I don't, and I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Let's see. So Ms. Eshoo, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Again, thank you to the witnesses. I have to say that from
    the first three, I haven't heard any of you just clearly
    address why you think paid prioritization is a good idea.
        We just heard the exchange with Mr. Shimkus and the witness
    about different uses of the internet, but you didn't bring up
    why one case or another should have paid prioritization.
        So you know where I am, but I think that your job is to try
    to dissuade me or bring new facts to the table, and, most
    frankly, I didn't hear them.
        I think that paid prioritization really needs to be
    examined for exactly what it is. There are many uses on the
    internet. But, you know, I think that we are going to--here at
    the committee we have many Members, including myself, that are
    fighting very hard for rural areas in our country to receive
    broadband. Some are underserved. Others are not served as they
    should be.
        Put paid prioritization on top of that. How fair is that to
    those people? You know, the idea is to move it faster, quicker,
    fairer, expand it so that there's more information to the many
    in a democracy.
        So, to Mr. Wood, can you explain the distinction between--
    because this term is being thrown around--specialized services
    and paid prioritization?
        And also, you refer to your, in your testimony, to new
    forms of discrimination, and I think that that is--you know,
    that could crop up, and if you can expand on that a little I
    would appreciate it.
        Mr. Wood. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Specialized services is a term that the FCC has used over
    the last several years. You might think of it as dedicated
    access. And so I don't know Aira's business model completely,
    but a purchaser of a device might not actually be using that
    device on their own broadband network.
        The device might bring the broadband with it, if you will,
    and that's a way, if there is a need for prioritization and
    even for the application waiver----
        Ms. Eshoo. And that was included in the 2015 rule, right?
        Mr. Wood. It was, and 2010 as well, and this is the kind of
    thing we've always seen with----
        Ms. Eshoo. And the court upheld that.
        Mr. Wood. That's true.
        Ms. Eshoo. Very importantly, the courts upheld that. Mm-
    hmm. I am sorry, go ahead.
        Mr. Wood. And then, as to new forms of discrimination, we
    just believe that the kinds of things Chairman Blackburn was
    describing--for example, distortion further into the network or
    especially at interconnection points, as they're called, where
    the last-mile broadband network receives all this traffic that
    their users are subscribing for--the users are requesting, and
    if it can't get to them due to some sort of blockage further up
    the line or if there is some kind of new form of discriminatory
    treatment towards the broadband providers and users, we would
    like the FCC to have the ability to assess that and determine
    the statute is unreasonable discrimination to assess whether a
    tactic or a technique is actually benefiting users or hurting
    them.
        Ms. Eshoo. Is there anything that you know of, that you can
    think of, that makes the case for paid prioritization plausible
    or acceptable?
        Mr. Wood. I mean, as I said, some people might postulate
    that it would save money for the broadband providers'
    customers. We just haven't seen that happen, and when you have
    so few choices among broadband providers----
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, how do you save money if you're paying
    more?
        Mr. Wood. Well, you wouldn't be saving money. I think that,
    you know, sometimes there's a notion that if the edge provider
    pays, the user won't have to, and what we think of this as is
    more double charging.
        The broadband provider's customer continues to pay for
    their access, and then the two-sided market, or the handout in
    the other direction, says now the edge provider pays as well.
        So, as I said, I don't think that the ISPs think of this as
    a way to save money.
        Ms. Eshoo. Yes, it's about as clear as fog. Yes.
        Well, I just--I wish I heard a very clear case from the
    wonderful first three witnesses on why paid prioritization is a
    very good thing for anyone using the internet, and I haven't
    heard it.
        I admire the different services that you have referred to
    and all of that, but I think that we've got some fog in this
    hearing, and paid prioritization is paid prioritization.
        I don't find anything foundational and positive about it.
        Thank you to all of you, and I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Latta, you're recognized.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
    thanks for our witnesses. As my friend from Illinois said, this
    has been a very interesting hearing. I appreciate you all being
    here to give your testimony today.
        Mr. Bennett, if I could start my questioning with you. What
    are the impacts of traffic management on different
    applications? And if all video conferencing applications such
    as Skype or Facetime were in the same traffic lane as general
    email traffic, how would that impact each service?
        Mr. Bennett. Thank you for the question.
        The network operators have to manage a pool of resources,
    and one of the resources that's really critical is what
    engineers call latency. It's delay. It's how long it takes a
    packet to get from one point to another.
        Low latency is a resource that networks never have an
    infinite supply of. It always has to be managed.
        So it's very important for these video conferencing apps to
    have low latency because, if they don't, the picture breaks up,
    you hear, like, dropouts in the audio channel, and the overall
    accuracy and the feeling of sort of presence of being as if
    you're in the same room with the person you're talking to, you
    can't achieve that without very low latency.
        Latency doesn't make any difference to email applications.
    I mean, they're perfectly fine with, you know, and network time
    is measured in, units of, like, millionths and billionths of a
    second, and email operates more at the level of, like, minutes
    and hours.
        So, I mean, it doesn't really matter. So when we assign,
    effectively, low latency to an email packet that doesn't need
    it simply because we are sending packets in the order they were
    received or in some other sort of semirandom order, we are
    wasting a resource.
        And so it's actually--I think it's a bit irresponsible to
    just sort of treat all traffic the same, because that means we
    are ignoring the fundamental requirements that the users of
    those services have.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Rysavy, if I could ask you--in my district and across
    the country, there's a great deal of interest in manufacturing
    and other sectors that we see increased efficiency from the
    Internet of Things.
        IOT will be made of next-generation sensors and automated
    equipment such as drones and robots that can provide real-time
    and HD video imaging, audio, and other bandwidth-intensive
    sensing, monitoring, automated processes.
        In a world without prioritization, can the Internet of
    Things become a reality?
        Mr. Rysavy. It would come to a very partial reality. The
    fact is that the application and quality of service
    requirements for different applications vary.
        So there may be some IOT applications that don't need
    prioritization. But to expand the number of applications to
    allow innovators the full range of everything that is possible,
    many of these techniques of quality-of-service management will
    be essential.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Well, just a quick follow-up then: So what
    would that mean for overall U.S. competitiveness in
    manufacturing?
        Mr. Rysavy. The more artificial restrictions that there are
    on what kind of applications can be deployed, the less
    competitive industry will be because you can be assured that
    other countries who wish to dominate in this space are not
    going to handicap their technologies.
        Mr. Latta. OK.
        Mr. Bennett, going back, if I could, to you, we often hear
    about how ISPs prioritize packets that manage traffic
    congestion to complete a user-friendly experience.
        However, we see edge providers pay to prioritize search
    results, advertising, social network feeds, shopping options,
    et cetera. Given that this form of paid prioritization is
    happening every day, I would like to understand the impact that
    it has on consumers.
        Mr. Bennett. Thanks for the questions.
        Yes, we can see some of the impact of the prioritization of
    search results and how the market has changed for product
    search. For a very long time, Google was the dominant company
    in product search.
        But nowadays more people begin product searches on Amazon
    than do it on Google, and I don't know exactly why that is
    happening, but I think it has something to do with the fact
    that, when you do a Google search, the first few answers you
    get are all paid ads, and they're not always very relevant, you
    know, to what you're doing, and they're certainly not as
    trustworthy as the organic search.
        So prioritization, I think, in that sense the company
    should realize that they've actually hurt their market position
    by distorting their search results that way and by the fact
    that the Google search is just not as effective as it used to
    be.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, my time has expired.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Clarke, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank our
    expert witnesses for their testimony here this morning.
        And given that I also serve on the Small Business
    Committee, I strongly believe and maintain that the rollback of
    net neutrality is going to have a hugely detrimental effect on
    small businesses, and I am not alone in this belief.
        Polling indicates that an overwhelming majority of
    respondents are concerned that the elimination of net
    neutrality could disadvantage small businesses by allowing big
    national chains to put their online services in a fast lane.
        A number of small businesses in my district back in
    Brooklyn have been outspoken about this--small businesses like
    TakeShape and Staffbase--and I could co-sponsor the CRA to
    reinstate net neutrality in part due to their concerns.
        Given that, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to introduce a
    letter for the record and this record--it opposes the FCC's
    rollback of net neutrality and it's signed by 800 small
    businesses.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
    is available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Wood, why are small businesses so concerned about the
    rollback of net neutrality, and why is rolling back the ban on
    paid prioritization worrying these businesses?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I think it's pretty clear and simple: They don't want to
    have to pay extra to deliver their content to their customers.
        Now, it's not true that they're not paying. They pay a lot
    to get their content onto the internet, and they pay their own
    broadband provider, or sometimes they're even able to build
    their own connections.
        What we are talking about here is then paying my ISP at
    home separate charge either to cut in line in front of somebody
    else or perhaps just to get the traffic to me in the first
    place, and it's that extra and, frankly, new toll that I think
    has small businesses worried.
        I saw the poll that I think you're referring to, and it was
    something like 4 to 1 small businesses opposed to the repeal
    and worried about paid priority.
        A large number of them are uncertain how it would affect
    their business, so I find it funny that, in the name of
    creating more certainty, we've actually created great
    uncertainty for small businesses who thought this was
    unsettled.
        But that's the kind of fear they're facing is, ``Are there
    going to be new tolls and new charges that I must pay just to
    get my content to my customers?''
        Ms. Clarke. Very well.
        I've also been a strong advocate of diversity in
    traditional media companies, and that's why, along with my
    colleagues, I've created the Multicultural Media Caucus here in
    the House.
        The sad truth is that diverse voices are seldom truly
    represented in traditional media but that neutrality can in
    some ways help fix that problem.
        Mr. Wood, why is net neutrality important for groups that
    are not well represented in traditional media?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think it's for
    exactly that reason it does. It doesn't eliminate all barriers,
    but it lowers the barriers to speaking in one's own voice and
    getting your story out there.
        And so, traditionally communities of color have not been
    well represented on the airwaves. The internet helps to change
    that.
        Again, I think the notion that some have tried to put
    forward in this hearing is that prioritization and paid
    prioritization could help them compete with the biggest content
    providers, and I just can't see how that would work.
        I think if we did allow for paid prioritization, then the
    traditional media companies would be the first in line and the
    highest bidders for such slots and that the less well-known and
    well-established media companies and voices would be pushed to
    the back of the line.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well, and I remain concerned about the
    impact paid prioritization can have on innovation and new ideas
    and on new products.
        When a programmer in my district comes up with the next big
    idea, how can we help ensure her focus is on connecting with
    her users? And this question is to Mr. Wood and Mr. Schroeder.
        Mr. Wood. I will go just because my mic's on.
        I think this is how we can do it, is by preserving the
    internet as it always has been, where people pay their own
    broadband connection but then they're not asked to pay an
    additional toll just to reach the other side of that connection
    and we have each side of the conversation paying for their
    connectivity but not this extra toll where the ISP charges in
    both directions.
        Mr. Schroeder. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        I think for Aira, we are a company that serves a rather
    small and underserved customer base providing a unique service,
    right. So people who are blind or visually compared constitute,
    you know, maybe 23 million of the population.
        The people who need our service don't really have an
    adequate technology-based solution. What most people would do
    is try to find a sighted assistant to provide some access to
    visual information, and there isn't always a sighted assistant
    around and, frankly, there isn't always a competent sighted
    assistant around to provide access to information.
        Getting to our users has been a real challenge. But to
    answer maybe the question you didn't ask, but for us, one of
    the limitations we worry about is--and one of the things we've
    seen before we had access to the dynamic traffic management
    that AT&T offers on its essentially high-priority private
    network--is that our users were not able to get their video
    through in a way that actually worked, because there were too
    many lags, too many delays, and too many dropped calls. And so
    they weren't able to have access to competent assistants using
    the Aira model.
        Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Schroeder, and I yield back,
    Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
    appreciate the hearing.
        And this question is for Mr. Bennett, probably continuing
    on some of the same theme. I would like to discuss the debate
    over ISPs taking advantage of their gatekeeper position at the
    last-mile connection points by prioritizing content delivery
    for those who pay the most or even holding content hostage, and
    the counter position that they wouldn't have a viable business
    model if they did this.
        I may be oversimplifying this, but it seems to boil down to
    questions about relative bargaining positions within edge
    providers and ISPs and who has the unique advantage in this
    regard.
        So the question: In the development of the internet as we
    know it today, has there been a need for or practice of paying
    for priority of content delivery over the last mile?
        Mr. Bennett. It certainly hasn't been a widespread
    practice, if it has existed at all. There have been certainly a
    lot of claims that ISPs were holding certain content providers
    hostage for payment.
        In 2014, Netflix accused the major ISPs of doing that to
    them, but it turns out the network that was actually slowing
    their traffic down was their transit provider, Cogent. The ISPs
    didn't really have anything to do with it.
        Mr. Guthrie. So if it exists, you don't know of it? Is that
    what you're saying?
        Mr. Bennett. It certainly hasn't been widespread. I mean,
    in fact, I would like to see more willingness on the part of
    ISPs to sell prioritized delivery to application providers that
    had real-time apps, you know, like video conferencing and have
    never really seen much reason how that would benefit them to
    sell that service, because it would actually make third parties
    able to provide voice and face time just as well as the native
    products sold by the ISPs. This is especially the case at the
    wireless ISPs.
        Mr. Guthrie. So who has the stronger bargaining position
    over the last mile and what if an ISP with less than a million
    customers is dealing with an edge provider that has tens of
    millions of customers for their platform services?
        Mr. Bennett. Well, the day an ISP announces that it's not
    going to allow Netflix to use its network because, you know, it
    has some dispute and it's not getting the money, that's pretty
    much the day that you should short that ISP, as they're--nobody
    has the kind of bargaining position that Amazon and Netflix and
    Google have.
        Those are regarded as essential services by users of ISPs.
    There's no way the ISP can mess with them.
        Mr. Guthrie. Because a lot of my ISPs at the last mile are
    local--like, utilities, Bardstown City Cable is the ISP. Logan
    Telephone and Telegraph is the ISP for the last mile for a lot
    of the areas there that wouldn't have that kind of bargaining
    power that you're talking about.
        In your testimony also, you say sharing is inherent in the
    internet's design and go on to say access to shared resources
    of any kind implies the development and implementation of the
    sharing policy.
        Can you elaborate on what options network operators have to
    manage shared access to a scarce resource? In particular, how
    does class of service or smart queuing techniques alleviate
    congestion when network load increases to moderate or high
    levels?
        Mr. Bennett. Well, the purpose of class of service or type
    of service in IP is for the application to identify--tell the
    network what kind of service it needs, if it's a low precedence
    or whether their focus is capacity or reliability.
        The trouble with that is that, typically--and that's used
    internally by ISPs once they're able to determine what
    application generated a particular traffic stream, which they
    can do with a fair degree of accuracy, but it's never going to
    be 100 percent, especially as new applications emerge that the
    ISP hadn't seen before and, like, ``How do I treat this? Do I
    treat it just like generic traffic''--you know, which is
    probably 95 percent or it could be as much as 95 percent of the
    internet--``or do I give it some sort of specialized
    treatment?'' And the specialized treatment could be, like, it
    needs to be more urgently delivered than generic traffic, but
    it also could be less.
        And so there's a case to be made for, like, actually--if we
    can recognize the unique performance characteristics of
    different streams and then bargain appropriately, for some
    streams they're going to save money, because if it's like a
    patch distribution or something that can happen at 3 o'clock in
    the morning, it doesn't make sense for the ISP to charge a
    whole lot for that. In fact, it kind of makes sense to give it
    away for free, because it makes the network work better if all
    the computers are patched and up to date.
        Mr. Guthrie. So who manages these techniques? I got about
    10 seconds.
        Mr. Bennett. Yes. They're managed by network operation
    staff at the ISPs, and the tricky part, though, is that the
    boundary's between different ISPs or different networks--
    between an ISP and a transit network. And so they operate on
    the basis of agreements and they typically don't articulate the
    treatment of nonstandard----
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. McNerney, you're recognized 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair, and I thank the witnesses.
        As an engineer, I am deeply concerned and troubled by the
    FCC's decision to repeal the ban on paid prioritization and
    kick the scraps of net neutrality over to the Federal Trade
    Commission.
        Mr. Wood, does the FTC have the resources to enforce net
    neutrality?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congressman.
        To my knowledge, they do not. They have an enforcement-
    geared staff, and I think they do a good job but have trouble
    keeping up with the current caseload that they have, my
    understanding.
        Mr. McNerney. I've heard they don't have any network
    engineers. Is that right?
        Mr. Wood. That's what I've heard as well, yes, Congressman.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I am concerned that, without an expert
    agency with network engineers on the case, we might never know
    if there are violations of net neutralities.
        Back in 2007, we only discovered net neutrality violations
    due to the work of an engineer working at home on his own.
        Might it be difficult for the average consumer to recognize
    their broadband provider is violating net neutrality?
        Mr. Wood. Yes, Congressman, I think it could, and in fact,
    with nobody to watch over that process, I do think that would
    be a problem.
        As we've heard, congestion can happen at different places
    in the internet and different parts of the network. The Netflix
    and Comcast disputes that Mr. Bennett referenced, a lot of
    people called their Comcast customer service representatives
    and said it's not coming through correctly, and the first
    answer from the company was, ``Maybe you should buy a faster
    speed tier,'' which wouldn't actually have solved the problem.
        So I think even the people who work in the network, either
    for good-faith reasons or marketing purposes, might not be able
    to pinpoint where the problem is and then actually help the
    customer to solve it.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        About veterans, in response to thousands of constituents
    who reached to me concerning their concerns about the
    elimination of net neutrality protections, I had a net
    neutrality town hall in my district to discuss their concerns.
        At the town hall, I heard from a veteran who was very
    worried about what this would mean for him and other veterans,
    including their access to health telenet services.
        Mr. Wood, given your experience with net neutrality, do you
    think veterans who need home telehealth services for in-home
    care should be concerned about the FCC's rollback of net
    neutrality?
        Mr. Wood. I do, Congressman.
        I think what they want is for the service to work, and so
    as we've heard there could be different use cases, different
    types of prioritization that the network already does to make
    sure that all applications can reach their destination.
        What I think veterans are worried about overseas is, ``I am
    already paying for my connection, which might be difficult to
    manage overseas, my family is paying at home''--is there going
    to be a news hole or a new kind of charge to make sure that
    traffic can actually reach his destination, and I think that's
    where the concern comes from, that this will be a new fee
    that's ultimately passed on to customers, even if it's the edge
    provider who is paying it in the first place.
        Mr. McNerney. Mr. Schroeder, do you have similar concerns
    about access with net neutrality protections disappearing?
        Mr. Schroeder. For the purposes of Aira's technology,
    again, we are concerned that we have access to a cell network
    that can deliver our video upstream in a way that is reliable.
        I don't know that the end of the Open Internet Order would
    adversely or would have changed our business model
    significantly whether or not that order was in place.
        I do think it is critical that we ensure that our veterans
    have access to the kind of service that Aira is providing, and
    I would say that, given the relatively underserved group that
    we are reaching out to, my sense is that that's not a group
    that probably gets priority under any structure.
        And so, without a company like Aira really pushing that
    issue and in our case having a good partner with AT&T in order
    to allow us to use a priority network, I am not sure that that
    service would be provided--our business model and our service
    would be provided--in a way that actually works for people in
    the real world, as we have to make it work.
        Mr. McNerney. Has Aira come out in favor of Mr. Doyle's
    CRA?
        Mr. Schroeder. We have not taken a position on any of the
    bills.
        Mr. McNerney. You referred to low latency several times in
    your testimony. Can you explain what that means?
        Mr. Schroeder. Yes. Low latency means a connection with no
    delays or minimal delays. And so, in our case, as we said, our
    video needs to be able to move through at, you know, what we've
    estimated currently ideally for Mbps.
        We think, with the new glasses that I am wearing--these are
    called Horizon--by the way, they're actually made almost
    entirely in San Diego so it's all U.S.-based, we are proud to
    say--that we may even need a little bit higher bandwidth in
    order to ensure that the quality of the video that these
    glasses are able to provide gets through.
        And the comment about busy streets and crossing streets:
    While Aira makes clear that we do not provide information to
    somebody in the midst of a street crossing because we want them
    to use their other skills, we do note that people need
    information very rapidly and very immediately, including out on
    the street in order to avoid obstacles.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Olson.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair. Welcome to our four
    witnesses.
        This question is for the entire panel. Just go from your
    right to left. Just give us your thoughts on prioritization.
        My hometown of Houston, Texas, was hit by Hurricane Harvey
    really hard this past August--hit us not once, hit us twice.
    Some parts of my district had 50 inches of rain--almost 5 feet
    of rain--in 2 days.
        The amazing efforts of the Houston law and local first
    responders before, during, and after Hurricane Harvey saved
    thousands of lives.
        With prioritization, isn't that important for our first
    responders? Shouldn't their traffic be prioritized in times of
    emergency?
        Mr. Bennett.
        Mr. Bennett. Yes, Congressman Olson, it certainly should--
    and, as a former Houstonian who lived through Carla, quite
    sensitive to, you know, what went on down there recently.
        FirstNet is primarily--it's sort of, the value proposition
    for FirstNet, other than interoperability between first
    responders, is the ability to get, what do they call it,
    prioritized quality--preemption and priority.
        It's quality, preemption, and priority, so that first
    responders not only can get a connection during times of
    emergency, civilians want to use the networks and, you know,
    call people and let them know they're OK or they're not OK, and
    call for help, and all that. So there's a lot of pressure on
    the networks from facilities being down and high usage and so
    but, you know, we definitely want first responders to have
    priority access.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Rysavy, your comments on priority access
    during times of natural disaster like Hurricane Harvey.
        Mr. Rysavy. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
        Yes, absolutely, that's a perfect example of a situation
    where certain users such as the first responders do need
    access. But it's just an example of many, because from there
    you might consider a surgeon doing remote surgery--they might
    need prioritization as well. Thank you.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Schroeder.
        Mr. Schroeder. I think emergencies provide two interesting
    examples of why Aira is so critical and why making sure that
    our information is getting through.
        The first one is a lot of the information that is provided
    during an emergency is inherently visual. There's maps and
    charts and graphics on television screens that indicate where
    one is supposed to go, what the storm pattern is, that sort of
    thing.
        Without access to Aira, it is very difficult for a person
    to get that information in a reliable sense. When somebody is
    relocated--if you can imagine a person who's blind, they're in
    an unusual setting--having access to Aira and a reliable visual
    assistant will allow that person to have better access to the
    shelter and have, of course, a better experience.
        Somebody might say that that's perhaps not critical. I
    would disagree. I think if somebody has relocated who's blind
    or visually impaired, they certainly need to be able to access
    the information around them successfully just like anybody else
    who's been relocated to that area, and Aira--ensuring that our
    video gets through is another way that that person is able to
    have the information about where they are as well as things
    that they need to know related to surviving that emergency.
        Mr. Olson. Amen.
        Mr. Wood, your comments on prioritization during natural
    disasters.
        Mr. Wood. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman.
        Yes, first responders deserve priority during disasters. I
    would say that was fully permitted under the 2015 rules that
    have now been repealed.
        And the last thing I would want is paid prioritization for
    first responders. I can't imagine having the ambulance or the
    fire department pay an additional toll on their way to the
    emergency.
        So I think that draws out the distinction we are talking
    about here.
        Mr. Olson. Good point.
        The final question for you, Mr. Bennett. Your testimony
    discussed internet optimization, and as you're well aware, we
    are at the beginning of a huge data boom, another massive data
    boom.
        Could you elaborate on possible tools that could be used in
    the future to help further efficiencies, to optimize the
    internet traffic, and also what role does AI play in the
    future?
        Mr. Bennett. AI is going to be essential, I think, to
    identifying traffic streams and mapping them to applications
    and determining what kind of service they need.
        The capability to do that has sort of increased an awful
    lot in network routers over the years and, well, it's sort of
    hard to draw the line between sort of better programming and
    AI.
        I mean, it definitely leans toward the side of AI, the kind
    of intelligence that networks have to have these days.
        Mr. Olson. My time has expired.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Engel, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
        When Mark Zuckerberg was before our committee last week,
    one of the things I asked him was about foreign influence on
    our democracy.
        In the FCC's docket that rolled back the ban on paid
    prioritization and the other net neutrality protections,
    Americans' identities were stolen and used to comment in
    support of Chairman Pai's rollback of net neutrality.
        It seems like another attempt at sowing division.
        Mr. Wood, have you received any of these fake comments
    filed in the FCC's docket?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congressman.
        Have I seen them? Is that the question?
        Mr. Engel. Yes.
        Mr. Wood. I have seen some sampling of the 24 million
    comments, yes, and I know that there have been allegations
    about fake comments coming from foreign sources and from all
    sides.
        Mr. Engel. Do you think the FCC has done enough to address
    the fake comments in the record?
        Mr. Wood. No, I certainly don't. In fact, the attorney
    general of New York has tried to launch an investigation on
    behalf of New York State residents whose identities were stolen
    and inappropriately used in the proceeding.
        And I think it's fair to say the answer they've gotten from
    the FCC has been something of a shoulder shrug to this point.
    So I don't think the FCC has either used all of its own tools
    or cooperated strongly enough with other law enforcement
    agencies who want to look into this.
        Mr. Engel. What else should they have done?
        Mr. Wood. Well, I mean, I think it's a good question. We
    want to have maximum participation in these public
    decisionmaking processes.
        So I don't know if there's much they could have done to
    stop the inflow of any fake or fraudulent comments. I've heard
    that even several Members of Congress had their names used,
    including their street addresses. So it wasn't just a matter of
    filling in a fake name.
        I don't know what more they could have done at the
    beginning. But I do think they should have paused and
    considered what to do about the bad comments flowing into the
    record during the process and then maybe should have taken
    longer to consider what to do with them before voting.
        Mr. Engel. Would you anticipate legal challenges to the
    FCC's order repealing net neutrality based on the fake
    comments?
        Mr. Wood. Well, we have actually filed suit. Something like
    23 attorneys general, a dozen or more public interest
    organizations like ours, and internet companies as well, and
    also some local--for example, Santa Clara County and the
    California Public Utilities Commission.
        I think that will be part of the case. I can't tell you how
    much it will be part of the arguments or the judge's response
    to it.
        Mr. Engel. Mr. Wood, let me stick with you.
        You testified that getting rid of paid prioritization would
    radically change the internet. You said that the ban only
    prevented ISPs from favoring traffic in exchange for payments
    from third parties or to benefit an ISP's affiliated video or
    voice offers. But it did not ban user-directed traffic.
        So can you expand on that and explain a little more about
    how user-directed traffic works?
        Mr. Wood. Certainly. I hope so. The internet protocols that
    already manage these kinds of different needs for different
    types of applications, that goes on today. I think all the
    witnesses have spoken about it to some degree, and that kind of
    process was not prohibited by the paid prioritization ban.
        All that the rule prohibited was having an edge provider or
    some other third party come in and try to alter that natural
    balancing that goes on.
        If the balancing couldn't happen in what I would call a
    neutral fashion, with the protocols just deciding which
    applications need priority at that particular point in time,
    then the user could also pay their broadband provider, and we
    have more comfort with that because then the internet user
    remains in control of how their connection is being used, so
    which content they can get and also which type of application
    and services they might need to or choose to prioritize at a
    particular point in the day.
        Mr. Engel. OK. Well, thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Bilirakis, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it.
        I want to thank the panel for their testimony as well.
        Mr. Schroeder, as stated in your testimony, the speed of
    your service is near instantaneous, and when you discuss how
    the service is used not only for work-related tasks but helping
    people navigate city streets, speed is, clearly, a requirement.
    Isn't that the case?
        Mr. Schroeder. Yes, Congressman Bilirakis.
        Mr. Bilirakis. It seems your partnership with AT&T is
    central to your service. Isn't that the case?
        Mr. Schroeder. It is a very important element, yes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Can you describe how the user experience
    would be different if Aira did not have this partnership and
    had to compete equally with all other internet traffic?
        Mr. Schroeder. I can, because we rolled out the
    relationship with AT&T's Dynamic Traffic Management Network
    about over the last four to six months.
        Prior to that time, we got many complaints from our users,
    and I am an Aira user myself and I also experienced many
    dropped calls, many significant delays in video, many instances
    where we had an audio connection with the agent but no video
    and they did their best using GPS and other sensor data that we
    were able to get upstream. But the lag in video created not
    only trouble for our business model, because we are a service
    that people subscribe to, but more important created challenges
    for people who are blind who, in the midst of needing a sign
    read to them, needing to make a decision about which direction
    to go, needing to find that last--we often--you talk about the
    last mile, we often talk about the last 20 feet, trying to find
    the right door. And oftentimes that's when the video would,
    unfortunately, kick out, and so just when you needed the
    information most.
        I know and I know our users experienced what the network
    situation was like before we had access to a priority network,
    and it was not a good experience.
        Mr. Bilirakis. So you just described the latency
    consequences?
        Mr. Schroeder. That's correct.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. OK. Very good. Thank you.
        Next question: As a relatively new company, did you find it
    difficult to get a partner that would provide the
    prioritization services that your company needs to operate?
         Mr. Schroeder. You know, sometimes I am a little bit
    embarrassed. Aira gets a lot of attention. I think a lot of
    people find what we do to be quite remarkable and quite
    amazing.
        We actually had no trouble finding interest among carriers
    to work with Aira and to allow us to or to encourage us to work
    with their cell networks.
        AT&T was the company that came through with the best
    partnership and really showed the most interest in giving us
    opportunity to work with their priority network as well as, as
    I mentioned in my testimony, providing support for getting Aira
    into the hands of college students and in working with us in
    designing some of the technology that we are using, for
    example, to get access to prescription medication, which is one
    of the highest use cases that our Aira users often need to
    ensure that they're taking the right medicine.
        Mr. Bilirakis. That's great.
        I want to commend you for working with our veterans as
    customers, but also as employees. But I also want to give you
    an opportunity, because I do have some time, to describe how
    Aira works and how beneficial it is to your customers, if you
    please. And so, if you can elaborate a little bit more on it,
    because it is fascinating and it improves a person's quality of
    life.
        Mr. Schroeder. Thank you for that, Congressman Bilirakis,
    and I appreciate your support as well. We have so many
    wonderful stories from our Aira users who use the service, of
    course, in critical ways like navigating the Boston Marathon--
    which, trying to move among runners, as you can imagine, is a
    very dicey proposition, especially in the weather conditions
    they had yesterday, and it speaks to the need for having a very
    strong network with low latency available to them.
        We've also had individuals who have spent a few hours
    working with an agent putting IKEA furniture together, and I
    don't know if I should mention a specific company. But I think
    we all know how challenging following some of those visual
    directions if you can see can be.
        Many of our users have found Aira to be extraordinarily
    helpful in navigating technology. There's a lot of great
    technology, such as what I am using here with this Braille
    device that makes information available to blind people. But it
    sometimes doesn't work. It sometimes breaks down, and when it
    breaks down we are suddenly--we are confronted with a blank
    screen--blank to us because we can't see it--and being able to
    quickly grab an Aira agent via the smart glasses and
    application allows us to have access to what is on that screen
    so we can hopefully save our work and be able to continue to be
    productive.
        Oftentimes in the past--I know the time is up--but
    oftentimes in the past, it would take several minutes or maybe
    hours to find somebody sighted to come and help figure out what
    was on that computer screen. Now we've got that instantaneous
    with Aira.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you very much. And I know it's
    very beneficial to our constituents. I appreciate it, and I
    yield back, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Flores.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Madam Chair, I would ask to enter into the record an
    article written today by Roslyn Layton of AEI that's called
    ``Prioritization: Moving past prejudice to make internet policy
    based on fact.''
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Flores. Thank you.
        Mr. Bennett, talking about 5G for a minute, the next leap
    in technology for wireless, does China have a ban on paid
    prioritization?
        Mr. Bennett. Not as far as I know. The telecom carriers in
    China are state-owned enterprises.
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Bennett. And they're pretty much able to----
        Mr. Flores. How about Japan?
        Mr. Bennett. Japan, I don't think it does.
        Mr. Flores. They don't? And South Korea? Do they have a ban
    on paid prioritization?
        Mr. Bennett. No, definitely not. South Korea offers all
    kinds of gradations of internet.
        Mr. Flores. So we talked about discrimination against rural
    communities. Let's assume this fact pattern for a minute. You
    have got an ISP that has an internet pipe going into a rural
    community. That rural pipe drives or carries the traffic for a
    new 5G network that we have in that rural community, but it's a
    limited-size pipe.
        So you're going to have 5G traffic. You're going to have RS
    traffic going over it. You're going to have FirstNet going over
    it, hospitals, schools, and then on a Saturday night, 80
    percent of the traffic is going to be coming through because of
    video.
        If you don't have paid prioritization, what happens to
    everybody's traffic under that scenario?
        Mr. Bennett. Well, if you don't prioritize, then what
    happens is when network load increases and latency increases,
    and it's sort of every app is affected to some degree, and the
    more sensitive apps are affected more seriously.
        Mr. Flores. OK.
        Mr. Bennett. So I think one of the implications is that,
    for rural users, is if you can't get consistently low latency
    for Skype, then you're going to have to keep on paying for an
    old-timey telephone connection because your Skype is just never
    going to be reliable.
        Mr. Flores. And Mr. Schroeder, what would that do to your
    Aira users, if you're in that community without a paid--again,
    there's no paid prioritization.
        Mr. Schroeder. Yes. We do have users in the rural areas,
    and there is often a struggle to ensure that we've got good
    network access for those individuals. That is something that we
    certainly look forward to, further network development.
        Mr. Flores. And so, Mr. Woods talked a lot about
    discrimination against different populations because of a paid
    prioritization. It sounds to me like the opposite is true.
        If you have a ban on paid prioritization, it would
    discriminate against your population of sight-limited and also
    veterans. Does that make sense?
        Mr. Schroeder. We don't know----
        Mr. Flores. Again, using the same example.
        Mr. Schroeder. Congressman, we don't know whether that's
    true or not. But we suspect--what we do know is that having
    access to a reliable network is critical, and in this case we
    are able to use a priority network for that purpose. So that is
    helping.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And so, but if you didn't have access to
    that paid priority network, then you wouldn't be able to have
    that service with the low latency?
        Mr. Schroeder. Our service certainly suffered prior to that
    access.
        Mr. Flores. OK.
        Mr. Bennett, in order to offset that--again, you have got
    this community, it's got a new 5G network, it's got limited
    last-mile capability--who pays to expand the capacity?
        Mr. Bennett. In the absence of anyone else coming up with
    the desire to do that, it's going to be the carrier.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And so then----
        Mr. Bennett. Who is going to pass the cost on to the
    consumer.
        Mr. Flores. Right. So essentially, if you don't have paid
    prioritization, then everybody pays to offset the latency
    issues that are introduced because of a ban on pay
    prioritization. Is that correct?
        Mr. Bennett. Absolutely, just as today the people who don't
    use Netflix pay for the capacity upgrades that enable others to
    use Netflix.
        Mr. Flores. OK. So, again, the cost is being socialized for
    the people that want to use lots of bandwidth across the entire
    population, even those who don't use the bandwidth.
        That doesn't sound fair to me. I mean, we have a population
    that pays for priority TSA pre-check, pays for toll lanes, pays
    to use UPS instead of the mail service, or pays for priority
    mail.
        It seems to me like folks ought to pay for their fair
    share.
        Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank
    you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Brooks, you're recognized 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I would like to just clear up and make sure we are all on
    the same page relative to FirstNet--FirstNet, obviously, being
    the network that has been created most recently to ensure the
    public safety has the ability to communicate and gets priority
    in the case of emergencies and disasters and is now just
    beginning to be built out across the country and so forth.
        But there is a ban on paid prioritization involving
    FirstNet, is there not? I am a little bit confused.
        Mr. Bennett.
        Mr. Bennett. There's not. FirstNet is a special-purpose
    network that's separate from the regular--or is sort of a
    supplement to the regular mobile network.
        But the preemption of the--or the relocation of the old
    Title II regulations that were enacted by Chairman Wheeler
    means that there is no ban on paid prioritization for anyone.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK. And so how is it that we can ensure that
    FirstNet, for instance, will receive that priority in an
    instance of a disaster?
        Mr. Bennett. Well, FirstNet is designed to do that. So if
    it doesn't do that, then it's failed to meet its primary goal,
    which is quality, preemption, and prioritization.
        But the thing that worries me about FirstNet is, because it
    does so many things that fall outside the realm of what the
    traditional net neutrality advocates have demanded, what's to
    prevent one of them--Mr. Wood's organization or some similar
    organization--from simply filing a suit against FirstNet for
    violating net neutrality?
        Mrs. Brooks. Mr. Wood, you brought this up a little bit.
    Can you please comment on this? Because I do want to make sure
    that we all are on the same page when it comes to the
    importance in the preemption of FirstNet.
        Can you please comment?
        Mr. Wood. Certainly, Congresswoman.
        I think my earlier answer was that, yes, emergency services
    deserve priority. They could have had that under the rules that
    have now been repealed.
        Mr. Bennett is correct that they don't face any such rules
    today because there are no rules in place at the moment, or at
    least there won't be when the rule changes take effect here in
    the next few weeks.
        But, again, I think what we keep missing is the distinction
    ``prioritization'' and ``paid prioritization.`` And so, again,
    the last thing I would want is for first responders to have to
    pay to prioritize their traffic during times of emergency. They
    were able to prioritize for any kind of public safety or
    emergency use case under the old rules, and I think that's what
    should continue now.
        Mrs. Brooks. But that's not being contemplated right now,
    is it?
        Mr. Wood. I think what's being contemplated is FirstNet is
    actually designed to be a prioritized network for first
    responders, and that would not have violated the 2015 rules
    that have now been repealed. It's not a violation of anything
    now. It's nothing that we would fight against.
        We have three lawyers, so we are not really in the business
    of filing more lawsuits than we need to.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK. So you have no plans on filing any
    lawsuits?
        Mr. Wood. Certainly not.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK.
        Mr. Bennett. Could I----
        Mrs. Brooks. Yes, Mr. Bennett.
        Mr. Bennett. Can I add something to that?
        Mrs. Brooks. Yes.
        Mr. Bennett. Mr. Wood says that paid prioritization is not
    part of FirstNet. But first responders pay to be part of
    FirstNet.
        They pay to use--it's not a free service, right. So it's
    partially paid for by fees that States and municipalities give
    up to be part of that network. And so then, once they've paid
    those fees, then they get all the prioritization they need.
        Mrs. Brooks. So how will a ban on paid prioritization
    implicate FirstNet, Mr. Bennett?
        Mr. Bennett. I am not sure that it would for the use of the
    primary channel. But first responders--FirstNet is designed
    actually use bandwidth that's available over regular commercial
    networks as well when, you know, when it needs to.
        And so I think there could be scenarios in that secondary
    usage of the other channels that could subject FirstNet,
    certainly, to a challenge.
        Mrs. Brooks. Very briefly, Mr. Rysavy, shifting gears a
    minute, can you comment on how 5G will inherently prioritize
    traffic to handle a wider range of applications than 4G?
        Mr. Rysavy. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
        5G is being designed with a very sophisticated quality-of-
    service architecture with which traffic flows can be managed
    not only for priority but also for latency, possibility of
    packet loss, guaranteed bandwidth, and so forth. So you really
    need to manage all of those aspects to be able to provide
    services with exactly the type of performance that they need.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Doyle just told me that baseball players get priority.
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. And so he favors priority.
        Mr. Doyle. Good ones. Good ones that are on the committee.
        Mrs. Blackburn. So you are--you're recognized.
        Mr. Ruiz. Given that I am the only other Democratic Member
    here and that I've had my share of splinters collected, sitting
    on the bench, I appreciate that, Coach Doyle.
        Thank you. As a physician, I think we have obligation to
    make sure that we are using the internet and technology to help
    improve the public's health.
        The FCC's 2015 net neutrality protections actually came up
    with a very targeted way to ensure specialized services like
    telehealth and public safety technology are allowed to thrive.
        But I am concerned that the current FCC has done the
    opposite by abandoning any protections that prohibit big
    corporations from paying for their services to be prioritized
    over these telehealth-type services.
        So, with that in mind, I would like to introduce a letter
    for the record from the American Medical Informatics
    Association that expresses these concerns.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you so much. So my first question is for
    Mr. Wood. It's very simple: Is there anything in the FCC's most
    recent net neutrality order that will ensure, guarantee
    hospitals, community health clinics, and local police
    departments won't just get pushed into slower lanes because
    they can't afford to bid against the big megacorporations down
    the road?
        Mr. Wood. Thank you, Congressman.
        Not to my knowledge. I know that the current order
    basically took away all of the traffic management rules and
    guidelines and left it to the ISPs. It has some transparency
    obligations that they face, but nothing that would speak to
    their ability to either charge for priority or not.
        Mr. Ruiz. Yes. So there are no safeguards to guarantee that
    these vital public health services are protected and not
    marginalized for profit motive?
        Mr. Wood. That's right. To my knowledge, there are no
    safeguards and basically this FCC has washed its hand of the
    business and said that they are not going to have any rules
    whatsoever when it comes to what ISPs try to prioritize or not.
        Mr. Ruiz. OK. And what would you do to ensure those
    safeguards?
        Mr. Wood. Well, we have supported the Congressional Review
    Act resolution of this approval to restore the 2015 order. We
    feel it's important to restore the entirety of the rules that
    were lost but also the FCC's ability to investigate if
    something like that were to occur.
        So sometimes this is talked about in a competition
    framework, and that matters. But we would certainly want to FCC
    to have the ability to investigate if it were a certain kind of
    telemedicine or health application being discriminated against,
    even if that were not to favor another telemedicine application
    but simply were a bad choice made by the cable or phone
    company.
        Mr. Ruiz. OK. And, as a lawyer that follows net neutrality
    closely, can you explain what it means that the FCC's original
    net neutrality protections treated telehealth as a specialized
    service? What does that mean?
        Mr. Wood. Well, it means that they were allowed to be
    treated as specialized services. I would note that I think many
    telehealth applications can and do run over the open internet.
        So it's not the case that every health application, or
    every medicine application, even, has to be treated as a
    specialized service.
        I don't know if the word has a lot of meaning for folks. I
    sometimes think of it as dedicated capacity. And so, if you
    have an application that does not fit well on the open
    internet, it needs additional protections, then it could be
    treated as a specialized service--again, usually paid for by
    the person who has the arrangement with the ISP.
        So not necessarily this additional kind of toll, where
    they're paying twice, both for their own connectivity and for
    priority in the last mile, but simply arranging their own kind
    of delivery privately.
        Mr. Ruiz. One of the biggest challenges that we have is in
    rural America, where you don't have population centers that can
    access the infrastructure for broadband and other things, even
    for commercial use. These are exactly the locations where we
    want to promote telehealth, because they need access to doctors
    and health care services.
        Do you think it's a valid concern that, without the strong
    net neutrality protections, we might undermine innovation in
    the medical space and elsewhere?
        Mr. Wood. I do, Congressman.
        I think that the genius of the internet has been that
    application makers can come up with their ideas and not have to
    pay an additional toll to bring them to market or to get them
    through that last mile to the user.
        And so, when you do have a small ISP--I have the same
    concerns, not just that the small ISP might serve as a
    bottleneck but, if they were really were at a bargaining
    disadvantage with the biggest edge providers, then perhaps that
    content would be prioritized rather than the small application
    makers or innovators.
        Mr. Ruiz. We are starting to see a lot of tech-medicine-
    type opportunities for people in rural areas that haven't been
    served for mental health services.
        And so now you're seeing folks on their phones or their
    pads, their computers being able to actually have counseling
    for the first time and be connected with other addiction
    services groups to provide social support networks to get the
    care that they need.
        And so I am just concerned that this is going to inhibit
    that progress that is being made out there.
        Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Johnson, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    gentlemen, for joining our panel today.
        Mr. Schroeder, a lot of parties paying attention to this
    hearing have pushed the idea that we don't need to worry about
    whether an application like Aira could avoid a paid
    prioritization ban in the future, since past net neutrality
    attempts have always included an exception for specialized
    services.
        Setting aside the problem that past performance does not
    predict future results, that is actually incorrect. The 2015
    Open Internet Order specifically rejected the, quote,
    ``specialized services,'' unquote, carve out, providing instead
    an exception for ``services that are not broadband internet
    access service unless a service that is not broadband internet
    access service is provided in a manner that undermines the
    purpose of the open internet rules.''
        Now, do you understand what that means? Because nobody else
    understands what that means.
        Mr. Schroeder. No, Congressman. The way you phrased it, I
    can't untangle that thicket.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Well, nobody else can either. So Mr.
    Rysavy, your thoughts on this. Would that definition give you
    any confidence that some of these services we are talking about
    would meet the FCC's approval?
        Mr. Rysavy. Congressman, thank you for asking.
        No, not at all. The exception for specialized services is
    ill defined and certainly does not foster innovation or any
    confidence in moving forward with such applications.
        Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you.
        You know, the devil is in the details. This is one we need
    to make sure we get right, or a paid prioritization restriction
    could do some real harm.
        Mr. Wood, moving on to you, you seem to indicate in your
    testimony that broadband was considered a Title II service
    until the Bush FCC tinkered with its classifications.
        What you didn't mention, though, was that the Obama FCC
    agreed with that classification of broadband as an information
    service and left it there in its first attempt at net
    neutrality rules in 2010, and even the 2015 Open Internet Order
    acknowledged the long track record here.
        It spelled out all the history and tied the determination
    that broadband was an information service all the way back to
    the computer inquiries that the FCC had decided over 50 years
    ago.
        The Commission was very specific that it was changing its
    mind and disavowing all the previous precedent to reclassify
    broadband into a Title II telecommunication service.
        So do you disagree with the determination by Chairman
    Wheeler that, before 2015, broadband had always been an
    information service?
        Mr. Wood. I don't know that he said it precisely that way,
    but I do disagree with that phrasing.
        Before 2015, you mentioned the first Obama administration
    attempted at neutrality rules. Like the rules that were adopted
    at the tail end of the Bush administration, those were struck
    down in court. So there's a reason that we went back to the
    drawing board and talked about it again.
        The dispute here is not so much whether broadband was an
    information service but whether internet access was, and there
    are two parts of that. There's the connection that gets you
    online. Then there's the service or the content you interact
    with once you're there.
        So there has been some historical dispute about whether
    something like AOL, for example, was an information service. I
    would say that it was. It was allowing you to browse the
    internet, but only once you got to that site using your phone
    connection.
        And what we say is that from, really, before 2002 all
    internet access, that physical connection was Title II. The FCC
    started to change that and said that access over a cable line
    could be considered an information service, and that's when the
    attempts to prevent discrimination on those lines started to
    fall down in court. So that's why the FCC returned to what we
    see as the rightful legal definition.
        Mr. Johnson. Got you. OK.
        Mr. Bennett, most of us subscribe to mass-market retail
    broadband. This means that, rather than each of us having a
    dedicated pipe to just our home, we are sharing bandwidth with
    all of our neighbors who also subscribe to that same service.
        So, if everyone on my street is streaming videos in the
    evening to broadband speeds, I am getting what might be slower
    than I would experience at another time when not as many users
    are on the connection.
        So here's my question to you: What happens if there's an
    emergency that I need to call 9-1-1 on my voice over IP-enabled
    phone? Since that call goes over my broadband connection at
    some point, will it also be caught up in that video congestion?
    Will my 9-1-1 call be degraded so someone can watch a cat
    video?
        Mr. Bennett. The short answer is yes.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. That's about all I can ask for.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mrs. Walters, 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    witnesses, for being here.
        When talking to my constituents back home about tech
    issues, one of the questions I've been asked is how
    prioritization could impact them.
        I know some of my colleagues have covered a couple of these
    issues, but I would like to ask a few questions that some of my
    constituents have been asking me.
        One thing that comes up is the issue of degradation and
    internet traffic management. Some people have expressed
    concerns that prioritizing certain traffic over other degrades
    the traffic that is not prioritized.
        Mr. Bennett, in your testimony you mentioned the
    Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic report, which,
    quote, ``demonstrates that traffic differentiation is not a
    zero sum game.''
        Could you explain what that means for the average internet
    consumer?
        Mr. Bennett. Yes, I can.
        I was a member of the committee that wrote that report. The
    point is that, because applications are not all created equal,
    a sort of a theoretical or a literal degradation of an
    individual piece of information by a millionth of a second or
    so may qualify in a legal sense as a degradation.
        It's not a degradation that the consumer will perceive. And
    so, given that we are placing so much importance on polling
    and--you know, which is sort of a question of measuring
    perception--the question is whether there's a perceptible
    degradation, and in that sense prioritization is certainly
    provably empirically without a doubt unquestionably not a zero
    sum game.
        Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
        And Mr. Rysavy, in your testimony you talked about network
    slicing and its relationship to quality-of-service management.
    Can you explain the concept of network slicing in layman's
    terms and how it affects the average consumer?
        Mr. Rysavy. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
        Network slicing is an architectural aspect of 5G.
    Basically, it's a way that the network will present different
    faces for different usages.
        So, in theory, an operator could develop a slice for
    autonomous vehicles, another slice for a factory automation,
    and so forth, and each of these will require very specific
    quality-of-service requirements among which traffic
    prioritization is essential.
        What it translates to the user is that, with network
    slicing, they will see a wide range of new, innovative services
    coming to market.
        Mrs. Walters. Thank you.
        And throughout this hearing, there's been a discussion
    about the different forms of prioritization, and I think we can
    all agree that there are instances where certain traffic has to
    be prioritized over others, like the example that we've been
    hearing a lot lately is prioritizing 9-1-1 call over a cat
    video.
        Mr. Bennett, can you talk about types of bad
    prioritization, including types we should actively prevent?
        Mr. Bennett. You know, I think any sort of negative
    prioritization that's intended to impair the performance of a
    competitive product to the carrier is something that should be
    looked at with suspicion. But I think it's sort of covered
    under general antitrust law.
        I am not a lawyer like Mr. Wood is, so I can't really
    justify that. But it's my sense, the way it's been explained to
    me, that the violations that we are concerned about are
    essentially already prohibited under sort of the general laws
    of regulating business in the U.S.
        Mrs. Walters. Mr. Wood, would you want to add anything to
    that?
        Mr. Wood. I could. I think the antitrust could be a remedy
    for some competitors, say, if Comcast decided to block Netflix.
    I don't think it would be a very useful remedy in all
    instances, especially if there were smaller video providers who
    were suffering from that kind of blockage or deprioritization,
    and I think all we have to do is look at cable TV, where you
    don't have some kind of common carrier mantra and framework.
        You know, cable TV is not illegal under the antitrust
    standards. Cable providers do pick and choose which content to
    show you.
        The question is, should we have no safeguards whatsoever
    and make the internet more like cable TV or should we have the
    same kind of two-way open transmission network we've had that
    lets people go to any site of their choosing.
        Mrs. Walters. And what should Congress consider doing to
    prevent these types of prioritization activities from
    occurring? And Mr. Bennett and then Mr. Wood, if you'd like to
    join in.
        Mr. Bennett. I would rather that Congress adopt a generally
    permissive attitude. There's been so much demonization and so
    much sort of emotional rhetoric and spin and framing in this
    discussion that I think we've just sort of--we've gone way
    overboard on the side of caution.
        So let's let a few things happen. Let's allow some
    experiments like Aira to take place and examine the marketplace
    and then, if something is going on, then step in and correct,
    but preemptively allow people to innovate.
        Mrs. Walters. My time is up.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Costello for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costello. Thank you.
        Mr. Rysavy, I enjoyed reading your testimony----
        Mr. Rysavy. Thank you.
        Mr. Costello [continuing]. And found it very helpful. I
    want to cite something and ask you this question. Mission
    critical use-case-model-type analysis that you provided, you
    state, ``This category of 5G application will depend on the
    ability to deploy traffic prioritization.''
        Can you just briefly explain why prioritization will be
    necessary for 5G? Is it necessary, and if so, why?
        Mr. Rysavy. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        Yes, prioritization is an absolutely essential aspect of 5G
    in enabling new use cases. The whole motivation for investing
    hundreds of billions of dollars in 5G networks is to expand
    what can be done with wireless technologies, and being able to
    support mission critical applications is going to be a great
    expansion of capabilities compared to 4G.
        Mr. Costello. And along that line, and I think the
    terminology here--I think everybody supports net neutrality,
    broadly speaking--certain types of paid prioritization, I
    think, obviously do fall under FTC and are anticompetitive.
        When you speak about prioritization here, what you're
    speaking about is organizing slices based on the type of data
    and what it's used for. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rysavy. That is correct.
        Mr. Costello. Is there a better way for you to--would you
    embellish on that, if need be, or was that----
        Mr. Rysavy. No, the whole point is to recognize that
    different types of applications have different requirements.
    Some may need very high bandwidth but can drop a lot of packets
    because it won't impact the user experience. Others might be
    very low bandwidth, but the reliability of information carried
    might be absolutely crucial.
        Mr. Costello. You go on to say, ``But unprioritized and
    competing with other traffic, the latency ... can be 10 times
    higher, for example,'' and then you go on. And what you're
    saying there, I believe, is that, if we don't have
    prioritization, that you will end up across the board
    generalized with slower data getting from point A to point B.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Rysavy. Yes. The point I am making is that, if you have
    to treat every packet equally, that you will end up degrading
    the average quality of experience across the base of
    applications.
        Essentially, prioritization is an extremely powerful tool
    for network management, and to ban it really undermines the
    value of these networks, moving into the future.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Wood, what's your response to that?
        Mr. Wood. I think it's just where we began, Congressman:
    that we haven't called for a ban on prioritization done in a
    neutral fashion to make sure that applications work. We've
    called for a ban and the rules had a ban on paid
    prioritization, meaning that the edge provider, the app maker,
    whomever we want to think----
        Mr. Costello. The one you have the content associated with
    it. But don't you agree that the FTC already has jurisdiction
    over that and is able to enforce?
        Mr. Wood. Well, the FTC might have jurisdiction, or DOJ
    might if we could make it come to----
        Mr. Costello. Well, they do or they don't, don't they?
        Mr. Wood. Well, they have jurisdiction over certain kinds
    of anticompetitive conduct. They don't have jurisdiction if my
    own home connection is suffering because I can't reach the
    content that I want, and I am focused on the internet user, not
    just this battle between Comcast and Netflix or any other two
    large providers.
        Mr. Costello. Isn't in the interest of the company to make
    sure that the user does have access?
        Mr. Wood. Well, I think what we are talking about today,
    though, shows that there are use cases for prioritization. So
    they have general interest in making sure that content is
    available, but that they might then pick and choose which
    content is available at which terms for people who pay more.
        Mr. Costello. I had another question. This is tangential, I
    apologize. But the fake comments--what is your--I mean, what is
    a fake comment?
        Mr. Wood. Well, I think there are different kinds one could
    describe as less valuable. We certainly think the petition----
        Mr. Costello. But isn't the FCC able to sift through that
    and determine what's valuable and what isn't?
        Mr. Wood. Well, I think they said they are not going to
    decide what is fake and what isn't. So, to me, something that
    is obviously fake or fraudulent is somebody using----
        Mr. Costello. But what's fake?
        Mr. Wood. Somebody using somebody's else identification and
    name and address to put a comment in.
        Mr. Costello. But the content, isn't it about the content
    and not who says it?
        Mr. Wood. Well, I do think people have a right to not have
    things said in their name. So, if somebody put a comment in for
    you supporting Title II, you might care.
        Mr. Costello. People say that I--fair point. But
    ultimately, though, the FCC would be looking at the content of
    the comment, not who said it. Wouldn't that be accurate?
        Mr. Wood. I would hope they would look at the content, but
    I think it matters who said it too because people have a right
    to speak in their own name and not have others speak for them
    or pretend to speak for them.
        Mr. Costello. But the FCC wouldn't decide something one way
    or the other just because a specific person said it or didn't
    say it. Wouldn't that be correct?
        Mr. Wood. That's right, and I think that they still have an
    obligation to make sure their record isn't tainted by people
    basically engaging in identity theft in order to make comments
    that are not actually their own.
        Mr. Costello. Sometimes we probably wish people wouldn't
    taint our comments too.
        OK. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Seeing that there are no further Members----
        Mr. Doyle. Madam Chair?
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Doyle. Can I ask unanimous consent, in addition to the
    letters from pediatricians, telehealth experts, small
    businesses, and others supporting a ban of paid prioritization,
    I have one additional letter from the Consumers Union that I
    would like to introduce onto the record.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. You all have been gracious with your
    time and with getting your testimony in.
        Before we conclude, I do want to submit for the record, and
    ask unanimous consent to do so, tweets of CloudFlare CEO
    Matthew Prince; a report by Richard Bennett, ``Designed for
    Change''; a report by BITAG; Daniel Lyons' article; your
    comments, Mr. Rysavy; a report by Mr. Rysavy, ``How Wireless is
    Different''; and an article by George Ford.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing,
    except for the Bennett, BITAG, and Rysavy reports and Mr. Rysavy's
    comments, which have been retained in committee files and also are
    available at  https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=108168.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. I will remind our Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, they have 10 days to submit questions in
    writing to you, and you all will have 10 days in which to
    respond.
        There being no further business to come before the
    committee, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]