Verizon is committed to an open Internet. It’s what’s right for consumers and is vital to our business. Why? We have invested billions in businesses that depend on the ability to reach customers over the networks and platforms of others. We invested in digital ad technology through our $4.4 billion purchase of AOL and own content through properties like the Huffington Post, MapQuest, and TechCrunch. We have an expanding presence in the digital media and entertainment space; Verizon Digital Media Services helps content companies deliver their services in digital form to any screen or device, anywhere in the world.
These investments would be at risk without an open Internet. Now more than ever, we see protecting an open Internet as a business imperative that is inextricably tied to our future success.
In addition, we are a network company. The foundation of Verizon’s success has been network excellence and we invest $17 billion every year so that consumers can continue to consume more of the content they want.
In crafting a policy framework, we therefore think it is important that policymakers both catalyze innovation in over-the-top services and encourage investment in networks that serve as their platform.
So what should that policy framework look like? These questions will come up again soon when the D.C. Circuit court of appeals rules in the challenge to the FCC’s decision to reclassify broadband services as Title II or common carrier services. We don’t know how the court will rule. The court could reverse the FCC completely, uphold the FCC completely, or issue a mixed decision.
So we think that now – before the court decides – is the time for us to make clear what Verizon stands for and what kind of policies we support, regardless of the outcome of that case.
- No Blocking: we support rules that prevent providers from blocking lawful content, applications or services.
- No Throttling: we support rules that prevent providers from intentionally slowing down or throttling Internet traffic based on the traffic’s source, destination or content.
- No Paid Prioritization: we support rules that prevent providers from charging content providers a fee to deliver their Internet traffic faster than the Internet traffic of others.
- General Conduct Standard: we support a general conduct rule that would prevent unreasonable conduct by broadband providers where there is actual harm to consumers or to competition.
We can support these rules because we believe they are fair, even-handed, good for consumers and essential for us and others to thrive going forward. We can’t predict how the court will rule. But if history is any guide, we can expect more conflict and more uncertainty over the scope of the FCC’s authority and whether the current statute provides the tools the FCC needs to adopt these rules. The only way to avoid this depressing redux is for Congress to act.