Verizon Opposes Inclusion of Interconnection in Net Neutrality Order; ACA Concerned About Pole Attachment

Jan. 15, said an ex parte filing posted in docket 14-28 Wednesday. Arguments by Netflix “and its allies” that broadband providers have incentives to thwart the open Internet at interconnection points are “misplaced,” Verizon officials said. “Internet interconnection has always been handled through an unregulated system of voluntary commercial agreements," said the ISP. "This flexible approach has been a resounding success that has encouraged investment and provided flexibility for innovative interconnection arrangements that accommodate new business models, new types of Internet traffic and changes in end users’ preferences.” Paid direct interconnection agreements are a “longstanding way to ensure a high quality connection and adequate capacity, particularly where traffic flows are not balanced,” the company said. “These arrangements ensure great service for mutual customers, and help to cover a portion of the costs associated with the content provider’s traffic.” Verizon also said it's not using paid prioritization, but if the commission were to adopt rules prohibiting it, the outlawed practice should be defined as broadband providers charging a fee to deliver bits faster than the bits of others over the last mile. Under that definition, the rules would not apply to arrangements other than in the last mile. Any rules on throttling should be focused on intentionally slowing particular traffic based on “the traffic’s source, destination, or content,” Verizon said, not impacting the option consumers have to slow all Internet traffic after reaching a certain threshold of data usage to avoid overage charges. The company reiterated its opposition to a Communications Act Title II approach and said forbearing from parts of the section is no “no panacea to address the many harms that would result from reclassification.” Opposition to forbearing from certain sections of Title II shows that the end game” of reclassification proponents “is not rules to ensure an open Internet, but regulation for regulation’s sake,” Verizon said. Also representing the company at the meeting were William Johnson, associate general counsel, Roy Litland, assistant general counsel-legal regulatory affairs, and David Young, vice president-public policy. The American Cable Association in a letter to the commission posted in the same docket also urged the commission, if it reclassifies broadband providers including cable operators as telecom providers, to “take immediate action” to eliminate or reduce higher pole attachment rates telecom providers can be charged compared to cable operators. While the commission reduced the disparity between attachments rates paid by telecom carriers and cable operators in 2011, “there can still be a considerable disparity when a pole owner uses the actual average number of attachers on its poles in the formula, rather than presumptions provided in the Commission’s rules,” ACA said. The association reiterated its stance that small ISPs should be excluded from reclassification, or if they are reclassified, they should be foreborn from Title II’s requirements (see 1501130049).