STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
APPROVING
Re: In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52)
This is an historic day at the FCC.  It is historic because the Commission takes a long 
stride—perhaps its longest ever—toward ensuring a free, open and dynamic Internet.  While in 
one sense today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking marks a natural progression from our adoption 
of the Internet Policy Statement in 2005, in reality it is the clearest statement yet that we will 
ensure that the genius of the Internet is not subverted as it leaves its infancy and begins to come 
of age.  We must start from the premise that we are dealing with something very precious here—
a technology leap as great as the printing press that was invented 570 years ago.  This is perhaps 
the greatest small “d” democratic platform ever devised.  In its capacity to facilitate 
communications—indeed, to manage almost the totality of the communications that take place 
among us—the potential power of this technology is awesome.  It can do so much good.  
Misused, it can fail itself and fail us all.  So I start from the premise that we as regulators, we as 
businesses, we as users—all of us—have an historic obligation to maintain the freedom of the 
Net.
I have advocated long and hard for the Commission to establish a mechanism to ensure 
that consumers have continued access to a vibrant, open Internet—an Internet that was born on 
openness, thrived on openness, and depends on openness to realize its going-forward potential.  
This Commission will act, I predict, to maintain that openness. 
We need rules-of-the-road to make that happen.  We need expert judgment to evaluate 
any and all allegations that the freedom of the Internet is being compromised.  And we need a 
venue with authority to redress such wrongs if, indeed, such wrongs are found.  I stated my 
preference for clear-cut rules, including a fifth principle of non-discrimination, at the time we 
adopted the Four Principles of the Internet Policy Statement.  Now, four years later—having 
gained a lot more knowledge and some practical experience in applying the principles of Internet 
openness—we finally step up to the critical challenge of developing meaningful, predictable, 
transparent and clearly enforceable rules of the road. And we propose a sixth rule of 
transparency.  Users have a right to know how the network is being managed and what practices 
providers are employing.  This sixth rule of transparency is not just good policy—it is essential 
policy.
The Notice we adopt today is not only a clarion call for Internet freedom.  It is also a 
reasoned and rational way to get there—a data-driven, on-the-record examination of how to 
safeguard the benefits of the Internet for American consumers from potential gatekeeper control.  
The Internet must never be about powerful gatekeepers and walled gardens.  It must always be 
about the smoothest possible flow of communications among people.  As consumers increasingly 
access the Internet via different technology platforms, we seek to develop rules to preserve 
Internet openness, regardless of how consumers choose to access it.  History tells us we have to 
do this.  History tells us that when technological capability to exercise control combines with a 
2
financial incentive to do so, some will try to turn this power and opportunity to their own 
advantage.  That doesn’t mean I expect this to become normal business practice, but even if it’s 
only a few who try, the risk to our interconnected and interdependent Internet is too great to take.  
I’m not into riverboat gambles that everything will be fine if we just look the other way.
We recognized in the Four Principles—as well as in the draft rules we propose today—
that a well-considered approach to an open Internet should take into account reasonable network 
management. Evolutionary and revolutionary changes can alter the landscape and even change 
the parameters of what is or is not reasonable at a particular time. What is reasonable today may 
be unreasonable tomorrow—and vice versa.  What constitutes reasonable network management 
in a 768 Kbps world will likely be different from reasonable network management in a 50 or 100 
Mbps world.  And what constitutes reasonable network management in a wireless world will 
differ from reasonable network management in a wireline world.  The proposed rules recognize 
this reality.  And they provide the expert venue—the FCC—where consumers can come if they 
have concerns or complaints to make.  It’s about as common-sensical a way to ensure an open 
and dynamic Internet as I can imagine.
The principles I pushed for in the Internet Policy Statement four years ago focused on 
consumer rights. This is, after all, a consumer protection agency.  While just about everybody 
gains from the availability of an open Internet, no one gains so much as consumers.  As we move 
forward with draft rules, the legal language in the Notice shifts from the rights of consumers to 
the obligations of providers. But let’s be clear that the consumer focus has shifted not a whit.  
While some may prefer the broad language of the original principles, it is important to be clear as 
to whom the obligations apply. That said, I am pleased that we seek comment on the pros and 
cons of applying these rules to entities other than broadband Internet access service providers.  In 
particular, we need to recognize that the gatekeepers of today may not be the gatekeepers of 
tomorrow.  Our job is not so much to mediate among giants as it is to protect consumers. 
Though we may differ in some respects on the substance of today’s proceeding, I want to 
commend the spirit of collegiality and compromise that my colleagues have shown in shaping 
the Notice we adopt today. I know we often say this at these agenda meetings, but—wow!—it 
was really true here—like I’ve seldom seen before.  Chairman Genachowski has set a new tone 
of openness.  He has consulted with the experts, studied the record, met with stakeholders large 
and small, walked the halls of the Eighth Floor to understand the concerns of his colleagues and 
to search for the resolution of differences.  The Notice is much the better for it. You will see in 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking something we haven’t often seen in other NPRMs in recent 
years—the actual language of the proposed rules! How’s that for a change?  And how better to 
stimulate discussion and build a meaningful record than giving the public something specific to 
react to? Moreover, to ensure a thoughtful, well-considered and participatory result—one that’s 
based on the best possible record—we ask many questions and refrain from tentative 
conclusions. Also, we seek to fully develop the record by providing an extensive period for 
public comment. So, Mr. Chairman, I salute you for not just the substance of what we will 
shortly vote on, but on the process that brings this item to us and that will continue to move us 
forward.
3
Now the ball is in the public arena.  The Notice earnestly solicits stakeholder input—
indeed, the proceeding will rise or fall on the quality of such input.  Final action will be 
forthcoming in this proceeding.  This Commission will act, and it will act on the record it 
amasses.  What will help us most is not flocks of Chicken Littles running around proclaiming 
“the sky is falling,” but rather facts, data and the real world experiences of innovators, 
entrepreneurs, industries small and large, consumers, and anyone interested enough to give us the 
benefit of their thoughts, experiences and recommendations.  So, operating on the old adage that 
decisions without you can sometimes be decisions against you, I urge every individual and every 
group with an interest to bring us the best and brightest thinking of which they are capable.
In addition to thanking the Chairman, I want to commend my three other colleagues.  If 
their engagement on this item is any indication—and I think it is—of how this new Commission 
will conduct its deliberations, I am very optimistic about what we can accomplish. I appreciate 
the input we have already received from a wide gamut of stakeholders and can report that this 
did indeed make a difference.  Finally, I am enormously grateful to my hard-working staff, and 
the Chairman’s, and my colleagues’ and to the Bureaus who all worked very long, very hard and 
very successfully to bring us this far.  Thanks for a job well done.