STATEMENT OF
FCC COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket 
No. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.
A few weeks ago, I discussed the importance of collaboration in tackling the important, 
yet difficult policy issues before us today.  I want to thank the thousands of stakeholders who 
engaged with us over the past 16 months in crafting a framework that gives both broadband 
providers and consumers clear guidance about what provider behavior is and is not acceptable.  It 
was a result of all of your engagement—from the filings you made to the many meetings we 
had—that we have been able to get to this point today.  Your dedication to the process and that of 
those whom you represent should be commended.  
Of course, as we all know, compromises typically must be made as many different 
interests collaborate on critical and significant issues.  As a result of such compromise, it is often 
the case that one cannot be completely satisfied with the result.  Nonetheless, it is my belief that 
we have made real progress in this proceeding, and through this Order, we are ensuring that the 
Internet will remain open for the benefit of many consumers.  After all, they are the ultimate 
beneficiaries of an open Internet.
Left to my own devices, there are several issues I would have tackled differently.  As 
such, I am approving in part and concurring in part to today’s Order.  While I appreciate the 
Chairman’s recognition of some of my concerns, and the adjustments made in the Order to allay 
those concerns, there are several areas in the Order I would have strengthened so that more 
consumers would benefit from the protections we are adopting.  
First, I would have extended all of the fixed rules to mobile, so that those consumers who 
heavily or exclusively rely upon mobile broadband would be fully protected.  There is evidence in 
our record that some communities, namely African American and Hispanic, use and rely upon 
mobile Internet access much more than other socio-economic groups.  While this Order does not 
go as far as I would like in protecting mobile consumers, I am pleased that it is quite clear that we 
are not pre-approving any actions by mobile providers that would violate the fixed rules and the 
general principles of Internet openness.  Moreover, the Order provides for the ongoing 
monitoring of the mobile broadband marketplace, including the Commission’s intention to create 
an Open Internet Advisory Committee. That body’s specific mission will be to assess and report 
to the Commission new developments and concerns in the mobile broadband industry.  I expect 
that the Committee will closely observe the effects disparate rules for fixed and mobile providers 
will have on consumers who have chosen to cut the broadband cord and the effects on intermodal 
competition.  To that end, the Commission will stand ready to protect mobile consumers from any 
actions by providers that are inconsistent with an open Internet.  
Second, I would have prohibited pay for priority arrangements altogether.  The Order 
stresses the various harmful effects of these arrangements, including the serious threat to 
innovation on the Internet.  I believe that prohibiting such arrangements would be more 
appropriate based on the evidence before us.  Nevertheless, should providers enter such 
arrangements, and they are subsequently challenged at the Commission, providers will have to 
demonstrate that the pay for priority arrangement is not harmful and is consistent with the public 
interest.
2
Third, an open Internet should be available to all end users—residential, enterprise, for-
profit, or not.  This Order goes a long way toward protecting an open Internet for residents, small 
businesses, schools, libraries, patrons of coffee shops, bookstores, and the like, but I worry that 
those who may not fit into these categories will have to negotiate for access to the open Internet, 
and they may be denied such access.  We should carefully monitor whether an open Internet truly 
is available to all end users and correct course, if needed.  I also hope that the aforementioned 
Open Internet Advisory Committee can track any harmful effects for those end users who do not 
currently qualify for the protections adopted today and recommend Commission action as 
necessary.
Finally, earlier this year I stated my preference for the Commission’s legal authority over 
broadband Internet access service.  While the route taken here is not the one I originally 
preferred, I believe that it is appropriate for the Commission to act to protect an open Internet.  I 
know there will be many lawyers studying the legal authority cited in this Order in the weeks, 
months and perhaps years ahead, and judicial review ultimately will determine the fate of this 
Order.  I sincerely hope that the Commission’s authority to protect consumers’ access to an open 
Internet is upheld.  
Today, the Internet is as critical to the nation for communicating as our legacy telephone, 
broadcast, and mobile phone systems.  As described more fully in the Order, without an open 
Internet, consumers will have fewer choices and opportunities, which has the potential to impact 
many aspects of their lives—their ability to obtain an education, telecommute, look for a job, 
search information online, shop, make investment decisions, communicate with friends, family 
and colleagues, obtain news, and I could go on and on.  Accordingly, I believe that it is necessary 
and appropriate that broadband providers operate pursuant to a legal and policy framework that 
ensures the Internet remains open under the Commission’s watchful eye.