AL FRANKEN 
M INNESOTA 
tinitro ~tatrs ~rnatr 
WASHINGTON , DC 20510-2309 
April29, 2014 
The Honorable Tom Wheeler, Chainnan 
Federal Communications Commission 
445 12th Street, SW 
Washington, DC 20554 
Dear Chairman Wheeler, 
I am deeply disappointed that you are considering rules that would allow deep-
pocketed companies to pay for preferential access to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) . 
Pay-to-play deals are an affront to net neutrality and have no place in an online 
marketplace that values competition and openness. This proposal would create an online 
"fast lane" for the highest bidder-shutting out small businesses and increasing costs for 
consumers. I strongly urge you to reconsider this misguided approach and recommit to 
protecting the Open Internet for all Americans. 
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the FCC's Open Internet Order 
last January, I wrote you urging the Commission to "take any and all appropriate actions 
necessary to preserve net neutrality." Instead, you appear to be taking the opposite 
approach. Sanctioning pay-to-play arrangements would not preserve the Open Internet-
it would destroy it. 
Your proposal would grant Verizon, Comcast, and other ISPs the power to pick 
winners and losers on the Internet, which violates core net neutrality principles that you 
have publicly supported in the past. Although you claim that this proposal is not a 
"turnaround," it is difficult to understand how it does not flatly contradict your own 
Commission's Open Internet Order, which stated: 
"[I]fbroadband providers can profitably charge edge providers for 
prioritized access to end users, they will have an incentive to degrade or 
decline to increase the quality of the service they provide to non-
prioritized traffic. This would increase the gap in quality (such as latency 
in transmission) between prioritized access and non-prioritized access, 
induce more edge providers to pay for prioritized access, and allow 
broadband providers to charge higher prices for prioritized access . Even 
more damaging, broadband providers might withhold or decline to expand 
capacity in order to 'squeeze' non-prioritized traffic, a strategy that would 
increase the likelihood of network congestion and confront edge providers 
with a choice between accepting low-quality transmission or paying fees 
for prioritized access to end users." 
WWW. FRANKEN.SENATE.GOV 
SUITE 
SH-309 
202- 224-5641 
430
In this Order, the Commission correctly identified pay-to-play deals as an anticompetitive 
threat to the Internet and to consumers. But rather than continue to fight this threat, your 
new proposal appears to embrace it. By creating a "commercial reasonableness" rule, the 
Commission would be formally sanctioning the very deals it sought to combat less than 
three years ago. 
Struggling to craft a "commercially reasonable" standard misses the point: Pay-to-
play arrangements are inherently discriminatory and anticompetitive, and therefore 
should be prohibited as a matter of public policy. They increase costs for consumers and 
give ISPs a disincentive to improve their broadband networks-undermining the FCC's 
mission to protect the public interest and strengthen the nation's broadband infrastructure. 
The Commission wisely recognized the fundamental problems with pay-to-play 
arrangements three years ago, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to your 
Commission's substantive judgment on this issue, as well. I urge you to recommit to this 
judgment. The Internet was developed at taxpayers' expense to benefit the public interest. 
It belongs to all of us. The FCC should be working to sustain competition and consumer 
benefits, not creating unnecessary tolls for businesses and consumers. 
Thank you for your attention to this mgent matter. I look forward to continuing to 
work with you on this vitally important issue. 
Sincerely, 
United States Senator 
2