Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2021 / Rules and Regulations organizations and applications without impairing those not so managed. As we already concluded in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, prioritizing the packets for latency-sensitive applications will not typically degrade other applications sharing the same infrastructure, such as email, software updates, or cached video. The record here supports a similar conclusion for a wider array of applications, as well. As Rysavy Research explains, for example, prioritizing one application over another does not necessarily mean a poorer experience for the lower-priority applications. A video streaming application can tolerate considerable delay because the player buffers information, so a user watching a video will never notice some slightly-delayed data. . . . Because different applications have different needs, traffic management is not a zero-sum game.
As such, we find that commenters concerns that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order will lead to reduced speed for customers that do not pay extra for paid prioritization, resulting in harms to public safety, are not wellfounded.
47. Speculative Harm Communications by Individuals with Disabilities. We are not persuaded by the claims of some commenters that the regulatory approach adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order would detrimentally effect the safety of life and property for persons with disabilities.
We consider these arguments insofar as they relate to the public safety remand in Mozilla. To the extent that these comments raise other issues related to the effect of the Restoring Internet Freedom Orders regulatory approach on persons with disabilities, we do not reopen those issues from the Restoring Internet Freedom Order here and thus reject the arguments as outside the scope of this proceeding. Consistent with the Commissions commitment to communications services for individuals with disabilities, we conclude that the regulatory approach established in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order ultimately benefits public safety communications by individuals with disabilities in the same manner as public safety communications more generallyby encouraging competition and deployment. Further, as held in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, the regulatory approach adopted there does not significantly alter the regulatory landscape of statutory protections for communications by persons with disabilities.
48. In substantial part, the concerns raised about potential public safety
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:55 Jan 06, 2021

Jkt 253001

harm to persons with disabilities are the same harms commenters raise with respect to the public more generally from potential blocking, throttling, or paid prioritizationthat users broadband internet access service-based communications services needed for public safety reasons might be hindered by such ISP conduct and/or that users might pay more for broadband internet access services with capabilities that avoid such harms. To the extent that commenters simply raise the same concerns that we have considered and found unpersuasive in the case of the public more generally, we likewise reject them in the specific context of persons with disabilities for the same reasons.
49. Nor does the record persuade us that there are likely public safety harms in connection with services used specifically by persons with disabilities as a result of the regulatory approach adopted in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. The California Public Utilities Commission California PUC
contends that persons with disabilities increasingly rely upon internet-based video communications, both to communicate directly point-to-point with other persons who are deaf or hard of hearing who use sign language, and through video relay service, and that these applications often require significant bandwidth, making their use particularly sensitive to data caps and network management practices. As to data caps, however, neither the classification of broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service nor the Title II Orders bright line rules prevented such caps. Nor does the record demonstrate that the possibility of case-by-case review of data capswith its uncertain outcomeswould meaningfully address commenters hypothetical public safety concerns that data caps would hinder the functionality of services relied upon by persons with disabilities for public safety-related communications.
Commenters do not explain why they think the application of that case-bycase review would have addressed any theoretical concerns about public safety communications involving persons with disabilities. We do recognize that the use of broadband internet access service to facilitate video communications by persons with disabilities is distinct from the specific types of applications such as email, software updates, or cached video that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order identified as typically unlikely to be degraded by prioritization of latency-sensitive applications on the same facilities. In addition to the video
PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

1005

communications services cited by the California PUC, BBIC cites educational tools for persons with disabilities:
Remote Real-time Captioning for classes, E-Text through Bookshare.org Accessing and Downloading Accessible Text Books and the ability to access and download software including dictation software, screen readers, and Text To Speech Softwares. As a threshold matter, the nexus to public safety is unclear, particularly as it relates to the use of broadband internet access service by persons with disabilities to download books and software. We also find that downloading books and software are likely akin to the non-latency-sensitive uses of broadband internet access service that the Commission already held unlikely typically to be affected by prioritization of other traffic, and the record here does not demonstrate otherwise. With respect to Remote Real-time Captioning for classes, we are not persuaded that any public safety implications are materially different for that use of broadband internet access service than for others, like video communications, discussed in the text. To the extent that BBICs concern is about blocking or throttling of traffic, the Commission already rejected the likelihood of that in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, and we do not revisit that conclusion here.
Nor are we persuaded that there are public safety implications for these specific uses of broadband internet access service cited by BBIC that cannot adequately be addressed, if needed, through the marketplace or other laws given that their nature and context does not appear to involve the need for immediate communications to address imminent threats to life or property. But we do not find the likely effects on these services meaningfully different than our public safety analysis of the other video communications applications potentially used by the public more generally as raised by commenters in the record here. Indeed, there is no evidence of such harm occurring since the Restoring Internet Freedom Order took effect. Consequently, we reject public safety concerns about video applications used by persons with disabilities for the same reasons we reject public safety concerns raised in connection with other latency-sensitive over-the-top services used by the public more generally for public safety purposes. Although the record does not persuade us of likely public safety harms to communications involving persons with disabilities using video communications over broadband internet access service, should such
E:FRFM07JAR1.SGM

07JAR1