Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Saving the Net: Idealism vs. Practicality
Last Wednesday, November 9, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Internet, held a hearing (webcast archive.ram) on the latest discussion draft (.pdf) of the current proposal for the Next Telecom Bill.
Vint Cerf, who could not attend the hearing because he was busy getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House, sent a letter to the Subcommittee that was read into the record at the hearing. It was so idealistic (and correct) that it has a snowball's chance in the congressional cauldron.
Vint's letter said, in part:
I audited the House hearing on Nov. 9 via Webcast. Representatives Markey and Boucher, the only apparent netheads on the Subcommittee, expressed dismay with weakening of network neutrality rules from Draft 1 (9/15) to Draft 2 (11/3). Both addressed the issue of whether the carriers would reserve enough capacity so the basic BITS (that is, Internet Access) service would usefully support present and future Internet apps, and both expressed concern that carriers might impair (or prevent growth of) their basic BITS offering to favor their VOIP and Video offerings.
Boucher and Markey seemed to be thinking about a rule to mandate that BITS providers would not introduce such impairments. This might be a reasonable compromise EXCEPT that I can't imagine any such rule that would be (a) practically enforceable and (b) light-handed so as not to be subject to pages and pages of FCC regulations, followed by slow-rolling, litigation, weakening by FCC interpretation -- in other words, a replay of the 1996 Act at its worst.
On an Internet that coexists with voice and video carve-outs, carriers operating services with conflicting needs would find themselves in the same untenable bind that the '96 Act's unbundling put the carriers in over the last decade.
In the current situation, the "enshrined" voice and video services come with a well-known business model. The other service, Internet connectivity, when application-neutral, provides an alternate way to get those same services either "for free" or by attracting customer fees to other loci. Both kinds draw on the same network resources. Thus, the carrier will be motivated to favor voice and video rather than the new, self-competitive alternative. If Congress made a rule that would mandate how carriers must treat their BITS service, and the rule's specs deviated from the carrier's perceived business interests, I can only foresee a failed law.
On the other hand, a "lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule . . . to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive," would require significant restructuring (of industry and/or government) to be both lightweight and enforceable. I can't imagine how such a proposal could possibly become law in the current congress!
I sure would like to find a way to make real legislative progress towards that "lightweight but enforceable" rule without making the same mistakes we've already made. But without a constituency for such a rule, I despair.
Suggestions anybody?
Vint Cerf, who could not attend the hearing because he was busy getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House, sent a letter to the Subcommittee that was read into the record at the hearing. It was so idealistic (and correct) that it has a snowball's chance in the congressional cauldron.
Vint's letter said, in part:
Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services [i.e., Voice telephony and video -- David I] and to potentially interfere with others would . . . not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need.*snip*
As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.He is certainly right, but currently there is currently no congressional constituency for a single Internet, regulated uniformly, without voice and video carve-outs.
I audited the House hearing on Nov. 9 via Webcast. Representatives Markey and Boucher, the only apparent netheads on the Subcommittee, expressed dismay with weakening of network neutrality rules from Draft 1 (9/15) to Draft 2 (11/3). Both addressed the issue of whether the carriers would reserve enough capacity so the basic BITS (that is, Internet Access) service would usefully support present and future Internet apps, and both expressed concern that carriers might impair (or prevent growth of) their basic BITS offering to favor their VOIP and Video offerings.
Boucher and Markey seemed to be thinking about a rule to mandate that BITS providers would not introduce such impairments. This might be a reasonable compromise EXCEPT that I can't imagine any such rule that would be (a) practically enforceable and (b) light-handed so as not to be subject to pages and pages of FCC regulations, followed by slow-rolling, litigation, weakening by FCC interpretation -- in other words, a replay of the 1996 Act at its worst.
On an Internet that coexists with voice and video carve-outs, carriers operating services with conflicting needs would find themselves in the same untenable bind that the '96 Act's unbundling put the carriers in over the last decade.
In the current situation, the "enshrined" voice and video services come with a well-known business model. The other service, Internet connectivity, when application-neutral, provides an alternate way to get those same services either "for free" or by attracting customer fees to other loci. Both kinds draw on the same network resources. Thus, the carrier will be motivated to favor voice and video rather than the new, self-competitive alternative. If Congress made a rule that would mandate how carriers must treat their BITS service, and the rule's specs deviated from the carrier's perceived business interests, I can only foresee a failed law.
On the other hand, a "lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule . . . to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive," would require significant restructuring (of industry and/or government) to be both lightweight and enforceable. I can't imagine how such a proposal could possibly become law in the current congress!
I sure would like to find a way to make real legislative progress towards that "lightweight but enforceable" rule without making the same mistakes we've already made. But without a constituency for such a rule, I despair.
Suggestions anybody?
Technorati Tags: F2C, NetworkNeutrality, OpenAccess, Regulatorium, VintCerf
Comments:
Post a Comment
