The Jeff Pulver Blog: House Subcommittee on Telecom and the Internet Debates IP-based communications (Voice and Video) and Focuses on Net Freedom:

« The FCC's Ongoing Game of Charades with VoIP E-911, Congress, the DC Circuit, the Industry and Users (At least Charades Does Not Include a "Voice" Application): | Main | The Return of Ben Charny: A Most Excellent Story for eWeek »

November 09, 2005

House Subcommittee on Telecom and the Internet Debates IP-based communications (Voice and Video) and Focuses on Net Freedom:

Jonathan Askin and I tried to make it back to DC this morning from Atlanta for the House Energy and Committee, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing on draft legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services. We certainly cannot be critical of our colleagues in IP-based communications if we are not actively engaged ourselves.

We ended up getting back to DC at 1 pm and were stuck on the airplane for a while thereafter due to a security breach at Reagan National Airport. At that point, Jonathan and I had to divide the duties for the day, so he went down to cover the Hearing with a physical presence, while I had to opt for more limited, EvDO-enabled virtual presence through the Webcast. As an Internet evangelist, I hate to admit it, but participating in the physical world still beats Internet-based participation - I ask again, where is the real-time 3D holographic imaging that George Lucas foreshadowed 30 years ago with the first R2D2 unit?

In any event, the Hearing started at 10 am and the first panel (a cross-section of Industry representatives, including both Internet Access providers like SBC, and application providers like Microsoft) was not completed until 2:30 pm.

I was pleasantly surprised by the level of discourse, and the subject and tenor of the debate. Most of the discussion seemed to center around net neutrality and how best to achieve it. If that continues to be the primary topic of the debate as Congress explores communications policy reform, perhaps the results will be better than I had feared. After all, who could legitimately argue with promoting consumer empowerment and net freedom? The debate would have to focus on how best to achieve that laudable goal - pre-existing rules or after-the-fact enforcement. SBC and the cable rep did, however, spend a lot of time obfuscating the issue with concerns over network management and security and the confusion, regulatory support, and litigation that would result from guessing what Congress meant when it codified net neutrality. Frankly, I think more confusion and litigation would ensue if the industry did not have some guidance of what constitutes unlawful behavior in violation of net neutrality.

Earthlink and Microsoft seemed particularly lucid in their technological expertise and in their plea for connectivity principles. Frankly, it was good to see Microsoft step up in support of the issue so publicly, particularly in light of its IP-TV relationship with SBC.

What was best to see was Mr. Markey, ranking member of the Subcommittee rise to the occasion. I have not heard too much from Markey in recent months about communications policy reform, but he sounded like a bona fide champion for consumer empowerment and net freedom. At one point, he indicated that he tended to believe Microsoft more than SBC when it came to whether or not there are network management and security problems that should compel some degree of control over Internet access that might tend to preclude delivery of Internet-based applications. I tended to believe Microsoft more also. In fact, when Jim Ellis of SBC was asked about Ed Whitacre's comments regarding charging for the delivery of voice applications over the Internet, he attempted to obscure the debate by distinguishing between rights and obligations on public Internet versus the private Internet. Ellis stated that SBC's video services would never touch the public Internet. Microsoft and Earthlink, as well as Mr. Markey, called into question precisely how they would prevent use of the public Internet when their customers are using the video service. SBC also avoided the question of whether Whitacre's comments meant that they would discriminate in some way other than out and out blocking.

As I indicated, I did miss the early hours of the Hearing, so I might have missed some Congressional Member involvement, but, by the time I checked in, there were not many Members engaging the panelists. As best I could tell, Mr. Markey came across as the champion for the Internet. I will continue to watch as the debate plays out through the next Term.

I am looking forward to gaining new insights tomorrow at our next Peripheral Visionaries' Summit from others who participated in or observed the Hearing.

Tags: voip, sbc, communications, policy