« When Will the Academy Awards Recognize the Disruptive Nature of the Internet? | Main | Internet Tech Caucus and Technology Fair: Tonight in DC »
February 07, 2006
Talk about Port Blocking - The Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on Net Neutrality:
Jonathan Askin went down to the Senate today, only to discover that, sometimes, the physical world is more impenetrable than the virtual world. While Jonathan was not able to get through the physical gateway (the door) leading to the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on Net Neutrality, he was able to able to get through the virtual gateway (courtesy of the Senate's WiFi network) to listen in on the Committee Hearing. Although Jonathan was only 3 feet from the hearing room, he could just as readily have participated from a broadband connection half-way around the world.
... with a few glitches ...
Apparently, there was at least one moment when the video stream delivered over the Senate's WiFi connection failed Jonathan. Ironically enough, it occurred at the precise moment when Walter McCormick, President of USTA, the trade association for the Bells and other ILECs, was stating: "We will not block, we will not impair, we will not degrade." So in the hallway outside the Hearing Room, that quote resonated in a perpetual loop for several minutes. Let's hope that promise resonates outside the corridors of the Senate.
The other problem? The Senate Hearing was only available via Real Networks (I am sure it is only a coincidence that Real's former Executive, Senator Cantwell, sits on the Commerce Committee). In any event, Jonathan had to first download Real, and decline all its efforts to serve as his default media player.
... but back to the Hearing.
The Internet's great champion, Senator Sununu was not present.
Senator Wyden (no longer a member of the Commerce Committee) was terrific and announced that he would be introducing a Net Neutrality Bill. We have met with his staff and are confident that Sen. Wyden is on the right track and will prove to be a great statesman for the Internet.
Sen. Boxer was also quite eloquent in her desire to ensure Net Neutrality and to preserve the open nature of the Internet.
Lawrence Lessig was also brilliant as usual, eloquently setting forth the need to preserve a free and open Internet. He suggested that Congress should be "conservative" and learn from the past, to ensure a framework that promotes competition, not only for broadband access, but also for Internet applications.
Prof. Lessig argued that the proposals put forward by the Internet access providers and floating around the Hill in the form of communications reform legislation, are suggesting unnecessary, radical change. The concept of net neutrality (if not the phrase itself) is an old principle. In fact, it has been the basis upon which the computing industry, the Internet and telecom have grown over the past 40 years.
Prof. Lessig suggested that Congress look to the past and learn its lessons before radically changing the rules. He noted that we should worry more for the Googles and Yahoos of tomorrow, the innovative Internet applications that we might never see if the free and open Internet is not ensured.
Lessing concluded with an analogy to the person who sold his soul and noticed that nothing happened. He suggested that in order to meet the demands of ubiquitous broadband as promised by the Internet access providers, Congress is in danger of selling its soul. And we will not know for several years just what damage we have wrought by selling our soul and sacrificing the free and open Internet.
I am glad we have Prof. Lessig kicking off the Spring 2006 VON Policy Summit on March 14.
----
Here are some more specifics and highlights, quotes and paraphrases:
Opening Statements:
Stevens: This is one of the most important issues and will determine whether broadband providers invest, and whether the Internet is kept open and free.
Inouye: "According to recent press reports, network operators are planning to charge application providers additional fees for access to their broadband networks. This is ample cause for concern."
Wyden: "Powerful interests who own the pipes and access to the Internet are trying to break the Net. These special interests want to expand their control over Internet access to the limitless world of content ... Some of these cable and phone companies are trying to discriminate in the delivery of content. They are saying that instead of making available to everyone the same content at the same price, they want to set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites. ... I will shortly introduce legislation that will make sure all information is made available on the same terms ... First, it will assure that information from a company like J. Crew is not treated worse than information from a company like LL Bean. Second, it will assure that a company like Comcast that offers Internet access does not give preferential treatment to its own information bits compared to information bits from another company, like Yahoo. Third, broadband service providers should not be able to create private networks that are superior to the Internet access they offer consumers generally. "
Panel 1:
Mr. Vinton Cerf
Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
* Said, broadband providers around the world have achieved faster
services, at lower rates, without impairing service.
Mr. Walter McCormick
President and CEO, United States Telecom Association
* Their members will not block, impair or degrade applications or
services - all without legislative mandate.
Mr. Jeffrey Citron
Chairman and CEO, Vonage
* The electric company doesn't care which toaster you use, nor does it
give your refrigerator priority on electricity ahead of your toaster.
Mr. Kyle McSlarrow
President and CEO, National Cable & Telecommunications Association
* Net Neutrality rules are not neutral - they pick winners and losers.
Mr. Earl Comstock
President and CEO, CompTel
* The Internet succeeded because of key decisions Congress made around
the 1996 Act - based on common carriage. The committee should take credit
for what it did right. The answer to quality of service is bandwidth.
Questions for Panel 1:
Stevens -
* Why wouldn't Google invest in its own broadband pipes?
o Cerf: Google does invest, but doesn't make sense to be the broadband provider. Instead others are making money on broadband access.
Are any Bell companies limiting capacity - says some testimony suggests it is
o McCormick: No. we are building new networks. Will not block or degrade any application or service
* Are any US providers, other than Vonage, blocking?
o Citron: In the wake of Brand X, the FCC has no provider. Small providers still do block, Vonage contacts them, and in some cases Vonage customers can't use the broadband for Vonage.
* Doesn't there need to be an arbiter like the FCC to ensure there are no gatekeepers?
o Comstock: Responded to others.
Dorgan:
o Should take credit for some good things in the 1996 act. But as U.S. has fallen to 16th in broadband penetration, have the other countries swept ahead by erecting barrier to content?
o Cerf: Other countries ahead of us in broadband penetration have open broadband pipes
o 46% of consumer in North Dakota don't have choices in broadband providers, but asked about Verizon comments.
o McCormick: They won't block or impair. Very difficult to legislate in hypotheticals. They will offer today's Internet tomorrow - but at faster speeds.
o We wouldn't have these issues, if broadband isn't a telecom but information service. Dorgan says he is on the side of freedom of the Internet.
Ensign:
o We don't have the financial incentives for networks being built. Wants to see Bell Companies forced by Cable companies to invest and be better. Competition will force the promises to be kept. How are the financial incentives for building out the network?
o Cerf: Those that have built these networks, have recovered their costs as reasonable rates - like $50 a month.
o Citron: The key question is what creates the proper economic incentives. When it's scarce, prices rise.
o McCormick: Today's markets is not characterized by any bottlenecks.
o McSlarrow: Today's market is working
Pryor:
o Competition is good for the marketplace. Real competition is fair competition. Does Vonage pay into Universal Service?
o Citron: Yes we pay both federal and state universal fees - through their telecom providers. Would probably be true for other VoIP providers as well.
o Should everyone pay
o Citroen: congress should look at it, and perhaps consider broadband?
o Does Vonage have a wish list on Universal Service?
o Citron: If they pay, they should be able to take out?
o To Earl, should it be changed and how?
o Comstock: The decision to treat broadband as an information service creates problems for universal service.
Allen:
o Competition is critical. As we get to better wireless - like wi-max. How would wi-max and satellite create competition?
o Cerf: There are technologies that are feasible, but that doesn't mean there is competition. 700 Mhz TV bands have great opportunity.
o Earl: May come in the future, but the practical realities mean real hurdles.
o Do you pass a law now, or do it later to put the genie back in the bottle.
Boxer:
o Placed BusinessWeek article in the record, and read about Cerf on toll booths n the Internet. Documents show that 80% of Verizon's traffic is reserved for itself. The Bell companies have army's of lobbyists compared to Google's one? Bell companies are saying its not an issue:
o McCormick: The U.S. is behind. Google has given up its users' freedom in China.
o Physicians in California are saying, if you pay more, you get first treatment. The people left out get nurses - it's not the same quality. What happens to the people we represent. Very worried about the future.
Stevens:
Confused that other countries are ahead, but we are still at the engineering phase. We are getting fast speeds at universities, but only 15 megabits to others.
Panel 2:
Mr. Kyle Dixon
Senior Fellow and Director of the federal Institute for Regulatory Law &
Economics, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
o Avoid rules that do more harm than good. Rules would neither be simple or harmless. A mandate could harm consumers - because providers couldn't block worms and viruses. If there were market power problems, antitrust rules could be used. Don't make net neutrality rules become the problem.
Mr. J. Gregory Sidak
Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
o There is a lot we already know. How do we create incentive for building the network. There is not a problem of net neutrality that requires legislation. Market forces will prevent harm. Ramsey pricing shows us how. There is value to someone placing a call, and someone receiving a call - and two willingnesses to pay.
Mr. Lawrence Lessig
Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
o Wants to address four points.
1. Congress should be conservative
2. Congress should promote competition in both pipes and services
3. These issues that are not a radical change, it is under these principles that have enabled the Internet and other countries to deploy broadband. These old ideas are being replaced by old principles. Look the lessons of the past.
4. The changes that are being described by at&t and Verizon would radically reduce competition. The only companies who could afford access to the fast lane are big companies. Small companies couldn't pay, thus innovation and competition stifled.
Mr. Gary Bachula
Vice President for External Affairs, Internet2
Technologies of the future are being developed by end users. Far more cost effective to provide more bandwidth, than to invest in QoS technologies. Rather than introduce new complexity into the network, provider should focus on providing users an abundance of bandwidth. Should be a national goal of 100 Mbits/sec to every American- which wouldn't require rationing of pipes.
Questions for Panel 2:
Stevens:
o Does the 1996 Act need replacement, or are a few amendments sufficient. Can Internet2 be expanded to the public?
o Bachula: There are not engineering limitations. Every American could benefit from Internet2 speeds.
o What about what we are seeing in other countries?
o Bachula: Cited a France municipal broadband option internationally who is doing it.
Allen:
o The guiding principles of the Internet are its openness. Troubled by the fact that we are behind in broadband. Don't want to see governments regulating the Internet. How did it work in France, was it the private sector or the government?
o Lessig: In France, it's a combination of both the government and private sector.
o Dixon: In a competitive environment, new rules aren't necessary
o Sidak: When studying EU, they found that competition was key driver - not unbundling.
Boxer:
o What if Microsoft was able to charge more for access to its search engine, at the expense of Google.
o Lessig: Would have restricted innovation.
o What fosters net neutrality - is there anything the FCC or Congress done to foster net neutrality.
o Sidak: Never have done anything to foster it.
o Lessig: Carterphone and other rules let Internet thrive here, while it held other behind.
o Inouye, how do you respond to those who argue that if we don't allow network providers to charge more, they can't build it out?
o Lessig: Google can afford it. But competitors can't compete with Google video if Google video can but the fast lane.
Allen:
o Tiered pricing issue didn't get enough debate at this hearing.
Stevens:
o Comstock spoke about common carrier versus information services.
Does it need to be reconsidered.
o Lessig: Does need to be reconsidered whether or not broadband needs to go back under title II, or just apply net neutrality.
o Sidak: Old regulatory boxes no loner apply.
###
Tags: Net Neutrality, voip, Jeff Pulver
(c) 2006 Jeff Pulver. All Rights Reserved.
(This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed.)
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on February 7, 2006 07:42 PM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
I think these discussions are missing a key part of the "network" that needs some neutrality thrown into it and that is the data networks that are available via wireless providers. Why is that because I am getting internet to a mobile device the data providers are allowed to restrict what I can get and where I can go??
Posted by: Andrew at February 9, 2006 11:52 PM