« Senate Extends Telephone Privacy Rules to VoIP Providers | Main | Kinnernet 2006 - Day 1: »
March 30, 2006
An Awfully Full Day of Discussion on Internet and Communications Policy in Congress:
(as reported to me by our man in Washington – my “Wartime Consigliere”, Jonathan Askin)
First of all, we would be remiss if we did not draw attention to yesterday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on “Digital Content and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 21st Century Consumer.” The panel included Blake Krikorian (Sling Media), John Feehery (MPAA), Jim Denney (TiVo), Stevan Mitchell (Entertainment Software Association). Blake was particularly great -- forthright, reasonable, enthusiastic, comfortable. The House members present were, generally, not especially favorably predisposed to innovative digital technology and revealed some sympathies to those that would restrict content distribution/redistribution. I don't know how Blake could have done anything more, or differently, to win over the Committee Members. I thought the transformative ideas that Blake, in particular, was trying to convey fell on deaf ears.
I wish there could have been more members, more staff, and more media present to hear Blake’s passion and vision of the digital future. To me, this was a much more compelling discussion on the future of the Internet and communications (and highlighted where the current laws fall short of enabling transformative technologies, products and services), then the same old tired discussions that the House and Senate considered today – rehashing the old battles of the last millennium between cable and Bell, between ILEC and CLEC, between one powerful special interest and another. Blake tried to show Congress what the future could look like, with the right policy framework. Standing room only to hear what the hired guns of the cable companies and Bell companies and the legacy trade associations have to say about how the future could look? Uh, thanks, but no thanks. Virtually no attendance for Blake’s vision? I’ll take Blake’s vision of the future any day. It is a shame that his hearing did not draw the overflow crowd.
***
Back to the present …
There were two hearings and a mark-up today in Congress, covering various aspects of Internet and Communications policy.
House Hearing:
The House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (“COPE”) of 2006 (aka "Son of a BITS III" or "Grandson of a BITS"), which generally frees the Bells of video franchising obligations but also includes some additional provision of import to Internet communications providers (most notably tepid “Net Neutrality” punting to the FCC,). (See my blog from March 27, for our initial views on the implications of the COPE Bill on IP-based communications).
There was a lot of partisan rhetoric strewn around during the ALL DAY House Committee Hearing and some 12-14 witnesses spouting platitudes without much delving into the serious and subtle nuances of the discussion.
Mr. Markey gave a wonderful opening statement championing Net Neutrality. He also pelted the witnesses throughout the day with brilliant, and pointed, questions, underscoring the need for a policy framework to protect the embryonic, and yet-to-be-conceived, Internet applications, products, technologies and services. It is great to see him in action fighting for competition and the open Internet. For those of you familiar with Dr. Seuss (and our recently-revealed fondness for the late Doctor), I would have to single out Mr. Markey as “The Lorax” of the largely-voiceless, undoubtedly under-represented, would-be Internet innovators and enthusiasts.
Mr. Boucher also stood out as a champion in support of maintaining the integrity and potential of the open Internet. I am honored that Mr. Boucher will be speaking at our Freedom-to-Connect conference in Silver Spring next week. www.pulver.com/f2c
Jersey’s native son, Rep. Pallone, touched on the needs of the Internet communications community in ensuring a better emergency response capability. It was good to hear at least one of the members touch on the emergency response issue in what seemed to be a positive manner, rather than just spouting rhetoric about the need for VoIP providers to provide backward-compatible, cookie-cutter E-911 capabilities.
Mr. Pickering, needless to say, was great (although less vocal than I would have expected). I assume he did the best he could under the circumstances to incorporate as much pro-Internet, pro-competition language within the COPE Bill. Mr. Pickering was one of the co-sponsors (and clearly the most pro-competitive, pro-Internet sponsor) of the Bill. I think his efforts fell short (at least on the Net Neutrality and E-911 for VoIP front), but I know he gave it his best effort and pushed the other sponsors as far as he could. I am grateful that he is in there trying to champion the cause. Without his efforts, the Bill would have likely been much worse from an Internet innovator’s, entrepreneur’s and user’s perspective.
***
Senate Activity:
Concurrent with the House Hearing on COPE, the Senate Commerce Committee held a Committee mark-up on S. 2389, the Protecting Consumer Phone Records Act. The Mark-up occurred simultaneously with the House Hearing. Given the overflow crowd on the House side, I am not sure who made it over to the Senate for the Mark-up. (I posted a blog on the result of the Senate Mark-up earlier today)
At 3:15 pm, the Senate Commerce Committee held a Committee hearing on Competition and Convergence. The House Hearing lasted all day, and we could not make it over to the Senate. Unlike the Bells or Cable companies or other large industry players, we do not have more than one lone person in DC to cover all the auspicious events of the Day. It turns out that watching the Senate Hearing over Ev-DO from the House Energy and Commerce Committee Meeting room (with computer on mute) did not allow for a reasonable understanding of what went on Senate-side. A class in lip reading might have helped (or, at least, a set of earphones). Anyone have any knowledge of anything worth reporting at the Senate Hearing?
Frankly, as the Senate Hearing kicked-in, I think folks grew tired of the House Hearing. What was overflow-room only access all morning became a pretty empty House Committee Meeting room and the energy definitely petered out. I, however, opted to stay House-side, assuming that a hearing on an existing Bill was more relevant than the same-old-same-old, speculative Hearing on Competition and Convergence.
I still hold out hope that when the Senate holds its Hearing on VoIP (which was rescheduled because of Spring VON), that I will be allowed to testify and share my vision of an IP-enabled future and the policy framework that might best realize this vision.
***
Overall Observations:
I was concerned that there really was no one speaking today specifically on behalf of the VoIP or Internet communications community. Sure, Jeff Citron spoke on behalf of Vonage’s business interests (much of which benefits the broader Internet communications community) and Paul Misener spoke on behalf of Amazon’s business interests (much of which benefits the broader Internet application providers – Paul Misener was especially lucid in promoting the Net Neutrality point of view), but no one spoke, more purely, for the would-be innovators and entrepreneurs really trying to drive Web 2.0 and revolutionize the communications and Internet experience.
Perhaps, Mr. Markey was the closest thing the Internet innovators and users had as an advocate, but it would have been nice to have at least one of the 12-14 panelists share his passion and commitment for the Internet. Has Mr. Markey emerged as the Seussian “Lorax” who speaks for the, largely voiceless, would-be Internet innovators and enthusiasts? I also have to give kudos to Mr. Boucher for flexing his intellect and conscience and demonstrating his commitment to protect the open Internet.
So many witnesses and we without our own voice? This is disturbing. We as a community need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the voice of the would-be Internet innovators, entrepreneurs and enthusiasts are truly heard and considered.
Now is the time for us -- those driving the communications and Internet revolution -- to participate in the dialogue within the Beltway. We cannot leave it to the powerful business interests (even those that currently have many overlapping concerns with us, but are ultimately motivated by their own bottom line). If we do not participate, the rules will be written by those who neither know our concerns nor have our best interests at heart.
I must also note, again, the fortunate timing of release of the COPE Bill with our upcoming Freedom-to-Connect Conference on April 3-4 in DC. www.pulver.com/f2c/ I suspect that we will delve deeply into the nuances and consequences of the draft legislation and other efforts to reframe the policy structure governing the Internet and communications. Join us at F2C in the Beltway next Monday and Tuesday (coincidentally, the House Committee will mark up the COPE Bill RIGHT AFTER F2C at 5 pm on Tuesday, April 4). Let's make sure that Congress hears our voices as it rewrites the rules that will shape the future of the Internet and communications. We have to become a force with which to be reckoned.
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on March 30, 2006 04:42 PM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
Lost in these discussions is the very real point that there is no problem about net neutrality. No content is being blocked. What's being talked about is what might happen and I fear that in trying to fix something before it breaks is that it will only hurt more than it could ever possibly help. Let competition serve as the deterrent, not Congress.
Posted by: pkp646 at April 5, 2006 01:49 AM