« Heading to Chicago for TECH Cocktail 2 | Main | pulver.tv: Catching up with FireAnt »
October 12, 2006
Me and You, Mike McCurry, on Neutral Turf (not your Astroturf) to Debate Communications Policy
I was conflicted about whether or not to respond to a recent astroturf mischaracterization and attack of my views. If you are reading this blog entry, I guess that means I have opted to respond.
Check out the hatchet job that Mike McCurry and the "Hands Off the Internet" astroturfers did on me and my speech at Fall VON, which they apparently never actually heard.
Here is their mischaracterization: Pulver-izing Logic
Here is the stream of what I actually said: (captured in Second Life by David Siegel).
Normally, when I am so seriously misunderstood or maligned for such obvious self-serving purposes, my inclination is not to shine a spotlight - attention tends to lead to further mischaracterizations and a dangerous ripple in perpetuity on the Web. In this case, however, the folks at Hands Off the Internet, the astroturf organization fronting for the Internet gatekeepers, so missed the point (and almost suggested that I was an advocate of child pornography) that I had to respond.
Now, to set the record straight, I am not an extreme advocate for Net Neutrality at all costs. I like to think I have developed a more nuanced approach that would recognize some need to encourage broadband investment by those with the deep pockets needed to bring us to the day of ubiquitous broadband. I, however, do not want users and would-be edge innovators to become captive to the financial self-interest of a few bottleneck access providers.
What I find particularly disturbing is that Mike McCurry has been co-opted to advance the astroturf agenda. First, let me state that I am a huge fan of Debbie Tate (even when I might disagree with her). Commissioner Tate, as she has been on every encounter, was most gracious in joining us for Fall VON in Boston last month. Commissioner Tate offered the VON Community a candid and logical assessment of where regulation is likely to go in order to protect Americans from potential social threats. All I suggested at VON is that regulators must remain vigilant to ensure that regulations are sufficiently narrowly tailored to resolve any immediate public policy objective while not stifling innovation.
Shame on Hands Off the Net for latching onto misleading secondary source material, taking my views out of context, and severely misinterpreting my views. Next time, come to VON and participate in the discussion.
So, it bothers me that Hands Off the Internet is fronted by former Clinton spin doctor Mike McCurry. His group is accusing me of doing "a flip". If anyone has done a flip, well it is you, Mr. McCurry.
If Mike McCurry has such venomous words for me because of my support for open networks, I wonder what he would have to say about Bill Clinton's support for open networks.
Back in 1993, before Mike McCurry even joined the Clinton White House, President Clinton had a vision for a broadband world with an open access mandate. In 1993, the President called for legislation that would eventually become the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Much of what President Clinton called for spurring the Internet was visionary and indeed enacted into law. Eventually, technological innovation that resulted from the Internet would drive two thirds of all economic growth - helping lead to the greatest economic expansion in American history.
To get there, President Clinton laid out 5 key principles for telecom reform. Number three was to "Provide Open Access to the Network"
Here is how Mr. McCurry's Vice President described it:
(http://clinton6.nara.gov/1994/01/1994-01-11-remarks-by-vice-president-al-gore.html)
"Our view of the entry of local telephone companies into cable
television also balances the advantages of competition against the
possibility of competitive abuse. ... But to increase diversity and
benefit consumers, we will permit telephone companies to provide video
programming over new, open access systems.
Even these measures, however, may not eliminate all scarcity in the
local loop -- those information byways that provide the last electronic
connection with homes and offices. For some time, in many places, there
are likely to be only one or two broadband, interactive wires, probably
owned by cable or telephone companies. In the long run, the local loop
may contain a wider set of competitors offering a broad range of
interactive services, including wireless, microwave and direct broadcast
satellite.
But, for now, we cannot assume that competition in the local loop will
end all of the accrued market power of past regulatory advantage and
market domination.
We cannot permit the creation of information bottlenecks that adversely
affect information providers who use the highways as a means of
supplying their customers.
Nor can we can permit bottlenecks for information consumers who desire
programming that may not be available through the wires that enter their
homes or offices.
Preserving the free flow of information requires open access, our third
basic principle. "
Specifically, the President laid his broadband proposal out this way:
(http://clinton6.nara.gov/1994/01/1994-01-25-white-paper-on-communications-act-reforms.html)
"The Administration proposes adding a new Title VII to the
Communications Act to apply, on an elective basis, to providers of
two-way, broadband, digital transmission services, offered on a switched
basis to end users. The Administration would emphasize these services
because, well into the 21st century, they will connect and empower the
American public by providing them with a variety of voice, data, video
services, and other information that will enhance our nation's economic
competitiveness and the quality of life of our citizens.
A new Title VII would provide a unified, symmetric treatment of
providers of two-way broadband services, in contrast to the present
disparate treatment of common carriers and cable operators under Titles
II and VI of the Act. It also would provide important incentives to
promote private sector development of this part of the NII and spur
availability of advanced services on a widespread basis. The
Administration recognizes that communications services are developing in
a rapidly changing technical and marketplace environment. A new Title
VII would create a regulatory regime that should stand the test of time
by providing the FCC with the flexibility to adapt its regulatory
approach in light of changes in market and technological conditions. "
Under these Title VII broadband services, President Clinton proposed a
new Title VII which "would impose the following broad requirements (to
be implemented by the FCC) to apply to Title VII broadband services and
the services that share broadband facilities with them: Open access
obligations (including access for the disabled) to enable all persons to
send information over the firms' broadband facilities"
A couple things stand out. First, the Clinton Administration had said more about promoting broadband by 1993 (their first year in office), then George Bush has said in the last 6 years. Second, if Mike McCurry had been a part of the Clinton policymaking team focused on accelerating Internet policies, he would have understood why open broadband networks are essential to economic growth and the vitality of the Internet. "Hands off the Internet" isn't just the name of McCurry's astroturf organizations, hands off is also the role McCurry played in the President's successful broadband policy.
So, I don't know with whom he is (Mc)Currying favors, but I think Bill Clinton got it right by understanding that when we got to a broadband world with two broadband providers (cable and bell) - we need to ensure nondiscriminatory and open access to the network by law.
So Mike McCurry, you missed the discussion on my turf; I take issue with your discussion on your astroturf; let's try to find common ground or at least a fair debate on neutral turf. ...and let's hope the Mets win the World Series on natural turf.
Tags: Mike McCurry, Astroturf, FCC, Jeff Pulver
Share this post:
Digg |
del.icio.us |
Reddit |
Newsvine |
Google Bookmark |
Yahoo MyWeb |
StumbleUpon
Posted by jeff on October 12, 2006 06:21 AM | Permalink
Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos
Comments
Jeff--
This is a smart and reasonable argument but I disagree 100%. Sorry I could not respond sooner. I have been traveling a lot during this campaign season trying to help elect a Democratic congress (I apologize for the partisan reference.)
My memory of the 1996 Telecomm Act is different. I recall some very specific meetings in which we debated whether the 20th century rules of telephony would work to govern this new "information highway" that was emerging. (Al Gore was there but he did not claim direct parentage.)
I remember President Clinton deciding that strong federal regulation of these new and emerging uses of data networks (remember -- that this was barely called the "internet" and the "world wide web" at this point) would not allow these technologies to prosper. I remember President Clinton deciding (intentionally) to keep the Internet largely free of the 1934 act rules that applied to telephony.
Remember that this became a big deal. One of my first consulting deals after leaving the White House was arguing that the Internet and broadband transmissions of data should not be subject to the telephone rules related to long-distance versus local service. Remember this? We argued as recently as 5 years ago about whether access to broadband should be counted as a long-distance rather than a local telephone call!!!
This is the craziness behind the debate about net neutrality. The advocates say - like they did on a PBS documentary last night -- that they want to "save the Internet as we know it today." Rep Ed Markey almost said that as a direct quote. If we save the Internet as it is today and do not let technologies to promote innovation and efficiency in managing the Internet, then we will get stuck with the "Internet as it is today" and not get anything that will allow us to handle the bandwith needs of the future.
This is really a big debate about what business model defines the Internet of the future. There are great issues about how to structure that market. But there is little about that debate that relates to what "the little guy" needs with respect to the emerging technology.
Your post here is really misleading and does not do a service to the memory I have of the debates about the 1996 act. I was in the West Wing at the time, but maybe your recollections are better?
I'd love to debate this but not until after Nov 8th because I am booked trying to get us a new Congress.
Let me know,
Mike McCurry
Posted by: Mike McCurry at October 20, 2006 09:08 PM
MyDD has more on Mr. McCurry and his crossover to lobbyist:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/25/32523/1903
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/4/24/174730/429
Huffington has more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/mike-mccurry-hurting-t_b_20216.html
So does Media Citizen:
http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/2006/05/mccurry-sells-out-to-att.html
And Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-33.htm
The bottom line appears to be that Mr. McCurry's credibility was already somewhat lacking before he pointed the spin gun at you, Jeff.
Christopher S. Penn, The Financial Aid Podcast
A Publication of the Student Loan Network
On-demand financial aid internet radio, no iPod required
http://www.FinancialAidPodcast.com
http://www.StudentLoanNetwork.com
Posted by: Christopher S. Penn, PodCamp Co-Founder at October 12, 2006 08:19 AM