Jonathan Spalter, chairman of Mobile Future, along with a chorus of others, is asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Chairman Julius Genachowski to end its quest to classify broadband Internet service under an outdated 1934 rotary telephone law. Spalter sees Title II classification having a major impact on the private sector investment that has kept the Internet industry alive and well even during the current economic downturn. Still, there is a way for Chairman Genachowski to get it right and empower this industry to continue its growth and innovation.
“I believe Genachowski can responsibly – and with broad consensus – ensure the future of an open Internet by first taking the courageous step of withdrawing his unilateral and controversial Third Way proposal. In its place, he should explicitly recognize that a decision to fundamentally alter the regulatory landscape, especially when it directly implicates the Internet, requires legislative action, and as a result, he should encourage lawmakers in Congress to take on the hard but important work of creating a new, bipartisan and workable framework for continued American growth, investment and innovation in the Internet.”
To read Jonathan Spalter’s entire article, click here.
Jason Alden has an article in Thursday’s Washington Post that discusses how we ended up at the Net neutrality cross roads and explains why we need to take the road most traveled and work with legislators.
“The FCC stands poised to reclassify broadband service providers as content carriers, a category that would subject them to the same sort of regulation that telephone companies are saddled with, even giving the FCC the ability to set rates. The agency’s chairman says that the FCC won’t use this power — but this could change in another administration. Such a move would be a serious step backward.”
After over a decade of “understood” Internet regulation, the FCC decided it should be the new regulatory body. This stemmed from a lost legal battle where a court ruled the FCC had no authority over Internet service providers. After all the recent debate, Alden still sees a compromise playing out in this order:
“… legislative enactment of something like the Google-Verizon plan, with an emphasis on transparency about decisions that providers are making. Giving the FCC the authority to nudge things in the right direction will be a good first step.”
Click here to read the entire article
Although Verizon EVP Tom Tauke intended to discuss broadband policy issues during his address to the Technology Policy Institute’s Aspen Forum, instead he focused on clarifying the Verizon-Google deal, or as he called it, “the elephant in the room.” After being at opposing ends of the debate on net neutrality, Google and Verizon have crafted a compromise position, which, as Tauke points out, meets public and government calls for openness and transparency.
John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable shared more from Tauke’s speech:
Tauke pointed out that the accord included signing on to the FCC’s openness principles and adopting a fifth nondiscrimination principle “is much tougher than any other non-discrimination principle that had been put on the table publicly before.”
…. Pointing out that many businesses use virtual private networks to allow them to access benefits and services, Tauke said consumers should not be denied the same opportunity to access other services in addition to the Internet…”
The idea that Tauke had to switch his speech from addressing broadband deployment and adoption to net neutrality can be seen as a metaphor for the broadband conversation at large. Let’s not forget to focus the dialogue on getting and keeping Americans connected!
While the U.S., in general, has seen a good deal of economic downturn, one industry is playing a critical role in financial recovery while also creating new jobs – the communications industry. In a CNN online editorial, Michael Mandel, founder of Visible Economy LLC, called for “countercyclical regulatory policy” in order to ensure that this positive economic development continues. Mandel writes:
“The communications sector is one of the few bright lights in an otherwise dismal economic picture. Facebook just reported its 500 millionth member; Droids are flying out of stores; and the iPad is the latest “must have” in technology. To enjoy the new toys, Americans are paying for more powerful mobile connections, too…
This strength signals that the broad communications sector can help drive recovery, because businesses that hire during a recession usually carry that strength into the subsequent upswing. If history is any guide, these job leaders may grow at least twice as fast as the rest of the economy during the next expansion.”
Because of this positive trend, Mandel argues, government should do everything it can to maintain a regulatory environment that promotes investment and innovation. He calls on Washington policymakers to “hitch a ride on the communications sector and find ways to stoke the jobs and spending engine a little bit.” But, Mandel states, “Proposals to regulate Internet activity now before the Federal Communications Commission would do the opposite.” So what do we need in order to continue this unprecedented growth?
“What’s needed from regulators now is some creativity and humility — in the form of “countercyclical regulatory policy.” This gives innovators a bit of breathing space at the start of an economic recovery, but sets the stage to tighten regulations later on if excesses develop…
This approach does not mean regulators can go to sleep nor does it mean they can raise the flag of laissez-faire. What’s needed is the nuanced judgment of sentries posted at a tense border spot. With watchful eyes, regulators must practice thoughtful restraint that allows space for job leaders to innovate and hire, while remaining ready to aggressively confront violations of law or abuses of consumer rights if they take place.”
Larry Downes focused his most recent paper on the “7 Deadly Sins” the FCC is embarking upon while it continues to push outdated 1934 style laws on a stable, well-working broadband Internet platform. A few weeks ago, in a San Francisco Chronicle opinion, Downes draws the conclusion that, “reclassification would impose onerous “common carrier” rules on network operators, rules that predate the invention of computers. It would open the door to micromanagement of the broadband industry, new consumer taxes and the chance state and local regulators have been waiting for to get into the rule-making game.”
In the newest of Downes’ documents, he takes an even closer look at the proposals in the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry (NOI) finding some rather alarming details for an even broader agenda to regulate the Internet. He calls the FCC proposal the “most dangerous expansion of federal power since the end of the Civil War.” Below are the “Seven Deadly Sins of Title II Reclassification (NOI Remix)”:
Pride: As the FCC attempts to define what services would be subjected to reclassification, the agency runs the risk of both under- and over-inclusion, which could harm consumers, network operators, and content and applications providers.
Lust: The agency is reaching out for additional powers beyond its reclassification proposals — including an effort to wrest privacy enforcement powers from the Federal Trade Commission and putting itself in charge of cybersecurity for homeland security.
Anger: The “Third Way” may dramatically expand the scope of federal wiretapping laws, requiring law enforcement “back doors” for a wide range of products and services.
Gluttony: Reclassifying broadband opens the door to state and local government regulation, which would overwhelm Internet access with a deluge of conflicting, and innovation-killing, laws, rules and new consumer taxes.
Sloth: As the FCC looks for a legal basis to defend reclassification, basic activities — such as caching, searching, and browsing — may for the first time be included in the category of services subject to “common carrier” regulation.
Vanity: Though wireless networks face greater challenges from the broadband Internet than wireline networks, the FCC seems poised to impose more, not less, regulation on wireless broadband.
Greed: Reclassification of broadband services could vastly expand the contribution base for the Universal Service Fund, adding new consumer fees while supersizing this important, but exceedingly wasteful, program.
A 50 member non-partisan group of top education minds from around the US, known as the Digital Learning Council, recently formed to help marry innovative technology and techniques in to public education. On Wednesday, headed by former Governors Jeb Bush and Bob Wise, the group announced their plan to move their objective forward.
The Digital Learning Council will “create a set of best practices that would cover a range of digital learning issues, including: online and virtual schools, classroom technology, equity, security and privacy, and digital content,” noted a blog post from EdReformer. The second phase of this plan will encourage states to adopt these new and innovative technologies to help push education to the next level.
Online learning is one of the fastest growing segments in education today. Companies such as K12 Inc and Apex Learning have been in the forefront of this type of technology based education. K12’s online public school program offers a high quality curriculum using online lessons and hands-on education materials for kindergarten through high school students. Apex Learning provides digital curriculum for secondary education to school districts using comprehensive, standards-based online courses to help schools engage students in coursework.
Check here to read the Digital Learning Council’s full release.
So what does all the current chatter about Net neutrality and the future of the Internet really mean? According to a recent piece in CNET, and cross posted on CNN Tech, it’s much ado about nothing. Most of the ongoing debates about Net neutrality are theoretical, about a potential threat that could possibly appear in the future. But if that’s the case, then why haven’t these threats appeared yet? The answer, according to the article by Marguerite Reardon titled, “Debunking the Internet apocalypse,” is market forces. Reardon writes:
“The truth is that if Verizon and AT&T wanted to cannibalize their broadband business with premium broadband services, they’d already be doing it. But they aren’t, because there hasn’t been a market for it.
The reality is that consumers are in control of what type of services are offered. If the public Internet can adequately deliver a service for free, then there’s no need to pay for it…”
Reardon also focuses on the fact that a vast majority of Americans not only have access to multiple broadband provides, but 91% of customers are “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with their broadband service. She continues:
“While it’s true some consumers have access to only one broadband provider, nearly 70 percent of Americans have access to at least two broadband providers, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
In short, Verizon [or any other of America’s over 1,400 broadband providers] would be cutting off its nose to spite its face if it skimped on broadband capacity to feed its managed service business.”
To read the entire piece, click here.
Please join NextGenWeb for the first installment of their new event series “Broadband Connections–Meet the people powering the broadband revolution.” Each series will feature a discussion with prominent thought leaders and decision makers from various backgrounds to discuss pertinent Internet and broadband policy issues of the day.
The first discussion will feature Graham Richard, former Indiana state senator, former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and business entrepreneur. Dubbed the “broadband mayor” by his peers for achievements during his two terms in office, Richard has received national awards for his technology leadership, and is a popular speaker across the country on issues pertaining to broadband and local government.
What: Broadband Connections featuring Mayor Graham
Richard
Topic: Broadband innovations to retain and gain jobs,
promote broadband adoption, encourage high
performance government and improve healthcare
When: Thursday, August 12 at 10:00am
Where: USTelecom Association
Executive Conference Center
607 14th Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
RSVP: info@nextgenweb.org
Even though its August, a historically slow month in Washington, DC, that hasn’t stopped the FCC from engaging in meetings with key stakeholders regarding Net neutrality and broadband classification discussions.
With those conversations taking place, NextGenWeb wanted to track down leading thinkers and important voices that have recently published opinion pieces on the issue of broadband governance and classification. Our search brought us to Hance Haney of the Discovery Institute.
Haney recently had a special opinion piece published in the Sacramento Bee where he laid out the negative consequences that increased broadband regulation would have on jobs. Referring to the FCC’s apparent inclinations to regulate broadband, Haney stated, “It’s an aggressive play that will almost certainly land in court, and the results will have serious long-term impacts to consumers and small businesses throughout the country, including future job growth.”
NextGenWeb caught up with Haney to further discuss his position. Click below to watch the interview.
social networking