I can’t believe this is my last “official” post for NextGenWeb, as I begin a new opportunity that—like broadband—can help change our world.
I want to thank everyone in the NextGenWeb community for making this such an educational and rewarding experience these past two and a half years.
I believe quite passionately in broadband’s potential to improve our economy and our lives. The stories shared here at NextGenWeb—from educators to community leaders, doctors to network engineers—have inspired me at every turn to work hard to ensure our nation does not erect barriers to the amazing progress that the high-speed Internet is bringing into our lives and making possible for our country.
I have been proud these last eight years to represent the companies that are making our nation’s connected future possible—investing more than $60 billion each year to expand and upgrade U.S. high-speed infrastructure. And, I am equally proud of this community we formed here at NextGenWeb. We may not always have agreed (after all, what fun would THAT be?), but we created together this unique destination for thoughtful and civil dialogue in this important high-stakes debate.
We have a big year ahead for our connected nation. This Thursday, President Obama will convene his White House Summit on Jobs and Economic Growth. He will then travel to Copenhagen to take part in international talks on global climate change. In the new year, health care reform and economic renewal will top the agenda on Capitol Hill. And, waiting in the wings in February is the much-anticipated release of the FCC’s National Broadband Plan.
What is the common thread? Each of these issues means something real and tangible in our daily lives. And, broadband innovation offers tremendous potential to be a constructive, game-changing part of each solution. Here at NextGenWeb, our goal has always been to ensure our nation’s policies prioritize real-world progress, supporting broadband’s expansion and the investment that makes it possible.
We also have strived to allay concerns and help people not lose sight of the fact that all Americans now enjoy a free and open Internet without government control of the Internet. We also all deserve innovative networks and universal connectivity. At the end of the day, it is vitally important that government policies work in concert—not in conflict—with these mission-critical objectives. This has always been the foundation of my concern that “net neutrality” can end up being “net regulation.”
I am proud of the unique contribution that the NextGenWeb community has made to the nation’s broadband policy debates. It’s important that we continue to bring the diverse voices of all broadband stakeholders into these conversations. I look forward to continuing to participate, as an avid broadband user and someone who appreciates the role broadband can play in a cleaner, smarter energy future. If we’re not already connected on Twitter, I encourage you to reach out today (I’m @reginahopper).
That’s it… for now—along with my tremendous gratitude for this experience. I won’t say goodbye, simply stay connected.
Dr. George Ford, chief economist for the Phoenix Center, has released a review of the analysis Free Press is using to rationalize net neutrality. Free Press’ pointed analysis has sparked a number of frank rebuttals, and Ford’s is no exception. “I find it interesting that an organization actively encouraging the FCC to adopt a more data-intensive approach to regulation appears to know so little about data analysis,” he said. “There is not a single statistical test in the entire Free Press report. It’s not a study; it’s a rant.”
Chief among Ford’s complaints is Free Press’ attribution of all investment to a single voluntary merger condition—something he says doesn’t pass economic muster and contradicts Free Press’ own (correct) assertion that capital expenditures are influenced by a broad range of factors, including demand; supply costs; competition; interest rates; corporate taxes; and general economic confidence and regulation.
Those of us who worry about the adverse impacts of additional Net neutrality regulations got a dose of encouragement Monday from a surprise source—a top White House technology official. Tom Kalil, the Obama administration’s deputy director-policy in the Office of Science & Technology Policy, told a conference on mobile technology that the government needs to carefully weigh the need for regulation before imposing it. He also mentioned that there are opportunities for the public and private sectors to team up to improve innovation.
As reported in the Nov. 2 edition of TR Daily, Kalil’s comments at the forum sponsored by Mobile Future signaled that the Obama administration’s appetite for regulating all forms of broadband might be more limited than political commentators have indicated. His remarks reflected the administration’s awareness of the dangers of unnecessary regulation and the benefits to society from vigorous consumer-driven competition. In that spirit, Kalil assured the mostly telecom crowd that the administration is not interested in implementing regulation for regulation’s sake:
“To the extent we can rely on competition … that is always better than relying on heavy-handed regulation.”
He added that when the government does act, it has to make sure the gains from its actions outweigh the potential setbacks.
Not surprisingly, Kalil’s sentiments got a positive response from the telecom industry officials and analysts at the forum. Many warned that new regulation would be a setback to broadband investment and job creation, especially in the current economic climate. Michael Rollins, managing director at Citi Investment Research, was reported as saying that the threat of regulation could play a significant role in broader investment in telecom markets. More compelling evidence that our policymakers are taking seriously the growing chorus of concern that we “first do no harm.”
While the future of the Internet was the topic of the day, many speakers were tentative to speculate on future innovation when today’s regulatory environment casts uncertainty on the progress of our innovation agenda. This tone was shared by a number of the panelists
– who included Dr. David Farber (commonly known as the “Grandfather of the Internet”), Richard Bennett, resident scholar, ITIF, and Christopher Yoo from the University of Pennsylvania Law School – all respected by both sides of the Net neutrality debate. The event also featured Derek Turner of the Free Press and Harold Feld from Public Knowledge.
Dr. Farber shared his concern that those innovating and experimenting with networks in order to offer a better consumer experience will have to check with the FCC first before pursuing new advances. He also raised a critical question that spoke to the intrusive nature of government-managed innovation: “How do you regulate something as dynamic as the Internet?” Dr. Farber shared his belief that regulating the Internet is equivalent to saying that today’s capabilities are the best we have to offer. A dangerous position that surely would have stymied important Internet innovations that came of age in a pro-investment, pro-innovation policy era.
Richard Bennett, an ITIF research fellow specializing in broadband networking and Internet policy who authored a paper titled Designed for Change: End-to-End Arguments, Internet Innovation, and the Net Neutrality Debate, used the word “ludicrous” when referencing the FCC’s Net neutrality proposal, stressing that new regulations would preclude the Internet from performing its most basic functions.
But perhaps the most poignant moment was found in the silence that followed an audience member’s question directed to Harold Feld: “What problem is the FCC trying to solve through its Net neutrality NPRM?” A seemingly simple question, but the loaded silence told another story underscoring the lack of clarity shrouding such a policy direction…and that was not lost on the crowd.
Click below to tune into our interview with Dr. David Farber, and also enjoy bonus footage of our discussion with George Ou from Digital Society.
Rather than backing the FCC’s march toward a government-managed Internet—Google CEO Eric Schmidt chose yesterday to sound the alarms about broader government intervention. Maybe it’s fair to say that Google has realized the likely consequences of a greater government role in the day-to-day operations of the Internet.
“It is possible for the government to screw the Internet up, big-time.” That is what Schmidt told the Washington Post in an interview yesterday. This comes just days after he put his name on a letter to Chairman Genachowski that stated, “America’s leadership in the technology space has been due, in large part, to the open Internet … we applaud your leadership in initiating a process to develop rules to ensure that the qualities that have made the Internet so successful are protected.” Those of us who support an open Internet, but oppose government managing online innovation welcome Google’s new cautionary warning.
Consumers, our economy and American innovation would all be better served if players across the Internet ecosystem worked together as a dynamic and collaborative industry. A binary world of “dumb pipes” and “smart applications,” as Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg passionately argued this week, only hinders the Internet’s future potential for all of us.
It’s an encouraging sign for a constructive, workable path forward that Google, the company with the famous mantra “don’t be evil,” is now raising concerns about the burdens we all would bear if the government overreaches with new regulations. Is it a game-changer?
NextGenWeb just wrapped up its third year of participation with the Center for Connected Health’s Annual Symposium – which focuses on the integration of technology and health care. Timely conversation on a couple different fronts as both health care and Internet policy are hot topics in Washington these days.
We were fortunate to spend some time today with Dr. Joe Kvedar, the Director of the Center for Connected Health in Boston. We touched on the Net neutrality issue and also spoke of the need for continued integration of technology into America’s health care system. Check out the video below – and be sure to read Dr. Kvedar’s comment submitted to the Washington Post recently on how he feels regarding increased regulation of the Internet vis-à-vis robust connected health platforms.
When you hear “health care,” not too long ago broadband wouldn’t likely be the first thing that came to mind. Had you attended the Health Care Interoperability session at this year’s Center for Connected Health Symposium perhaps it would. Rajeev Kapoor, Vice President & Managing Director at Verizon gave a compelling presentation on Verizon’s network – and the broadband-enabled health care apps associated with it – and how both are key components to a more efficient system. It was hard not to listen intently since the presentation started with a statistic that says 100,000 people die each year from unnecessary medical errors. This is serious business. Kapoor also referenced more than once how Verizon’s Chairman, Ivan Seidenberg, also Chairman of the Business Roundtable, is working with the Obama Administration to help integrate technology into an overall effort aimed at revolutionizing a heavily outdated health care delivery network. Verizon is serious about playing a role in bringing patients – and health care providers – a better system.
We caught up with Rajeev after the session to discuss these and other matters. Be sure to check out our chat below.
This morning, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg made it clear – Verizon and companies like Google and Amazon don’t live in different parts of the Internet ecosystem and it would be a mistake for the FCC to give into network neutrality advocates who want a “binary world” of dumb pipes and applications. You can read his entire speech below.
A group of governors and state lawmakers have written letters to the FCC expressing concern about proposed new net neutrality rules. Here are some highlights:
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)
• “The exponential growth of the Internet has flourished as a result of both the government’s ‘hand’s off’ approach, ever increasing competition, as well as high consumer demand. Over regulation of the Internet will interfere with future investment and innovations benefiting the health and well-being of its end user customers. Internet users should be given a choice when it comes to selecting a broadband connection that will meet their current and future needs for speed, reliability, quality of service, and capabilities not yet envisioned.”
Governor Bob Riley, Alabama
• “I agree with your stated goal of ensuring the Internet remains an open platform that promotes innovation, investment and competition. However, as you and your fellow Commissioners deliberate over proposed rules I caution you to consider the potential unintended consequences Net Neutrality regulations could have on stifling the very private sector investment and innovation we both value.”
Governor Janice Brewer, Arizona
• “Regulation would deepen the digital divide, negatively impacting underserved communities by delaying the deployment of high speed networks by America’s telecommunications and cable providers. Net neutrality would slow the deployment of infrastructure and new technologies that our nation needs to be competitive. It’s simply bad public policy.”
Governor Mike Beebe, Arkansas
• “I respectfully urge caution as the FCC conducts a rulemaking about network neutrality. I believe there is a very real risk of investment and innovation actually being stifled by unwarranted government intrusions into a process that has flourished under rules set by the market. I found it curious that the FCC intends to expand the network neutrality concepts to the wireless market. I cant think of another marketplace where customers win so regularly through lower prices and more features – in large part because the industry has been lightly regulated and is so competitive.”
Governor Jack Markell, Delaware
• “I spent much of my career in the private sector working to finance and build innovative wireline and wireless communications networks. I understand the challenges of capital formation. I also understand that innovation and differentiation by networks can be just as important as innovation and differentiation on “the edge.”
Governor Martin O’Malley, Maryland
• “I urge the FCC to consider how its proposals for new regulations will affect competition and investments, especially in states such as Maryland where technology-related jobs are critical to our economy. In addition, Maryland is deeply interested in ensuring that the rules, especially as they related to wireless service, do no hamper carriers’ network management efforts to ensure that customers have secure, reliable and innovation services. Lastly, any regulations put forth by the FCC should assure that the public interest products and services, especially relating to health, education, and public safety are given the attention and prioritization necessary to preserve public welfare.
Governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi
• “Over the past several years, the FCC has debated how — or whether — to regulate the host of new infrastructure technologies, data technologies and Web platforms that we now use every day. I believe rushing into network neutrality regulation could hamper the innovation, entrepreneurship and competition that marks today’s communications markets. I have long been an advocate for investing in infrastructure as a way to generate jobs and economic growth. The Internet has grown largely as the result of private sector investment in 21st century infrastructure. It is not just the jobs directly related to new Internet investments, but also the jobs made possible by advanced network capabilities that in a rural state like Mississippi allow good jobs to be created in cities and towns large and small.”
Governor Jay Nixon, Missouri
• “I encourage the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to proceed with caution as it considers any rulemaking regarding net neutrality and extending its principles to the wireless market. As it moves forward, the FCC must ensure that sufficient regulatory flexibility for service providers remains so that efforts to continue the communications advances that rural and low-income populations have only recently begun to enjoy are not undermined. I believe we can all agree that our regulatory framework must foster a climate that encourages Internet investment and innovation. Such an environment, one based on the public and private sectors working together in common purpose, is crucial to my state and our nation’s competitiveness in the global marketplace.”
Governor Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania
• “But as the leader of a state that needs to promote hundreds of millions of dollars of ongoing investment by private companies to bring our citizens the fastest, most advanced broadband networks, I want to urge you to move with the utmost care…We need network providers to keep improving networks and competing with each other. Any regulations that might have unintended consequences – that might seriously curtail innovation and investment by network providers [of that may force network providers to raise prices] need to be avoided.”
Governor Beverley Perdue, North Carolina
• “The FCC’s concept of the “Four Freedoms,” and the manner in which it has been administered, have created a flourishing and competitive marketplace that has benefitted consumers. I would urge you and your colleagues to proceed cautiously and incrementally in considering any changes to the regulatory principles that have served the country so well.”
Governor Brad Henry, Oklahoma
• “A consistent infusion of investment capital in new technology by a variety of communications providers has been a significant factor in this growth in broadband and wireless services in Oklahoma. This capital has also created job opportunities for more Oklahomans who are needed to build and maintain networks and sell these new services.”
Governor Rick Perry, Texas
• “I am concerned that the FCC’s recent call for increased government management of the Internet under the guise of “Network Neutrality” could have the opposite effect. Adding new layers of federal bureaucracy and regulations without a clear and compelling need for such onesize- fits-all government mandates will only discourage companies from investing in Texas and could have negative ramifications on what we have worked so hard to accomplish here. The creation of additional uncertainty, costs and disincentives to investment and job creation is the last thing our nation needs in the current economic climate.”
Public Service Commissioner, Kevin Cramer, North Dakota
• “With respect to net neutrality, it is critical the Commission examine market data for evidence of a quantifiable problem. For too long, this debate has been about competing Internet ideologies rather than a conversation rooted in demonstrable fact. A state regulatory Commission could never make rules solely on the basis of alleged competition or lack thereof; I hope the FCC will pursue that same standard of rigorous analysis.”
Governor Mark Parkinson, Kansas
• “We have a responsibility to clear the path for individuals to access the possibilities the Internet offers. Kansas is a largely rural state, and wireless technology is a key component to making broadband available in some of our least densely populated areas. Respectifully, I would urge caution as the FCC conducts a rule-making study as to avoid unwarranted consequences that may disrupt progress.”
Governor Sonny Perdue, Georgia
• “It is important that the FCC encourage the continued growth of these vital industries by avoiding Net neutrality regulation of broadband deployment. The FCC should focus on providing incentives to get faster broadband deployed throughout the nation. Smart policies, centered on letting the competitive marketplace operate unhindered by intrusive Net neutrality regulations, will result in additional investment, high paying local jobs and the deployment of new technology.”
The National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• “The $63 billion invested last year in broadband infrastructure by the telecommunications industry was five times the amount spent by the federal government on broadband, according to the Communications Workers of America. Moreover, the ‘cost to make broadband universally available…falls in the $20-350 billion range,’ according to the Commission’s Broadband Task Force.1 A broad and open-ended rulemaking on net neutrality rules at this point in our struggling economy could only work to discourage and stifle this level of necessary investment in broadband infrastructure. Encouraging broadband deployment is critical to our national recovery, as it is the very platform which encourages job creation, application and content innovation, increasing efficiencies in manufacturing, and the promotion of consumer and community well-being through the use of online healthcare, education and entertainment resources.”
Attorney General Jon Bruning, Nebraska
• “I’m writing today to urge you to proceed deliberately and cautiously as the Federal Communications Commission considers any rulemaking regarding net neutrality. Expanding network neutrality to the wireless market may stifle competition and discourage private investment. It is clear that private sector investment has led to increased competition, the result of which is a better, faster online experience for consumers. We must continue to encourage success and innovation in broadband through thoughtful policies that don’t over-regulate or encumber investment.”
The National Foundation for Women Legislators
• “If net neutrality principles are codified and adopted, we will be taking a step backward. It would limit the innovation in how broadband services are delivered and who pays for them. Net neutrality will force one model on everyone – one in which the consumer will pick up the tab. That will make the service even further out of reach financially for too many consumers.”
Governor Jon Corzine, New Jersey
• “The rules must create the right incentives for continuing to invest in the Internet’s infrastructure. Regulations that have the effect of discouraging investment by network providers, those who have constructed our nation’s information superhighway, should be avoided. Our broadband networks operate less efficiently than those of other nations; we need rules that help close this gap and support continuing innovation.”
Elia Germani, Chairman of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission
• “The Internet has been a powerful engine for innovation, investment in new technologies, and jobs creation across Rhode Island and our country. It is imperative that we maintain the continued investment by phone, cable, cellular, electric and other providers in broadband networks that will ensure healthy competition and continue to drive down prices. I fear that any new network neutrality regulation could severely impede that spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that is the hallmark of the existing telecommunications marketplace.”
Representative Barbara Ballard, Kansas
• “Like much of the country, Kansas has suffered from a decrease in capital investment and slowed job growth. I strongly support President Obama’s vision to create new jobs and we must create opportunities that keep us on a positive trajectory for growth. Net neutrality regulation runs contrary to this agenda.”
Sign up for email and Twitter updates.
social networking
Stats, news, and info on broadband and the networks that support it.
social networking