Broadband policy is complicated enough, but in the face of losing authority as a result of the recent DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the FCC is seeking to reclassify broadband service into a category that will give the agency more jurisdiction to regulate as it sees fit. A recent Washington Post editorial joined a chorus of other opinion pieces questioning the FCC’s controversial move.

Here’s an excerpt from the WaPost piece on the FCC’s move to classify broadband as a Title II service:

This approach is also unacceptable. For some eight years, the agency has argued that broadband constitutes an “information service” and that it should be subject only to a light regulatory touch. To reverse course now by classifying broadband as a telecommunications service would require the agency to throw out years of its own data and analysis. While agencies have broad latitude in reevaluating regulatory schemes, reversals should be linked to significant market shifts. The facts do not support such a conclusion, and the FCC should not now try to shoehorn broadband into an existing — but incompatible — regulatory scheme.

The Washington Post article goes on to suggest that interested parties should work with Congress to form “clear but limited rules.” This premise brings to mind the recent vision Tom Tauke, Executive Vice President of Public Affairs, Policy and Communications at Verizon and former member of Congress, outlined at NDN where he called for a new policy framework that would best benefit the Internet ecosystem. Specifically, Tauke calls on Congress to provide certainty to an otherwise uncertain process. “Now is the time to focus on updating the laws affecting the Internet. To fulfill broadband’s potential it’s time for Congress to take a fresh look at our nation’s communications policy framework.”

Please see some excerpts below from that speech Tauke delivered at an event hosted by Simon Rosenberg and NDN.

The need for Congress to provide clarity on the Internet ecosystem:

Industry collaboration on important policy issues:

The need for certainty:

Dangers of 1930’s statues on 21st century technologies:

Confronting the tough question of jurisdictional authority:

As Tauke got deeper into his speech, he outlined four principles that he said would establish the right statutory framework for the Internet moving forward. Here are the key points:

1) Consumers must be fully empowered. This includes choice in devices, access, products and services. Empowered means also well-informed through understandable and transparent information.

2) Consumer must feel safe. This includes online security and privacy, which should be consistent and uniform across the ecosystem.

3) Consumer access and adoption must be priorities. Consumers should receive direct support from the government, including competitive subsidies that are technology neutral.

4) Government should protect consumers and ensure a properly functioning free market. The test should be whether action is necessary to prevent harm or anticompetitive behavior. If issues are not resolved through industry self-governance, then it would go to agency

Stay tuned to NextGenWeb as we continue to cover this developing conversation in Congress.

No Comments »

As one of the leading voices on broadband policy, Larry Downes , a nonresident Fellow with the Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society, makes a serious case against the proposed Internet regulatory scheme being touted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He’s written a number of pieces pointing out the “unintended consequences” of the FCC’s intent to classify broadband as a common carrier service under Title II in the Communications Act. Language, by the way, originally authored in the 1930’s. That doesn’t exude a real futuristic connotation as one might expect to see in 21st Century Internet policy.

Downes, like many, believes a change in policy will undoubtedly slow growth and bring private investment into the broadband Internet economy to a screeching halt. How much private capital has been invested in today’s broadband infrastructure? $500B over the past eight years is how much. So slapping 1930’s Title II regulations on the Internet carries with it real consequences.

Please see below and read more about Larry Downes and his arguments against Internet regulation.

DeMoines Register
May 8, 2010
Guest column: Build broadband infrastructure for everyone
By Larry Downes

CNetnews.com
April 19, 2010 12:39 PM PDT
Reality check on ‘reclassifying’ broadband
By Larry Downes

The Orange County Register
Updated: March 18, 2010 3:04 p.m.
Larry Downes: Don’t regulate broadband Internet
By Larry Downes

The Hill
March 15, 2010 03:32 PM ET
Net neutrality would end innovation, not preserve it
By Larry Downes

CNetnews.com
March 11, 2010 10:00 AM PST
What’s in a title? For broadband, it’s Oz vs. Kansas
By Larry Downes

The Laws of Disruption: Harnessing the New Forces that Govern Life and Business in the Digital Age
By Larry Downes

No Comments »

There has been no shortage of things to talk about since FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced his intentions to regulate the Internet under Title II. So it was timely that NextGenWeb sat down with Dr. Ev Ehrlich, who served as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs in the Clinton Administration and also was the principal economic policy official for Commerce Secretaries Brown and Kantor. He is a leading business economist and author of the blog “Ev Ehrlich’s Everyday Economics.”

Dr. Ehrlich recently posted a blog on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the FCC does not have the authority to regulate broadband Internet services. He also touches on the FCC’s reaction to that federal court ruling, which was laid out in Chairman Genachowski’s “Third Way” remarks. Ehrlich says this “third way” is meant to be somewhere between the Title I classification that broadband currently falls under, and the heavy-handed regulatory approach of Title II that Net neutrality advocates have been clamoring for.

Dr. Ehrlich sees it a different way. Click below to find out why he has dubbed it “Way 2.1.”

Introduction to the Issue

The FCC’s problem and their proposed solution

Why the third way is actually way 2.1

What does all this mean for the future of the Internet?

What happens next?

No Comments »

Broadband policy is increasingly crossing lines into the gadget and technology blogs, most recently demonstrated by the top technology blog TechCrunch hosting a debate on the topic of network neutrality (a term deemed early in the debate universally as “not useful” and “a red herring”).  Experts on various sides of the issues shared their perspectives on competition, access, FCC jurisdiction, and what regulatory regime will best advance the Internet we currently enjoy.

Watch the video below to see the debate featuring:

• Andrew Keen (moderator), Author of The Cult of the Amateur
• Richard Bennett, Research Fellow at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation)
• Larry Downes, Fellow of the Stanford Law School Center For Internet & Society)
• Michael Masnick, CEO and Founder of Techdirt
• Gigi Sohn, CEO and Founder of Public Knowledge

No Comments »

This was a common theme that came out of the Consumer Federation of America panel today on Net neutrality, which featured AT&T Vice President for Federal Regulatory Affairs, Hank Hultquist and Ben Scott of Free Press. It was billed as a debate, but both panelists approached the issue with a respect often not seen in the headlines following this issue. Hultquist told Mr. Scott that their differences over Net neutrality are rooted in facts, not principles.

We caught up with Mr. Hultquist after the event for his overall thoughts on the discussion and how sees the debate trending. Click below to watch the interview.

No Comments »

Be sure to check out our interview with Link Hoewing, Assistant Vice President for Internet and Technology Issues at Verizon. Link participated in a recent ITIF panel that focused on areas of collaboration in the Net neutrality debate. In his interview with NextGenWeb, Mr. Hoewing talks about why and how the broadband market is working for consumers, what we can take away from the substantive comments submitted during the FCC’s open Internet proceeding and finally talks about Verizon’s joint filing with Google, including the idea of Technical Advisory Group – or TAG. Be sure to check that out and much more in the dialogue below.

PROGRAM NOTE: Verizon’s Kathy Brown will be a panelist at tomorrow’s joint event hosted by Silicon Flatirons, Public Knowledge and ITIF (live streamed on NextGenWeb) and will also be discussing some of these issues.

No Comments »

On March 3, the Federalist Society hosted an event titled, “The FCC’s Authority to Promulgate Internet Traffic Rules.” Click below to watch full archived footage of the event.

No Comments »

The American Consumer Institute assembled a panel of experts this morning on Capitol Hill to discuss the potential impact of net neutrality regulations on innovation.  The event coincides with the latest study from ACI, which finds net neutrality will hurt private investment and impede consumer friendly innovations.

Of course, with innovation being such an important theme that rings throughout the broadband policy and net neutrality dialogue, Dr. Larry Darby, the moderator of the panel, noted that really we have no clear definition of the term itself, from the FCC or otherwise.  He suggests the broad definition of innovation as “anything new that creates value for consumers,” which seemed fitting as many of the panelists echoed that consumers need to be a top focus in discussions going forward.

Jeff Campbell, Senior Director of Technology and Trade Policy for Cisco, spoke strongly on behalf of the consumer constituency.  He believes that with the broadband dialogue shifting to net neutrality, which is really an economics and market structure discussion, we have lost focus on the consumers.   He shared his experiences with potential customers who are hesitant to buy video transmission tools because they are afraid regulators are going to inhibit network investment and efficiency so then the application itself won’t work.  And he points out that this is only one of many “edge” applications that benefits from the ongoing investments in broadband networks.

A new voice on the panel was Matthew Hussey, Legislative Assistant to Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).  Hussey has an electrical engineering degree and extensive background in broadband and telecommunications.  He believes that it’s important not to infringe on the fundamental rights of end users, but said that when you have voice and video, that you need to consider the deliverability of these things.  “The complexities of the Internet are not rocket science, but they’re close,” he said noting that it takes significant coordination already among the private and public sector to make the Internet work.

NextGenWeb will be posting footage of the event in its entirety.  And be sure to check out these interviews with some of the panelists. Economist, Dr. Hal Singer, talked about his recent op-ed that ran in The Hill and moderator Dr. Larry Darby discussed his recent study on broadband and job creation.

2 Comments »

While minority adoption was the big issue yesterday as it relates to our broadband priorities, Net neutrality took center stage today at an event sponsored by the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law titled “Implementing the National Broadband Plan: Perspective from Government, Industry and Consumers.”

The lunch session featured a discussion between Adam Thierer, President of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Ben Scott, Policy Director at Free Press, both leading (and effective) voices in the debate over whether or not the government should regulate the Internet. Neither one took long to get into the crux of their arguments. Thierer effectively broke down what he described as the “Five Cases Against Net Neutrality,” that included legal, economic, engineering, practical, and philosophical arguments.

To see Thierer describe these five cases in more detail, click on his interview with NextGenWeb following the debate.

2 Comments »

At an event in the U.S. Capitol today hosted by the Internet Innovation Alliance (IIA), Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc., a group of leaders in the technology community, led by IIA co-chairs Bruce Mehlman and David Sutphen, discussed findings in a survey performed by former Obama Campaign pollster Cornell Belcher. The survey, conducted among 900 respondents in the African American and Hispanic communities, focused on broadband access, adoption and affordability.

Consistent with findings often referenced in the Pew Internet & American Life Project , Belcher’s study shows that cost and access are not the primary barriers – if barriers at all – to consumers in the African American and Hispanic communities choosing whether or not they adopt high-speed Internet service. Instead, once again we see the term “relevance” enter the equation, meaning there are people who are not making the connection between the Internet and an enhanced quality of life. Access to health care, education resources, the ability to stay connected with family, and entertainment are just a few of the things brought to us over broadband. In short, some in the African American and Hispanic communities – and beyond – still don’t see the Internet as a “game-changer.”

Navarrow Wright, President of Maximum Leverage Solutions, has become a leading voice on these and other broadband and technology issues. Wright attributes his professional success to not only embracing the Internet, but his ability and desire to understand and use it as a platform where he could showcase his talents. Wright, who recently called into question the need for a debate on Net neutrality, said that the government’s broadband policy needs to focus primarily on helping people understand the real value that the Internet has to their lives. Be sure to check out our interview with Navarro below.

These were themes echoed by other panelists, including Sylvia Aguilera, Executive Director of the Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partnership. Ms. Aguilera said specifically that broadband policy needs to focus on closing the digital divide, bringing employment opportunities to minority communities and tying broadband deployment to aggressive adoption programs.

The conversation then turned to the noise around the current Net neutrality debate, which has been amplified via the FCC’s open Internet proceeding. The panelists seemed frustrated at the attention Net neutrality is getting – as well as the resources and time being dedicated to that debate which they feel would be better-suited on more pressing issues, like educating consumers on the importance and relevance of high-speed Internet.

Wright said there are no concrete reasons the Net neutrality supporters can point too that justify placing new regulations on the Internet. Further, he asked how the government could create rules for everyone on the Internet when we still have so much work to do to get more people online. Ms. Aguilera picked up on that point saying that Net neutrality will not help close the digital divide. She said the time being spent on discussing the Net neutrality issue is taking away from collaborating on more pressing broadband issues facing the Hispanic community.

In a very healthy, candid discussion on challenges minority communities face when it comes to adopting broadband, one thing was clear – Net neutrality isn’t the answer. And worse, it detracts from a more pressing dialogue that needs to focus on the education of those who are not embracing the many promises that come with having a high-speed Internet connection.

No Comments »