It was clear following the recent DC Court of Appeals ruling in favor of Comcast that the Net neutrality debate was about to change. How it would change, and what new issues might emerge however was anyone’s guess. Then came FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s speech on the agency’s plans to expand its regulatory power through what it dubbed a “Third Way” approach. Immediately the debate shifted toward a conversation focused on why 1930’s-era common carrier principles would ever need to be applied to the Internet. And the question of FCC authority remains an elephant in the room as these debates press on and Congress prepares to get off the sideline.

Today, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) joined with the Free State Foundation to host a panel discussion aimed at finding answers to some of these questions. Beginning with the first panelist and moving through to the last, one thing was clear – the conversation has indeed shifted. As Jim Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President of External and Legal Affairs for AT&T, put it, with their May 5 announcement, the FCC managed to take a debate that had been headed towards likely resolution to a debate concerning authority and jurisdiction. Simply put, they took the oxygen out of the room, and managed to take attention away from important issues in the National Broadband Plan.

Richard Bennett, Research Fellow at ITIF, echoed Cicconi’s remarks, stating, “The National Broadband Plan put an emphasis on the so-called national purposes. This is where the policy focus should be. This discussion would allow us to put oxygen back into a room that antidiscrimination disputes had taken out.”

With the title of the panel asking a forward-looking question – what’s next for Net neutrality – the panelists did their best to offer a prognosis. All agreed that the FCC’s push to lock down the Internet with common carrier regulations is a non-starter. From their perspective, looking forward means setting goals and working towards achieving those goals, such as increasing broadband adoption, raising digital literacy rates, and deploying broadband to the last 5% of the population without it.

Those are goals everyone can rally around – and with the FCC’s release of the National Broadband Plan earlier this year, and through our conversations with members of their broadband team, we feel safe in saying that the agency is on board with tackling those goals.

An effort that would be aided greatly by getting some oxygen back in the room.

No Comments »

More and more lawmakers are weighing in on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempt to regulate the Internet.

On Monday, 73 Democrats co-signed Texas Congressman Gene Green’s letter to the FCC asking the FCC to rethink their position of wanting to classify broadband under the Title II provision in the Communications Act, language that was authored in the 1930’s and intended for 20th Century technology, or as they were called back then, telephones.

“The uncertainty this proposal [the FCC’s plan] creates will jeopardize jobs and deter needed investment for years to come,” says Congressman Green.

The letter noted the “strong bipartisan consensus among policymakers, industry participants and analysts that the success of the broadband market place stems from policies that encourage competition, private investment and legal certainty.” 74 Democrats in Congress are urging the FCC to leave the current framework as it stands (previously updated in 1998 under President Clinton), unregulated, resulting in the strong and constantly growing broadband infrastructure consumers enjoy today.

No Comments »

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 »