The premise of the discussion was the recent D.C. Court of Appeals decision in Comcast vs. FCC that brought into question the FCC’s authority to regulate broadband, and has subsequently sparked debate throughout Washington concerning the proper regulatory structure for broadband services. Among the key questions posed to the panelists – Are Title I safeguards sufficient for consumers and government? Who has the authority to develop a regulatory structure for broadband, Congress or the FCC? What does Representative Waxman’s proposed bill say about the way the debate has shifted?

Professor John Mayo was quick to point out that the modern Internet economy looks much different than the public utility world, and regulations need to reflect that difference. He warned that shifting broadband to under a Title II regulatory structure would lead to market uncertainty, potentially harming the constant revenue stream of private investment into infrastructure deployment.

Click below to watch an interview with Jon Mayo following the event.

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.

Proponents of the resolution, Matt Wood from Media Access Project and Sascha Meinrath from New America Foundation, argued there is a need for increased competitive pressure to achieve desired industry outcomes like lower prices and higher speeds.  However, Rob Atkinson from ITIF and George Ford from the Phoenix Center, were very convincing that the problem isn’t broadband access or affordability.  It’s that only 62% of homes in the U.S. have computers.  “We’d be ranked 6^th if we had higher computer adoption like Japan and other countries,” Atkinson said.

Another issue that negatively affect the U.S. in broadband rankings is “urbanicity,” or the density of urban areas, since it’s is easier to reach many at a lower cost the more dense an area is, Atkinson also noted.  Nations like South Korea have an advantage since 50% of units are multi-dwelling, versus only 3% in the U.S. having more than 50 units.

These reasons suggest that competition and regulation are not the policies needed to improve upon broadband adoption.  To go even further, George Ford was adamant that adding another entrant to the market, particularly government as a provider, when there is currently so much intermodal competition would be a huge step backwards in where we should focus our energy.

Watch the video below for more from Rob Atkinson, President of ITIF.

You can read the op-ed in its entirety here.

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.

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

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?

Link Hoewing from Verizon discussed some of the principles raised in the speech Verizon EVP Tom Tauke gave at NDN last month – in part highlighting the need for a new statutory framework to govern the 21st Century Internet ecosystem. But of all the points Hoewing raised, what was most interesting – and practical – was the idea of a technical working group that was outlined in Verizon’s joint filing with Google to the FCC. This is not exactly a revolutionary concept, meaning shouldn’t governance include experts and Internet engineers from industry, academia, government and even the advocacy community? Hoewing gave the all-too familiar example of the Comcast/BitTorrent incident where he said Comcast had a legit congestion issue on their network. They were certain it was being caused by P2P applications. Had there been such a working group, Comcast could have brought the issue to the table, outlined their opinion and assumed course of action, and then worked out the best solution with input from the Internet community. All seems pretty straightforward – and sensible – and streamlined. And it gets everyone involved in lieu of the political name-slaying that is too-often occurs when the issue of Net neutrality – or network management – gets discussed.

Walter McCormick, President and CEO of USTelecom, The Broadband Association, painted a great vision of an Internet governance framework that is consistent with the aspirations of the country. He spoke of how 95% of Americans access the Internet at a rate of 4MB or above, and that consumer satisfaction is at record highs. Mr. McCormick stressed that certainty is what’s needed in the one part of the economy that is creating jobs and is ripe with innovation. Unfortunately, specifically if you ask analysts on Wall Street, it appears the FCC is only creating uncertainty in its continued attempt to find ways to regulate a highly competitive broadband marketplace.

All were agreed that the current state of the Internet in the U.S. is by no means a utopia. Panelists spoke of the need for more speed, and the need for creative solutions to connect the 5% of Americans who remain unconnected (at a cost of $24B according to a recent FCC technical paper).

But we liked Link Hoewing’s Olympics analogy where he said, “We didn’t win everything, but on the whole we were the most competitive, successful country across the board when you looked at the big picture.” When you look at the facts, and we stress you need to take an objective look at the facts, it’s hard to disagree.

Click here to watch complete archived footage of the event.

More information can be found on National Journal’s Tech Daily Dose.

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.