No 'Net Neutrality' Laws Needed, Panel Says

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Date: September 24, 2005 4:54:38 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] No 'Net Neutrality' Laws Needed, Panel Says
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com


September 23, 2005

No 'Net Neutrality' Laws Needed, Panel Says
Government intervention to keep Internet "open" could do more harm  
than good, say some observers.
By Lawrance Binda
Courtesy of Advanced IP Pipeline
<http://www.internetweek.com/171200382?cid=test1_rssfeed>

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When it comes to Net Neutrality, does the  
government know best?
Emphatically no, according to a consensus of telecom professionals  
and lobbyists assembled Wednesday in downtown Washington. Among  
industry players, concern is mounting over exactly what the FCC meant  
when, last month, it issued four basic principles that it claims will  
preserve the open and interconnected nature of the net.
Could such principles -- called by some proponents as a way to  
guarantee Internet freedom -- actually stifle innovation and result  
in fewer choices for consumers? Perhaps even more distressing for the  
large incumbents in telecom and cable industries -- do they indicate  
growing government assertiveness in the regulation of broadband?
These issues were batted back and forth at “Net Neutrality or Net  
Neutering in a Post-Brand X World,” an event sponsored by the D.C.- 
based Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF). Most of the seven-person  
panel expressed little faith in the federal government to effectively  
regulate high-speed Internet access, while encouraging robust  
competition, maximum innovation and effective investment as an  
alternative to codified “freedoms.”
“We know from past experience that government regulations impose  
significant costs on businesses and consumers,” said Tom Tauke,  
executive vice president for public affairs for Verizon. “We know  
from past experience -- the 1996 Telecom Act, for example -- that  
government rules have unintended consequences. Some of these  
consequences may not emerge for years after the regulations take  
effect, and may very well hamper deployment of the very technologies  
that we should be encouraging.”
In August, the FCC issued its four principles to explain its position  
on net access and neutrality, a position many saw as somewhat  
weakened by caveats that were missing from the original “freedoms”  
plan as outlined by former FCC chairman Michael Powell. However,  
since their release, these precepts have generated more confusion  
than clarification. For the time being, forum participants agreed,  
companies and consumers should adopt a cautious approach, watching  
closely to see if the principles ever go beyond a general philosophy.
“The FCC has said that these are principles and not enforceable  
doctrine at this point,” said Dan Brenner, senior vice president for  
law and regulatory policy for the National Cable and  
Telecommunications Association. “I believe that’s as far as the  
commission should go.”
A primary concern: these principals could usher in a new era of  
government activism in the telecom arena. And it’s not just the FCC  
that worried participants at the PFF forum. Even more trouble may lay  
up on Capitol Hill, where work has begun on the next major telecom  
reform bill.
According to several speakers, preliminary staff drafts indicate that  
Congress is considering adding requirements that would require  
carriers, under certain conditions, to develop and deploy a set-top  
box so that televisions could access the Internet. One draft bill  
also contains a section entitled “build-out requirements,” although  
those requirements are not yet specified in the bill. Oher lawmakers  
think that some telecom bills may be splintered or delayed by  
Congress’ need to respond to the wrath of Hurricane Katrina, pushing  
any wide-reaching reform out a year or more.
Instead of government mandates, forum participants generally  
advocated a combination of voluntary enforcement and consumer choice  
to drive the future of broadband. The FCC’s role should be largely  
reactive, limited to investigating complaints that are filed, most said.
Not everyone agreed with that viewpoint. Notably, Gigi Sohn,  
president of Public Knowledge, an advocacy group for technology  
consumers, backed a moderate level of regulation. She asserted that  
trouble could ensue if the government is either too aggressive or too  
lax in promulgating and enforcing standards.
“It doesn’t have to be one way or the other,” Sohn said. “There can  
be a light regulatory touch.”
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/