[IP] No 'Net Neutrality' Laws Needed, Panel Says
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 24, 2005 4:54:38 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] No 'Net Neutrality' Laws Needed, Panel Says
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/