COPPS WELCOMES POWELL'S ARTICULATION OF INTERNET FREEDOM, WANTS MORE ACTION
Even as FCC Comr. Copps again Fri. said the agency needs to be “actively ensuring” that no bottlenecks are formed on the Internet, a leading advocate in the “network neutrality” movement said the less-aggressive position taken last month by Chmn. Powell might be sufficient. Copps, MCI Senior Vp Vinton Cerf and Stanford U. Prof. Lawrence Lessig pitched their network neutrality arguments Fri. to an audience of Capitol Hill staff at a forum co-sponsored by the Consumer Federation of America and the Stanford Law Center for Internet and Society.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Powell last month articulated 4 “freedoms” he felt should be ensured on the Internet (CD Feb 10 p4), including freedom to access content, use applications, attach devices and obtain service plan information. Lessig said the first 3 freedoms are integral to the “network neutrality” movement, that aims to keep free from outside control the Internet protocol (IP) layer of the Internet that connects distribution systems such as cable modem service and DSL to applications such as e-mail or Voice over IP (VoIP). Powell raised the hint of regulatory action if Internet operators didn’t permit these freedoms to exist. Lessig Fri. said that might be sufficient: “Any business that takes seriously the threat” of regulation and acts in a discriminatory way “must include the very real risk that their action will be checked” by the FCC. He called Powell’s speech “an important first step.”
Copps said he was “pleased” by Powell’s speech, even if he has advocated a more proactive approach. Copps said opponents of network neutrality insist they merely want a deregulated environment, but he said they could impose “choke points” on the Internet. “The FCC needs to be on the job, actively ensuring that the conduits are open,” he said.
Lessig and Cerf said there was a real risk that broadband service providers could unduly control a user’s Internet experience. Lessig noted that the Carter phone decision permitting attachments to the Bell network later led to modems, which permitted more than 10,000 ISPs to form. Now, he said, “the FCC is eager to define competition as 4 or 5,” referring to the number of broadband options a consumer may have. Cerf said technological choice is expanding, citing Wi-Fi, a more robust wireless offering called WiMax, and the Evolution Data Optimized (EVDO) service being rolled out by wireless operators. But he said there may not be growing competition among players in the market.
VoIP is one example where network neutrality could be threatened, Lessig said. He argued that traditional voice service is integral to the platform on which the service rides. VoIP, however, works on multiple platforms, and is in fact an Internet application that connects to distribution networks via IP. Arguing VoIP likely will make traditional phone service obsolete, he cited automobiles replacing horse- drawn buggies. At that time, he said, policy-makers could have let the buggy industry die, or they could have bought out the companies and retrained the workers, or they could have grafted the buggy industry onto the automobile industry to ease the transition. “That’s insane,” Lessig said, but he argued that’s what ILECs and their partners want to do in preserving “monopoly rent” situations such as intercarrier compensation. He said ILECs look at VoIP “and are terrified” because they'll have to compete.