Senators Deluged by Promises, Arguments at Net Neutrality Hearing

“There’s a gathering storm out there, and I'm not sure we're prepared to do legislation,” Burns said: “The Internet should remain open to all users, but the question is how do we strike the right balance.” Others on the panel agreed. Sen. Ensign (R-Nev.) said net neutrality is “one of those sticky issues we have to deal with -- we have to recognize that there’s a balance.” Companies deserve a return on their investment for building networks, “otherwise Wall Street isn’t going to loan them the money,” he said. U.S. laws need to be modernized to reflect the realities of new technologies, which create more incentives for companies to invest and compete, Ensign said: “In today’s marketplace, we don’t have nearly the type of competition that could be had.”

Vonage provided some real world fodder for debate with its claim that it’s been a victim of the discrimination that could be widespread unless there’s net neutrality legislation. The company said some small network operators have blocked its service and “most recently, major phone company executives seem to suggest that our service isn’t going to work as well if we don’t pay them additional fees,” CEO Jeffrey Citron told the committee: “There is nothing in statute or regulation today to protect consumers or Internet application providers from potential discrimination… I believe providing marketplace certainty to prevent discrimination is as important as taking action once a problem occurs.”

USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick denied any of its member companies block or limit access to providers such as Vonage. “The testimony indicates that this is the case. Do you do this?” Stevens asked McCormick. “Absolutely not. We're looking for ways to expand our networks,” McCormick responded. In his testimony, McCormick said: “We will not block, impair or degrade content, applications or services. That is the plainest and most direct way I know to address concerns that have been raised about net neutrality.” McCormick also said he didn’t think there was a “problem that Congress needed to address” regarding the issue.

All agree that consumers should be in charge of their Internet experience, McCormick said. The difference of opinion comes when it’s time to decide who pays the bill for the advanced networks that drive the Internet’s growth and evolution. “Simply put, our side believes that businesses that seek to profit on the use of next-generation networks should not be free of all costs associated with the increased capacity that is required for delivery of the advanced services and applications they seek to market,” McCormick said.

The cable industry also promised not to block access to lawful content, applications or services available over the public Internet. “This commitment should be consistent with tiers and terms of a customer’s service plan and subject to an operator’s ability to manage its network,” said NCTA Pres. Kyle McSlarrow. “Putting so-called net neutrality principles into law may sound warm and fuzzy but they are not ‘neutral’ in any real sense,” McSlarrow said: “They represent a choice and a departure with serious consequences.” He suggested Google and Yahoo fear competition from the next entrepreneurial idea that may take off and instead are asking Congress to “free the Internet in place, with their position in the marketplace locked in.”

Think Before Acting

Internet visionaries told the committee they worry about proposals to change how the Web operates as new applications enter broadband pipe. The Web, as a catalyst for consumer choice, economic growth, technical innovation and global competitiveness, is at risk, Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf told the Senate Commerce Committee. Some ideas by telco giants like Verizon and AT&T would reduce competition and stifle the creation of new online products, said Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law School prof.

There’s nothing wrong with consumer tiering, which would drive deployment of fast networks, but access tiering could burden content developers who can’t afford to buy the reserve lane, Lessig said. Congress should be conservative in whatever regulations or policy it adopts, with an eye toward promoting competition in broadband as well as the applications that run on top of the network, he said. The push by some industry players to deregulate the system is a departure from 40 years of U.S. telecom. Other countries, like France, Japan and Korea, have an architecture that’s more efficient and cost effective, he said. France offers its broadband service to consumers 11 times cheaper than Verizon, Lessig said. The Creative Commons chmn. told members to “look to the past and learn lessons from the past before radically changing the infrastructure in which innovation has occurred.”

Congress’s deliberations and industry-introduced options for handling net neutrality should be taken seriously, Cerf said: “Nothing less than the future of the Internet is at stake in these discussions,” he said. As the Internet evolved, key decisions made by the executive and legislative branches helped to commercialize the medium. The FCC laid out important policies and safeguards for user choice and nondiscrimination, said Cerf: Net neutrality must be preserved for the future for “new Googles, new Yahoos and new Amazons to form.” If Congress wants to act, it should be through “carefully tailored legislation,” Cerf said.

Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) said he plans to introduce a bill that would ensure that “no bit is better than another one” -- so content on J. Crew’s website isn’t treated worse than LL Bean’s on a given network. The legislation’s basic principles state that no Internet access provider may discriminate against an application, service or content provider, person or entity on the Web by: (1) Blocking or otherwise restricting bits, applications, services or content. (2) Giving preferential treatment to one or more sets of bits, applications, services or content. (3) Giving preferential treatment to bits, applications, services or content in which the Internet access provider has a financial, commercial or other interest compared to the treatment given to bits, applications, services or content from other sources. (4) Reserving its own private network in a manner that’s qualitatively or quantitatively superior to that which is offered as publicly accessible Internet. (5) Preventing consumers from attaching and using the devices of their choosing as long as they do not cause harm. A Wyden spokesman told us he wasn’t sure when the bill would be introduced. Wyden said his bill would ultimately “preserve the spirit of the Internet… We got it right with the Internet Tax Freedom Act 10 years ago. We can do it again.”

Congress should set a goal of giving all American Internet users 100 Mbps in 5 years and 1 Gbps in 10 years, Internet2 Vp Gary Bachula said. With enough bandwidth, preferential treatment for applications wouldn’t be an issue, he said, saying university-based users of his next-generation Internet routinely experiment with HDTV, hold thousands of simultaneous Web conferences and transport huge files easily around the globe, Bachula said. That’s plenty of power for video, VoIP, e-mail and other new uses without costly prioritization and partitioning schemes, he said. Internet2 also holds exciting uses for medical monitoring, education and telework, Bachula said. Foreign competitors understand this and they're adapting their infrastructures accordingly but the U.S. is the only country considering making the process “more rather than less complex and expensive,” he said.

Consumer groups urged the committee to take a strong stand on network neutrality. “We strongly urge the committee to build any future policies on the foundation of a neutral network that empowers consumers, not network operators, to decide winners and losers in the online marketplace,” said a letter sent to Stevens and Co-Chmn. Inouye (D-Hawaii) from Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America and Free Press. Internet users should be able to access Internet content and applications of their choice without interference from network operators, the letter said.