Net Neutrality Fight Flares Up As Congress Resumes

Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf, Craigslist founder Craig Newmark and Public Knowledge Pres. Gigi Sohn joined the Consumer Federation’s Mark Cooper, Chris Rabb of Afro-Netizen.com, Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) Craig Fields and the American Library Assn. to make their case to reporters in a teleconference.

“Internet freedom is under attack this week by telecom companies who are spending millions lobbying Congress to gut network neutrality,” said Free Press’s campaign dir. ,Timothy Karr. He said net neutrality ensures that the public can view “the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate website,” by preventing large ISPs from “rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites and services.” Congress is slated to continue considering net neutrality proposals this week.

Just before the call, the Phoenix Center distributed its paper saying Web “commoditization” as a result of over- zealous network neutrality measures could thwart competition, reduce the expansion and deployment of advanced communications networks and increase prices. The paper doesn’t take a position on the propriety of network neutrality rules but its analysis shows that proposals that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for network firms to differentiate their products may reduce the chances of market entry and competition. The bottom line, according to study co-author George Ford, is that net neutrality policies present a trade-off.

Differentiation isn’t at issue, Cerf said. The coalition’s proposals don’t interfere with anyone’s ability to distinguish between classes of service, he said: “We're saying [whoever] gets to determine who has access to that service should not dictate who can deliver information through that class of service.” Sohn said that differentiation already exists. “Google can afford certain high value services that Public Knowledge can’t. We recognize there’s already differentiation -- that’s fine. What’s not fine is picking and choosing and making exclusive deals with favorite operators,” she said. ISPs have traditionally differentiated themselves by quality of services, not by functionality, Cooper added.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) echoed the Phoenix Center’s concerns over net neutrality, adding that the debate has “hijacked” a much-needed telecom reform push. Lawmakers should instead focus on consumer choice and competition issues reflected in the broader reform bill, NBCC said. “Consumers will benefit tremendously from the legislation as it will reform the franchising process,” said the 100,000-member business group.

Asked if broadband providers had ever indicated they would discriminate against Web services, Cooper said cable operators have exploited the FCC’s inaction to play favorites for years. “That has had a devastating impact on ISPs,” he said. Ahead of the debate on the Hill, big broadband providers have “been on their best behavior,” Sohn said. Still, 51% of the country has a choice between telcos or cable ISPs, 20% don’t have a choice and 29% no terrestrial high-speed services available, she said. Sohn and her colleagues want what she called “a procompetitive safeguard against the inevitability of a problem occurring.”

“Every person can be a keyboard activist, every blogger a potential Patrick Henry,” GOA’s Fields said. A govt.- supported oligopoly could come about if net neutrality provisions aren’t upheld, he warned. Those who characterize the coalition’s action as a “liberal, anti free market attack… are sadly mistaken.”

An AT&T spokesman had no comment other than to say the company doesn’t intend to “block and impair consumer’s ability to get what they want, when they want it.” He said: “The competitive marketplace is working to bring consumers more choice and more content.” A Comcast official had nothing new to say and pointed us to NCTA Pres. Kyle McSlarrow’s congressional testimony earlier this year.

Net neutrality advocates are spouting “specious nonsense” and making predictions that may never be realized, said U.S. Internet Industry Assn. (USIIA) Pres. Dave McClure, “and the FCC and increasingly Congress are getting tired of this.” The idea that phone and cable companies will “seize control of the Net by creating high-speed lanes for some and for not others” hasn’t been substantiated, he said. He said he’s in search of “one shred of evidence” that’s their intention.

Those who are pushing net neutrality are “talking about saving Internet technology as it was adopted in 1983,” which would preserve an unreliable and unpredictable network incapable of dealing with advances like VoIP and streaming media, he said. “If you pay $24 to download a first-run movie online under a ‘best efforts Internet’ and 5 minutes of that movie doesn’t arrive because the packets got thrown overboard, you're going to be one pissed-off consumer,” McClure said. He’s also frustrated that groups at odds can’t come to the table for “reasonable discussions.” He said: “The whole conversation has denigrated into hysterical nonsense and no one’s getting anywhere.”

The Hands Off the Internet Coalition, a counterlobby to the Save the Internet Coalition, said the launch of its nemesis shows that those pushing Congress for neutrality regulations “simply refuse to acknowledge the fatal problems of regulating Internet content and delivery.” “If the federal government adopts neutrality regulations, Congress and FCC regulators will have to write complex rules covering every aspect of Internet traffic, including caching, collocation and digitized packet prioritization and reassembly,” Hands Off’s Co-Chmn. Chris Wolf said: “Federal regulation of Internet traffic will produce a host of unintended -- but completely predictable -- consequences.” Making broadband providers liable for the way they carry digitized data is a “sure way to drive up costs,” he said. When the rules are challenged in courts, he wondered whether it would help or hurt efforts to improve America’s broadband deployment.

“Trying to guess at a regulated formula for network neutrality that would protect the public interest and not impede innovation is on par with picking a perfect NCAA basketball bracket,” Wolf said: “Federal regulation of Internet neutrality is a bad idea whose time will hopefully never come.” His group, co-chaired by Mike McCurry, who was President Bill Clinton’s spokesman, is backed by AT&T, Alcatel, the National Assn. of Mfrs., Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union and others.

FreedomWorks, a telecom reform group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, called the Coalition a “misguided group of leftist organizations,” despite the participation of the conservation GOA. Net neutrality legislation would give the govt. broad power to dictate how businesses offer Internet service, which FreedomWorks finds “alarming.” Armey’s group is placing targeted print and Web ads, directing its 800,000-plus activists to call and e-mail their Hill representatives, and conducting one-on-one Hill staff and member meetings.

A House Judiciary telecom & antitrust task force will take up the issue today (Tues.). The hearing will explore questions including whether net neutrality promotes innovation and competition or gives ISPs control of the Internet. Committee Chmn. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) wants to know if broadband providers have engaged in illegal or discriminatory conduct, how recent legal and regulatory developments have impacted competition for high-speed services and how access tiering could affect the Web’s competitive landscape. Scheduled witnesses include Amazon.com Vp Paul Misener, CompTel Pres. Earl Comstock, USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick and Columbia U. law prof. Timothy Wu. It’s the task force’s first meeting; one planned before the Easter recess was cancelled.