Net Neutrality Clashes Dimming, but No Consensus Emerges
LAS VEGAS -- Open warfare over net neutrality policy has receded, but consensus on legislation and regulatory policy hasn’t been reached, panelists said Thursday at the Consumer Electronics show. “We've been at this for a long time,” said Paul Misener, Amazon vice president of global policy. “We are in a period of detente where nothing is happening.” Companies are in a period of uncertainly because of pending litigation in the Comcast protocol blocking case and likely net neutrality legislation in a new Congress, he said. Legislation is needed to resolve that uncertainty, he added.
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.
“The big untold story here is that there is a lot more consensus” on net neutrality, said Scott Cleland, chairman of netcompetition.org. “The debate is narrowing.” Agreement is widespread that network operators have a right to manage networks and create separate service tiers for different speeds and not extend neutrality rights to illegal content, Cleland said. He also cited as evidence a recent broadband “call to action” agreement among companies and consumer and policy groups endorsing the need for nationwide broadband access: “People are saying that what really matters is promoting broadband investment as quickly as possible.”
But Free Press downplayed the notion that there’s consensus on net neutrality, and voiced hope that the incoming administration of Barack Obama will support legislation and policy changes ensuring Internet openness. “The Comcast case is why we need net neutrality rules,” said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. “For two years the company arbitrarily decided to block a protocol … a technical response [to network congestion] that was universally condemned.”
Lost in the debate of managing networks is the consumer’s role, Scott said. Why not allow consumers to make decisions about network priorities for services that are coming in to the home, he asked. Scott also said he has yet to see proposals that offer consumers discounts if they use less bandwidth than other users. “You see a lot of discussion on policies that say ‘if you use more, you pay more.'”
“There needs to be a sophisticated debate,” said Brent Olson, AT&T assistant vice president of public policy. “People are at that point.” But the current regulatory regime is working, Olson said, citing the Comcast case as evidence that “we have an FCC that can act.” He did not call for net neutrality legislation, voicing concern that constructing such rules “could be dangerous.” The policy argument going forward should be on how to “keep the net open, expanded and growing,” he said.
But Misener said that’s not enough. “It seems to me that legislation is really important” in clarifying the playing field for industry and consumers, he said.
Leaving network operators to their own devices in managing networks raises the potential risk of anti- competitive practices, said Rick Whitt, Google telecom and media legislative counsel. More discussions are needed to explore solutions, as networks experiment with ways to manage networks, he said. Most important is that the management practices remain “protocol agnostic.”