Your Email:

Your Name:

To (email):

Subject:

Message:
I thought you'd find this of interest: http://netcompetition.org/index.php/273/ ------------------------------------ Amid the controversy over network neutrality, a growing chorus of voices in the middle of the debate is calling for more competition and a comprehensive high-speed Internet policy. For consumers, the Internet has historically been neutral, meaning those who control the pipelines treat content equally in delivering it to consumers, regardless of what it is. But in 2005, the FCC cleared the way for telecommunications and cable providers to implement potential business models to create tiered traffic lanes on the Internet and charge some content providers more for faster service. The reasoning is that the extra revenue will help speed broadband deployment, which some experts and officials agree should be a national priority. Enacting a law or rules to ensure such net neutrality, however, is still so controversial that one of the few points everyone agrees on is the confusing nature of the term “net neutrality.” During his keynote speech at the Progress and Freedom Foundation summit in Aspen, Colo., last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt appealed for common ground amid a roomful of telecom and cable executives and others. Schmidt said he hoped everyone could at least agree on this point: “No entity that controls the last mile, [telecom companies] cable or, by the way, local government ... should be able to control the content that flows over it.” The challenge in achieving consensus was obvious in the response of Steve Vest, senior vice president of government relations for the National Cable and Telecommunications Association. “That’s really what the whole debate is because the last mile is where the investment is,” Vest said of Schmidt’s appeal. “That’s really like saying, ‘Can’t we just agree on net neutrality?’” Is Better Competition The Answer? Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, also a Republican, are among those noting that some of the debate would evaporate if there was real broadband competition and consumers had three to four viable high-speed Internet providers. When McDowell took office, he told reporters that his own Tyson’s Corner, Va., neighborhood had just one broadband choice. Last month, he sounded more upbeat, saying that the United States “has more competition among different platforms than any other country in the world.” Schmidt said if an Internet provider decided not to offer access to Google content to its customers, he would be fine with letting the market decide, as long as those customers had three or four real choices of broadband providers. The goal of at least three competitors is repeated on Capitol Hill, but both Republicans and Democrats have expressed concern that many broadband consumers have a choice of one cable provider and one telephone provider—if they are lucky. The current state of competition has been a matter of debate—and statistics. A U.S. Telecom Association spokeswoman pointed to a 2006 FCC report that said people living in 20 percent of American ZIP codes had 10 or more broadband choices. But Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition said a ZIP code area is huge and may not reflect true neighborhood choices. Erickson wants numbers based on “ZIP code plus four.” The state of competition plays into the bigger disagreement over whether net neutrality is an urgent issue Congress must protect now—or whether it can wait until if and when complaints of content discrimination arise. Erickson argues that it is critical for policymakers to act now because with few broadband choices, consumers would have a difficult time comparing services to know if discrimination is happening—or doing anything about it once discovered. “We’re seeking light-touch rules to not discriminate or change the Internet,” he said. Moving Beyond The Hyped Rhetoric Perhaps there is not so much growing agreement on net neutrality as a growing discussion that has revealed longstanding areas of agreement. As lawmakers, federal regulators and the public gain more understanding of the issue, strong statements by either side are being filtered and areas of agreement are becoming clearer. One is the prioritization of emergency medical information. Broadband providers say they must ensure that such data isn’t waiting in line online behind someone downloading a movie. “Fine, do it,” Erickson said of calls to prioritize medical information. But then he countered by saying the need to deliver the information is so important that it should have net neutrality protection, too. “Should broadband providers be able to choose which medical information gets sped up based on agreements with particular hospitals?” Speed is another subject where agreement can be seen. Early rhetoric warned consumers to fight for net neutrality rules or broadband providers might slow traffic to their favorite Web sites. Broadband providers responded that they wouldn’t slow current speeds, and the other side basically agrees. Their real concern is that broadband companies instead will speed traffic to other sites, perhaps competitors. The net effect would be a slow lane for non-preferred Web sites. When pressed, broadband providers do not deny that possibility, but they argue that speeds will be so much faster in the future that it won’t matter. Providers, meanwhile, repeat their mantra that net neutrality is “an issue in search of a problem”—that they haven’t misbehaved so why regulate. “There are still no facts, no record of abuse, that would warrant a government role beyond watchful vigilance, coupled with continued efforts to break down barriers to expanded broadband competition,” Comcast Vice President Joe Waz said. Many net neutrality proponents do not argue that point, and the FCC is accepting any claims of abuse. Both sides also realize that broadband providers have yet to move toward a tiered Internet. In fact, AT&T promised to put that on hold for a couple years in a deal that helped win approval of its merger with BellSouth. “I think we’re turning the corner on the debate, away from this myopic, misguided and hype-driven debate on net neutrality, and toward a focus on a true national broadband policy,” Waz said. That broader broadband policy debate is what his staunchest opponents, including Erickson, say they most want, too. Factors That Are Shaping The Debate The push for net neutrality may heighten again soon because the Justice Department this month said in a comment to the FCC that the government should not act yet. The department said the FCC should let broadband providers do what they want and let the market decide if it’s successful. Justice said it would investigate antitrust violations. Comcast and USTA say the comment adds another strong government voice against net neutrality. An FTC report this summer took a similar stance. But Justice only added to the urgency for Congress to act, according to Jessica Schafer, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee. Markey, a net neutrality advocate, may take action on the issue as early as October. The outcome of next year’s spectrum auction also could impact the debate by increasing broadband competition. Though Google doesn’t believe competition alone will solve net neutrality, Schmidt, who said Google “probably” will bid for some spectrum, may do more than call for keeping the Internet open. While the auction outcome may not boost competition, it will shed light on the future of broadband competition. source: