Stage is set in Congress as sides prepare for broadband showdown
Gross, Grant Network World
01-09-2006
When Congress begins work this year, it will restart a heated debate about how much lawmakers should
regulate the Internet and emerging communications technologies - with some advocates saying the future of
the Internet is at stake.
As Congress looks to update telecom law, at least three factions with differing visions of regulation in the
Internet Age are emerging: major telecom carriers, large Internet-based companies and a host of consumerrights advocates.
Perhaps the most contentious debate surrounds whether broadband providers should be obligated to allow
customers to run services or go to Web sites that compete with the provider's own products.
On one side, you have a group of consumer groups and Internet companies warning that a handful of
broadband providers - companies such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast - control much of the broadband
bandwidth in the United States. Recent court and FCC rulings have allowed these broadband providers to cut off
competing ISPs from using their networks. Backers of a so-called net neutrality law argue that these large
broadband providers have increasing temptations to provide faster service for their services and partners, while
blocking or slowing access to other Web-based content and services.
The debate over net neutrality gets into a lot of complicated "what-if" scenarios, but consumer advocates say
if broadband providers can give their own services preferential treatment, today's open Internet will be replaced
with a tiered network, with some content and services relegated to a slow-loading Internet slum.
On the other side are the large broadband providers, who say they have no intention of blocking customers
from going where they want on the Web. Impeding customers would be bad for business, large broadband
providers have argued.
"It is better to let the Internet work, and if there are instances [of blocking] that pop up, you deal with them,"
said Kerry Knott, vice president of government affairs at Comcast, speaking at a November forum. "It's a
solution in search of a problem, still."
But some Internet companies - including Google, eBay and VoIP provider Vonage - say there's danger in letting
the broadband providers control the flow inside broadband pipes.
"This is a huge deal," says Celia Viggo Wexler, vice president for advocacy at Common Cause, a group that
pushes for accountable government. "Increasingly, if we're going to have the information we need to govern
ourselves, we need access to information that is essentially free and open."
The Internet companies, Common Cause and allies such as Public Knowledge and the Consumer Federation of
America are pushing a net neutrality provision to be added to any new law, thus putting legal weight behind
an FCC policy goal that has been around since February 2004.
Beyond concerns about freedom of information online, these companies argue that a provider-controlled
Internet would slow innovation. Groundbreaking products and services often come from independent companies
on the "edge" of the network, companies that may not have the resources to negotiate deals with huge
broadband providers, they say.
A second vision for communications reform - advanced by large carriers Verizon and AT&T, as well as
organizations such as the conservative think tank The Progress & Freedom Foundation - would remove most
existing regulations and take away much of the FCCs rule-making powers. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced
a bill Dec. 15 that would overhaul the FCC's role.
An old-style set of regulations based on a telecom monopoly doesn't make sense in an era of increasing
competition from VoIP providers, cable companies and others say advocates of this deregulatory approach.
Instead of creating "anticipatory" rules, the FCC should act largely as an enforcement agency acting only when
it sees competition failures and potential harm to consumers, this group says.
DeMint's bill, which could become part of a Senate Commerce Committee telecom reform package, also would
require an overhaul of the Universal Service Fund program, which subsidizes telephone and Internet services to
schools, libraries and rural and poor areas.
It also would phase out cable television franchises over four years, clearing the way for companies such as
Verizon to compete with cable operators.
In addition to net neutrality, video franchise reform will be heavily debated in 2006.Verizon, AT&T and other
broadband providers want to provide video over IP services that would directly compete with cable TV but they
say it would take decades to get permission from the thousands of local governments in their territories. On the
other side, cable companies say they had to negotiate all those franchise deals, and the large telecom carriers
should live with the same rules.
DeMint's bill does not include a net neutrality provision. Broadband providers are pouring millions of dollars
into network upgrades, and they should be able to protect those investments, says Michael Balmoris, a
spokesman for AT&T, formerly SBC Communications.
"Customers will get tomorrow everything they have today on the Internet," Balmoris says. "They will be able to
reach all the content and applications they want, using their Internet access service. And applications and
software providers will be free tomorrow as they are free today to deliver services in any way they choose to
customers who purchase Internet access."
Complaint from Vonage
But Vonage has complained that a handful of companies have blocked its service, including one small ISP
eventually fined by the FCC. And some net-neutrality backers have expressed concerns about broadband TV
services walled off from regular Internet service.
"It's not acceptable," Common Cause's Wexler says. "If [AT&T] decides their TV program is more important
than my ability to access the Common Cause Web site, then that's a problem."
Others backing net neutrality say they don't object to a walled-off service offered by the broadband provider,
but raise objections to proposals that would allow broadband providers to give speed boosts to Web sites or
services that pay them to do so, greater than the normal speed offered to customers.
If a broadband provider is boosting speeds for its paying partners to SMbps while it's offering end users IMbps,
that raises concerns, says Chris Murray vice president of government affairs for Vonage.
"You're effectively creating two Internets," Murray says. "There's the premium Internet, and then there's the
dirt-road Internet. I worry about two Internets."
AT&T's Balmoris dismisses those concerns, saying speed differences between broadband and dial-up services
already exist. "[AT&T] has not and will not block our customers' access to lawful content or applications
available on the open public Internet, nor will we block those providers' access to our customers," he says.
"We know the success of our broadband Internet access service is largely due to our customers being able to
reach all the Web-based content they want, when they want it," he adds.
Another player
In between the net neutrality advocates and the backers of DeMint's bill sits the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which released two drafts of a telecom update law late in 2005. The House bill, pushed by
committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) would impose some regulations on that newly defined category of
communications providers called broadband Internet transmission services, or BITS.
The House bill would streamline video franchising, essentially creating a national franchise program.
The House draft bill includes a net-neutrality requirement that has drawn criticism from both large broadband
providers and consumer groups.
Consumer groups have criticized the House draft's net neutrality provisions, saying exceptions for "valueadded" consumer protection services and for actions that protect the network are too broad.
The bill includes no penalties for broadband providers that block or impair competing services, they say.
SIDEBAR
Under consideration
Provisions in the House Energy and Commerce Committee draft bill:
* Defines a new category of communications provider, called broadband Internet transmission services (BITS).
* Includes a net neutrality provision by prohibiting BITS providers from blocking, impairing or interfering with
users' access to legal content, applications or devices,
* Allows exceptions to net neutrality rules, saying BITS providers can create "varied and reasonable"
bandwidth limitations with subscriber notice. Providers can offer value-added consumer protection services, can
protect the security of their networks, and provide advanced video services.
* Creates a streamlined national video franchising system, with "exclusive federal jurisdiction," although local
governments will be allowed to collect fees of up to 5% of the video's gross revenues in the area.
* Allows the FCC to create video regulations in areas such as carriage of local educational programming, basic
tier services and emergency alerts.
* Prohibits video providers from "redlining," or cherry-picking neighborhoods based on income.
* Requires BITS providers to interconnect with each other
* Requires VoIP providers to provide 911 services,
* Requires the FCC to begin a proceeding to determine whether VoIP providers should contribute to the
Universal Service Fund.
AUTHOR_AFFILIATION
BY GRANT GROSS, IDG NEWS SERVICE
Stage is set in Congress as sides prepare for broadband showdown
Byline: Gross, Grant
Volume: 23
Number: 1
ISSN: 08877661
Publication Date: 01-09-2006
Page: 23
Section: SERVICE PROVIDERS
Type: Periodical