Neutrality Debate Simmering Down?
BOULDER, Colo. — Could the once-boiling debate over network neutrality be headed back down to a saner simmer?
That was the question, or maybe the quest, of most of the discussion Sunday at the Silicon Flatirons conference here on the University of Colorado campus, one of the pre-eminent events for telecom policy wonks in the U.S. While no consensus was reached — c’mon, we’re talking about a room full of lawyers — there was at least a better-than-average amount of time spent trying to debunk myths and provide real information from both sides of the argument.
Speakers in favor of neutrality regulations were heard admitting that not all network management is a bad thing, and that there may not be enough evidence yet to prove there is a neutrality problem. Speakers who usually favor little or no regulation, meanwhile, were heard discussing the need for strict anti-merger policy against allowing, say, a telco to buy a cable company, as well as possible “intermediate measures” like limited laws to ensure open access. And several speakers put forth the wishful notion that rapid increases in available network bandwidth might render the whole discussion moot before lawmakers needed to make a choice.
“This has been a very un-Washington discussion,” noted Cisco’s Robert Pepper, the former longtime FCC chief of staff who now heads up the router giant’s D.C. policy team. “In the Washington world, they want a lot of good false choices,” Pepper noted. “And the ultimate false choice is one that fits on a bumper sticker. But chaos vs. tyranny is not a very fruitful debate.”
The Silicon Flatirons conference, which usually draws about a hundred or so of the most-influential D.C. telecom lobbyists, lawyers and policy wonks, has played no small part in the net neutrality debate. In 2004, it was the place where then-FCC commissioner Michael Powell first put the four Internet Freedoms — the base issues of the net neutrality debate — into the public record. And in 2005, Silicon Flatirons was where Stanford law professor Larry Lessig publicly revealed that Vonage had complained to the FCC about having its VoIP service blocked. (The program now even has a compilation of event highlights.)
While several speakers Sunday sheepishly admitted that net neutrality might be something of little concern outside of Beltway lobbying and legislative circles, net neutrality did slip into the mainstream last year, with rock artists, movie stars and a Daily Show spoof of Ted Stevens’ Tubes rant reaching at least a wider Internet audience. So when the top telecom minds in Boulder start discussing real issues and possible solutions, perhaps the rest of the discussants will follow.
“The real question is how do we get better networks,” asked Cisco’s Pepper. “It’s not an all or nothing deal.”
Paul:
Thanks for being here. We will be posting a video of the panel in question by the end of the week.
-Micah
he… Om, can i post my tedstevensisstupid.com initiative here? it’s pretty relevant!
Here’s hoping the whole issue goes away for good.
Agree with Spud. It’s a phony issue, ginned up by Google and Amazon. I wish all the rabid types on savetheinternet.org would think about how to get more networks and competition going, rather than fantasizing, Chavez-style, of nationalizing the nation’s networks.
Harry, that’s really the kind of name-calling that is not constructive… right? If you think it’s a a phony issue, say why. Use facts. Not Chavez digs that don’t make any sense.
“Save the Internet” is funded by Moveon.org, an organization right in the Hugo Chavez target area. Harry is spot-on.
Hi Richard, I’m actually writing my thesis on the net neutrality debate (not making an argument for/against, but analyzing how the conversation has played out online).
Just to be clear, MoveOn.org is part of the Save the Internet Coalition, as are the Christian Coalition and Gun Owners of America, two “right”-wing groups.
I point this out simply to encourage us to look beyond the traditional (and often blinding) partisan ideologies that limit open dialogue–the kind, apparently, that the Silicon Flatirons were having. After all, the shared outcome on which most of us can agree is better networks and better democracy, two values that need not be opposed.
Sorry – the other caveat of mentioning those three orgs’ involvement with the Save the Internet Coalition was that funding has nothing to do with their status as coalition members, simply issue aligment.
The Christian Coalition and Gun Owners of America haven’t contributed the kind of money to Save the Internet that Moveon.org has. For one thing, Gun Owners of America (which isn’t the NRA, by the way) is essentially one guy with a web site, and the state chapters of the CC aren’t aligned with the DC chapter on this issue. So while Save the Internet pretends to be fronting a bi-partisan issue, in fact it’s very much a Democratic Party cause. That doesn’t prove it’s a bad cause (it is, but petition signatures don’t prove it,) but it does mean that STI hasn’t been honest about its partisan nature. Just look at the voting history on STI’s bills.
In my experience, you don’t need to lie in order to advance good causes.
Incidentally, you’re delusional if you think there’s any relationship between expedited network service and the goodness of our Democracy. The Post Office has offered various classes of service from the dawn of time, and no harm has come of it other the loss of a few trees for bulk mail fliers.
Few things, Richard:
(1) Do you have evidence substantiating your claims about MoveOn.org contributions to STI, which is funded by Free Press?
(2) If one particular party aligns with a cause, and STI has become the grassroots figurehead for that cause, does that mean that STI is a partisan group? Sounds like false syllogism to me.
(3) My apologies for failing to qualify my terms: I was referring specifically to media democracy, that is, the widespread and continued availability for consumers to become producers in a vibrant and competitive media landscape. (I am not coming from a leftist position, to be clear: my intellectual leanings tend toward libertarian.)
Shills for partisan causes like to color them bi-partisan. Your task as a scholar is to cut through the rhetoric and find the essence.
The contributions that Moveon and its sponsor George Soros have have to Free Press! and Save the Internet are a matter of public record. Any web site that shows fundraising PACs and 501c3’s and 4s will have them, as well as the contributions from Google employees to Moveon, the money launder from Google to STI.
Media Democracy? I have no idea what that means. Net neutrality is a squabble over who has the right to sell live video streams to American consumers. It has nothing whatever to do with free speech, blogs, John Edwards, or Democracy. It’s a question of billing for IPTV immediately, and paying for Fiber to the Home in the long term.
Anyone who tells you otherwise wants to pick your pocket.