Newsmaker: An Internet for the few or the many?

Michael Copps has a message for the technology industry when it comes to Net neutrality: Get involved.

Copps, a Democratic commissioner in the Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission since May 2001, recently urged an audience of technology executives to participate in the political process and public debate on preserving the Internet's freedom and diversity. That hallmark of the Internet, many say, could be jeopardized by operators seeking to control distribution and content, meaning the Net could quickly be dominated by the interests of only a few media giants in this country.

CNET News.com caught up with Copps at the recent Supernova 2006 tech conference in San Francisco, where he talked about Net neutrality, the broadcast flag and the plight of decency on TV.

Q: Where do you stand on this hot-button issue of Net neutrality?
Copps: I'm a believer that we have to preserve the openness of the Internet. What this boils down to is Internet freedom. Are we going to keep this platform open and dynamic and--small "d"--a democratic technology platform that we have gotten accustomed to with dial-up Internet? Or in this age of high-speed broadband, are we going to turn it over to others to operate? Are we just going to transform the whole nature of the Internet from where the pipe in the middle was dumb and the intelligence was on the ends--are we going to reverse that and give all the control and intelligence to the pipe and network operators and relegate ourselves to less of a role on the edges?

How does media consolidation play into this issue in your mind?
Copps: It's all about the same thing. It's all about the control--can you control both the distribution and the content? And when you do that, it is of course a classic recipe for monopoly.

Video: Network neutrality in the spotlight
FCC Commissioner Copps ponders the issue

We already have a telecommunications system in this country different from the rest of the world in that we don't have a lot of competitors. We don't have competitive policies that encourage a lot of outside carriers to come in, so there are fewer distributors to begin with. So you have to be more careful in turning over the content control.

This whole network neutrality debate has accelerated so quickly and gotten so much traction. I was at a hearing in Norfolk (Virginia) recently on media consolidation, and some of the speakers got up during the open-mike session and said: What has been visited upon media by consolidation is possibly now, maybe probably, going to be visited on the Internet.

People in the room, the young audience, understood that immediately. They gave more reaction to that than anything that night. I began to realize that this is the third rail of the consolidation debate. You have the issues of the big telecom mergers. That's No 1. Second rail is media consolidation. I think Net neutrality is the third rail.

Do you think the FCC's broadband connectivity principles are enough to offer the sorts of protections that Internet companies and consumer groups are after, or would you like to see Congress pass legislation offering additional tools?
Copps: I'd like to see more. I think we were successful in getting those principles enunciated and getting everybody at the FCC to vote for it at least as a general commitment. Totally bereft of any enforceability--we couldn't get that, we tried to get it. But at least we got them on the record and we provided some time and teed up the issue so that Congress can debate it and the American people can discuss it.

We need to...figure out, practically speaking, how do we ensure that there's not discrimination on the Internet.

Now we need to go beyond those principles and get into phase 2 and figure out, practically speaking, how do we ensure that there's not discrimination on the Internet. And are we going to give somebody, the FCC or whomever, some authority to make sure it's open.

The FCC decided last week to include VoIP providers in the realm of services that must pay into the Universal Service Fund (a subsidy for telecommunications services in rural and low-income areas, schools and libraries). You've said you'd like to expand the USF contribution pool even further, to include, for example, broadband providers. How do you envision that working?
Copps: Well I think it's very difficult to talk about. Universal service, of course, is the principle that we're trying to provide reasonable and comparable telephone and communications service to everybody in the country no matter where they live--(whether it's) an easy to reach market or a difficult, much more costly kind of market. And we were successful, I think, by in large in doing that in the era of plain-old telephone service.

But now it's becoming unclear, as we seek to build broadband out to all those difficult markets, are we going just to exempt the broadband providers, who may be doing very well in the affluent markets--kind of skimming the cream there--are we going to make them contribute to the universal service like we did before, (but) when it comes to broadband? Or are we going to take the broadband out of this whole equation?

I don't see how you build broadband...if you say broadband (providers are) exempt from participation in this whole system. It's just a contradiction in terms to me.

I'm for including VoIP and wireless where there's interconnection with the network, and I think that's a solid foundation. But I'm very much opposed to the commission's approach on broadband thus far in so far as it affects universal service.

Would there be separate obligations for companies that operate noninterconnected VoIP (such as AIM Voice chat, Skype, etc.)?
Copps: I think what we're trying to focus on now is whether it's interconnection with the network, the communications network.

Would there be an impact on consumers' monthly bills?
Copps: Absolutely--there could be an impact. I think you're much better off, again, if you're a VoIP or wireless provider, there's a possibility now that your bills are going to go up because we haven't included the broadband. When everyone participates in the (system) it's more equitable and fair and you don't feel the pain as much. It could well be consumers are going to feel more pain, and that's something we always have to be sensitive and alive to. Consumers, too often, don't get the priority concern that they ought to get.

There still appears to be some uncertainty among universities and research institutions about whether they need to wire their broadband networks so that they can be tapped by law enforcement (under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA). Do you feel that the FCC needs to clarify its order any further? Does it plan to do so?
Copps: I think we constantly need to be alive to concerns that are being expressed on this. Again, I think what we're looking at is where there's that connection to the publicly switched network and having access to that and not being concerned about things that are peculiar or specific to inside the college or university, where there's certainly less of a need for that kind of oversight.

More Newsmakers

[R Me]

Back to the stoneage

This is a hidden plus for the small and regional ISP'swho are slowly drying because their dial-up customers are switchingto broadband connections.

Yup, you heard me right. So why?

Well, when my broadband becomes useless and bittorrent is blocked and only M$, yahoo, google and other large $$ corporate sites are on the "fast track" then I might as well save $40 month and go back to dial-up and put them all on level playing field.

But then again maybe the powers that be will gain some insight in time to stop this idiocy...Nah.

[Scott Cleland]

"Its all about control"

Commissioner Copps take on net neutrality is interesting becuase he probably could be credited as the "father" of the grass roots net neutrality movement. He is the one that shrewdly politically linked net neutrality and media consolidation as two sides of the same political coin -- meaning both were about keeping big companies from controlling both distribution and content.

In his CNET interview, he says that net nuetrality and media consolidation are "about the same thing." "It's all about control -- can you control both the distribution and the content. And when you do that, it is of course a clasic recipe for monopoly."

With all due respect to Commissioner Copps, I have to challenge that his monoploization thesis does not square with the facts. The Internet and convergence have inalterably shifted competition from the intra-modal "silo" competition that occurred before to the inter-modal, cross-technology competitive free-for-all of today. Any definition of monopolization focuses on the ability to restrict supply and to raise prices. All the evidence points to an explosion of supply, and new voices, more people have more ways to communicate and distribute content than ever before -- and real prices are coming down.

Combining distribution and content can be very pro-competitive. Arbitraily and preemptively blocking the combination of distribution and content blocks more consumer choices and benefits, degrades competition and freedom, and impairs innovation and investment in new technologies and business models. Government regulatory interference is the biggest threat to a free and open Internet, not more competition and integration of distribution technologies and content.

In closing, I agee with Commissioner Copps that this debate is "all about control". However, it appears to be more about maintaining government control over the marketplace than anything else.

[dknews]

Distinguish transport from applications

The Internet was always regulated for non-discriminatory data transport from the get-go, while leaving applications free from constraints.

It is this combination of the original common-carrier architecture of TCP/IP with the freedom of application development that has fueled the explosion in innovation on the Internet.

So conflating these two domains in talking about "control" is completely misleading. What has changed recently is the classification of broadband access as "information services" instead of falling under the domain of "telecommunications services" which remain regulated as common carrier, and rightly so. Net Neutrality (especially as applied to the data transport layer) would simply return us to the original regulatory framework that powered innovation on the Internet. Abandoning NN threatens that innovation, and provides leverage for increased market power by those offering broadband access.

This is about more than "pricing" (though that is a bogus excuse for the telcos), it is about the means for leveraging pricing -- i.e., private content control.

The Internet has risen to the level of public utility in the present day, and thus it should be treated and regulated as such. No private interests should be allowed to control our communications without oversight in the public interest, because those communications are the bedrock of fair markets and broad citizen voice in governance processes.

Yes, it's all about control (of free speech, not just of prices), and we should not give it away to access providers. If we have to choose whom to allow to control the market, at least public government has some mechanisms of public accountability (and keeping the Internet strictly nondiscriminatory can help to ehnace those mechanisms). Private firms are accountable to no one but their shareholders, and maybe not even them. The "invisible hand" is not so apparent in a world where there are still a tiny number of local options for broadband access in any particular locality -- multimodal or otherwise. We can't rely on market competition to make these firms accountable, if they all share common market interests that diverge from public interests that extend well beyond pricing.

It sure doesn't look like a competitive market to me, as the baby bells continue to re-acquire each other and local options remain typically limited to about two choices. Duopolies are not competitive markets. Economists call this an "oligopoly" and market signalling tactcs can still provide a way to avoid anti-trust prosecution (at least pending the outcome of the case that SCOTUS just agreed to hear regarding AT&T).

I'm with Copps on this one.

The only control that the government has imposed on the Internet in the past is that which precludes the data transport companies from controlling what we do on the Internet. That's a good kind of control -- it balaces the power of companies that would otherwise have us under their thumb. Balance of power is good.

If the government removes that oversight, then private forces will be free to ignore the public interest in their dealings, and no effective market forces will be present to rein them in.

Control is a fact of life, it cannot be removed. The only question is who does the controlling. Frankly, I'd be a lot more confortable with a publicly-accountable entity having contrtol than a private entity. I don't trust private entities to respond to any incentive other than those that favor them. As an individual customer I have insignificant leverage to influence the company that provides my Internet access, and if all the choices are equally bad, then I have no means to influence the market.

I see no reason to expedct that any significant amount of market competition will provide meaningful alternatives, especially since broadband service now is not mandated for CLEC-type rules of competition.

Claims of "competition" in broadband service provision are what is unproven here, and until that can be demonstrated convincingly, we ought not experiment with our freedom of speech and the level playing field of our information market.

[dknews]

Distinguish transport from applications

The Internet was always regulated for non-discriminatory data transport from the get-go, while leaving applications free from constraints.

It is this combination of the original common-carrier architecture of TCP/IP with the freedom of application development that has fueled the explosion in innovation on the Internet.

So conflating these two domains in talking about "control" is completely misleading. What has changed recently is the classification of broadband access as "information services" instead of falling under the domain of "telecommunications services" which remain regulated as common carrier, and rightly so. Net Neutrality (especially as applied to the data transport layer) would simply return us to the original regulatory framework that powered innovation on the Internet. Abandoning NN threatens that innovation, and provides leverage for increased market power by those offering broadband access.

This is about more than "pricing" (though that is a bogus excuse for the telcos), it is about the means for leveraging pricing -- i.e., private content control.

The Internet has risen to the level of public utility in the present day, and thus it should be treated and regulated as such. No private interests should be allowed to control our communications without oversight in the public interest, because those communications are the bedrock of fair markets and broad citizen voice in governance processes.

Yes, it's all about control (of free speech, not just of prices), and we should not give it away to access providers. If we have to choose whom to allow to control the market, at least public government has some mechanisms of public accountability (and keeping the Internet strictly nondiscriminatory can help to ehnace those mechanisms). Private firms are accountable to no one but their shareholders, and maybe not even them. The "invisible hand" is not so apparent in a world where there are still a tiny number of local options for broadband access in any particular locality -- multimodal or otherwise. We can't rely on market competition to make these firms accountable, if they all share common market interests that diverge from public interests that extend well beyond pricing.

It sure doesn't look like a competitive market to me, as the baby bells continue to re-acquire each other and local options remain typically limited to about two choices. Duopolies are not competitive markets. Economists call this an "oligopoly" and market signalling tactcs can still provide a way to avoid anti-trust prosecution (at least pending the outcome of the case that SCOTUS just agreed to hear regarding AT&T).

I'm with Copps on this one.

The only control that the government has imposed on the Internet in the past is that which precludes the data transport companies from controlling what we do on the Internet. That's a good kind of control -- it balaces the power of companies that would otherwise have us under their thumb. Balance of power is good.

If the government removes that oversight, then private forces will be free to ignore the public interest in their dealings, and no effective market forces will be present to rein them in.

Control is a fact of life, it cannot be removed. The only question is who does the controlling. Frankly, I'd be a lot more confortable with a publicly-accountable entity having contrtol than a private entity. I don't trust private entities to respond to any incentive other than those that favor them. As an individual customer I have insignificant leverage to influence the company that provides my Internet access, and if all the choices are equally bad, then I have no means to influence the market.

I see no reason to expedct that any significant amount of market competition will provide meaningful alternatives, especially since broadband service now is not mandated for CLEC-type rules of competition.

Claims of "competition" in broadband service provision are what is unproven here, and until that can be demonstrated convincingly, we ought not experiment with our freedom of speech and the level playing field of our information market.

[David Trammel]

Maybe The Commis can explain it

Not to go off topic, since this article was about Net Neutrality, but anyone whose run across my comments to other articles here on CNET know I'm a bit of a fanatic about the First Amendment and all the government seems to be doing lately to gut it.

<<But those who expect us to just put out a piece of paper and say, this is what's indecent and this is not, are looking for the impossible.>>

Thanks for the clarification there Commissioner. (NOT!!!)

I still don't understand, how do you justify making something a crime (like posting a naked picture), yet can't tell anyone clearly just what makes it criminal (and so keep me from committing the crime in the first place?)

Wait and defend myself in court? Must be nice to have the public's dime to do that on.

This goes to the whole root of the so called limit on Free Speech just because the image or subject is "indecent". What you define as obscene and what I define as obscene is never the same. Yet if I'm wrong I face tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills and prison.

And as for the Miller Decision which set forth that clear cut set of criteria for what's obscene. Here's what they said. A work is obscene if it meets these three things:
"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards," would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, . . . (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Supreme Court Justice Douglas writing the desent said:
"Those are the standards we ourselves [we meaning the United States Supreme Court] have written into the Constitution. Yet how under these vague tests can we sustain convictions for the sale of an article prior to the time when some court has declared it to be obscene?"

But the Commissioner has no problem fining people hundreds of dollars first on something you don't know is obscene to begin with.

And as for letting a jury decide, it used to be that you would face a jury of your peers in your own locale. That way, if you were an adult bookstore in LA, at least you faced the community standards of LA. Now the Administration shops the case around. Make a film in California, get tried in West Virgina (where the community standard is much more conservative.)

Talk about chilling Free Speech. Pro-censorship people don't have to defend their views if they simply make the cost of speaking your mind (and getting the boundaries wrong) so sky high as to make people unwilling to risk it.

Trampling on the 1st Amendment through vagueness is still trampling the 1st Amendment.

[laramaral]

the snowe amendment

Here's a link tot he actual amendment that was proposed to protect internet access and has so far failed to be included.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2917:" target="_newWindow">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2917:</a>

if this link dies you can google Snowe 2917 to get a link to the amendment.