Net neutrality debate still simmers

WASHINGTON--Verizon Communications' top lobbyist on Tuesday said the tussle over Net neutrality laws may be the "oddest" Capitol Hill debate that he's ever experienced.

The feud over whether to prohibit network operators from making deals to prioritize certain Internet content is puzzling because it "amounts to holding a congressional vote on hypothetical business plans," Thomas Tauke, Verizon's executive vice president for public affairs, policy and communications, said in a luncheon speech here organized by the nonprofit Media Institute.

"For consumers and the country, government regulation of this developing market is a lose-lose proposition," he said.

Tauke's appearance came as the fate of extensive Net neutrality mandates in Congress remains uncertain.

reader's guide
Congress' broadband battles

A look at various provisions of the telecommunications bills currently before Congress.

On June 28, the Senate Commerce Committee narrowly rejected, by an 11-11 vote that fell mostly along party lines, an amendment to a sweeping communications bill that would have forced network operators to adhere to nondiscrimination rules sought by Internet companies such as Google and Amazon.com.

Since then, Democrats such as Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden have vowed to block that bill's passage by the full Senate unless stricter rules are added. A Senate Commerce Committee aide said Tuesday that such a vote would not occur before September.

The version of the bill approved last month would require network operators to adhere to an "Internet consumer bill of rights," which would generally bar them from interfering with their subscribers' ability to access lawful sites, applications and services, connect legal devices to the network, and post content of their choosing. The House of Representatives took a similar approach with its own version, which cleared in June.

But Internet content companies and hundreds of organizations, ranging from MoveOn.org to the Christian Coalition, charge that such guidelines don't go far enough. They argue that if Congress doesn't outlaw the business models described by Verizon and AT&T executives, then consumers will have to contend with Internet "gatekeepers" for the first time in history. As a result, they may encounter higher costs and fewer choices, as garage start-ups struggle to cough up the priority fees they need to compete with wealthier enterprises.

Since the close vote last month, supporters of more comprehensive Net neutrality regulations have taken to poking fun at remarks made by Committee Chairman Ted Stevens during the latest round of debate.

"The Internet is not something you just dump something on," the audibly irritated Alaska Republican said while attempting to defend his bill's approach. "It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes."

His comments, which have circulated widely through the blogosphere, have since inspired a mock slideshow depicting such a scenario, a silk-screened T-shirt design, and a techno song (click for MP3).

On a more serious note, Google Vice President Vint Cerf said last week that if Congress doesn't approve strong anti-discrimination rules, Internet content companies won't be afraid to take their case to the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust police.

The mandates sought by Google and others would actually have a negative impact on consumers and broadband prices by stifling network operators' quest to recoup the billions of dollars they've invested in new pipes, particularly as they widen their video offerings, Tauke argued on Tuesday.

"If government policies reduce the opportunity to earn a return on that investment," he said, "network operators won't have a choice: They simply won't be able to deploy them."

[enovikoff]

Recouping Internet Investments

Oh, the poor telecom companies! They're almost bankrupt, soon they'll be unable to afford to run their networks and the internet will die! Take pity on them, they have no money because of all the unused dark fiber they put in in the 90's during the dot-com frenzy is bankrupting them. So, if we decide we want streaming video, I guess they'll have to put in more fiber, since they appear to have forgotten about all that unused fiber. Then of course they'll need preferential service (tiered pricing) to charge everyone more for the same thing.

Unless you recently fell off the turnip-truck, you can see this is just more lies and posturing. As Yahoo pointed out, they already pay handsomely for internet access. So do I. We all pay per bandwidth used. If they put in more bandwidth, and we use more, they can charge more. So really, what we're talking about here is double-dipping. Let's just call it what it is: GREED!

I *wish* the telecom companies would have some challenge to being profitable so they'd spend their money on... um.... improving TELECOM! Right now, with the obscene profits they're bringing in, they are abusing us with:
1) Endless silly advertising of "products" that are all positioning, misleading information and no concrete benefits to the consumer.
2) Money wasted on lobbyists so they can legally rape our wallets.
3) Buying each other out in an attempt (probably to be successful) to recreate the 60's monopolies... where you had to buy all your equipment from them.
4) Depriving stockholders of legitimate stock price gains because they are wasting their money on 1-3 above.

To the senate Republicans: sometimes doing the best thing for business doesn't mean doing what the lobbyists for the biggest companies tell you to do!

[Cedric Sr]

Net neutrality still simmers

I must agree with enovikoff, it is pure greed and they [telecom corp
giants] figure as long as the current administration is in office lets
go for the gold and stick it to the consumers just like our oil
buddies. If they are so broke why are they acquiring other telecom
corps. spending billions upon billions. People or companies for that
matter don't typically spend what they don't have. If I don't have
the cash or credit to purchase, guess what, I don't get it. The
corporations and the government need take heed like everyone
else.