(Boston, MA) A panel of four industry, analyst and academic representatives here at VON today evenly occupied opposite ends of the spectrum on the subject of net neutrality. The most strident of the speakers was analyst Scott Cleland, founder of the Precursor Group.
Cleland clearly brooks no opposition on the topic, a decidedly non-analytical approach to such a complex issue. He dissed the entire concept of network neutrality saying bluntly that under the current regulatory regime there is “no consumer harm” and that net neutrality advocates have tossed out “hypothetical and unsubstantiated allegations” to bolster their views.
He claimed that groups such as SaveTheInternet.org are just playing “politics” and that net neutrality advocates purposely exaggerate the risks of a two-tiered Internet. “There’s no better way to energize the bloggers than by creating a boogeyman,” Cleland said. Net neutrality advocates act as if “the earth will stop rotating on its axis unless we’ve got net neutrality regulations.”
On the polar opposite end of the spectrum was Cardoza Law School Professor Susan Crawford who also thinks net neutrality regulations aren’t needed — she just wants to see a structural separation between broadband providers and any content they transmit over their networks. In other words, broadband networks should be dumb pipes with no content involvement by the networks’ owners.
“Structural separation is necessary in this country. We should be able to call a transport provider just a transport provider,” Crawford said. “I’m driven to this by the absence of broadband competition in this country.”
Against the backdrop of these two fire-breathers, BellSouth’s VP of Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Banks seemed rather tame. He somehow conflated deregulation of DSL services with net neutrality, ending up at a place where the absence of network neutrality regulations is deregulatory. “Deregulation has led to an unmitigated set of good things,” such as lower DSL prices and stepped-up broadband take-rates.
The Internet is going to need innovative applications, and broadband providers therefore need to experiment. “In order to do that [achieve innovation] you may need to prioritize on traffic. You might need someone to share the cost of the broadband transmissions,” Banks said. “To the extent that network neutrality says you have to do everything the same, it’s going to put the kibosh on that kind of innovation.”
Skype’s Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Chris Libertelli, argued that innovation will be best served by net neutrality regulations. “The proposals from the companies like AT&T and Verizon that would fundamentally change the architecture of the Internet, would fundamentally change the way entrepreneurs develop new services.”
Skype itself wouldn’t exist under a tiered Internet model, he argued. Three years ago Skype’s founders got together in a bar in London to sketch out the Internet voice service. “They were able to succeed because consumers liked Skype. They didn’t have to go around the planet to cut deals with broadband providers.”
Cynthia Brumfield at 7:43 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
