(New Orleans, LA) Net Neutrality was a big topic at this year's NCTA show. Congressional staff, FCC commissioners and even the Administration weighed in on the hot-button issue before an audience of operators hoping to hear that no net neutrality regulations would be forthcoming any time soon. And for the most part, that's the message the operators heard.
The highest ranking government official to address the topic was keynote speaker Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. Gutierrez said the administration fully supports the industry's right to define "reasonable network management," the latest flashpoint for net neutrality issues, as it best sees fit. "As internet use skyrockets and methods of accessing the Internet multiply, managing Internet traffic has become a nightmare at times," he said. "The rapid pace of change makes it very difficult if not impossible to define what is reasonable network management."
But, like Republican FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Gutierrez thinks that cable operators should be more transparent about what kinds of management policies they put into place. "We believe providers should disclose management practices to consumers," he said.
During a lunch panel featuring top government representatives, one interesting question cropped up: which arm of the government should have jurisdiction over network neutrality. FTC Commissioner Jonathan Leibowitz, in a nod to those who see net neutrality as an antitrust matter, said "we are an agency with jurisidiction" over network neutrality abuses. Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell said that there is "potential for concurrent jurisdiction or overlapping jurisdiction" between the FCC and the FTC.
Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps sees it differently. "It's a very simple approach. Just establish the principle and let it be known that the FCC has jurisdiction," Copps said.
Congress, meanwhile, has the ultimate jurisdiction over this issue but don't expect network neutrality legislation to go anywhere for at least a year, a group of key legislative aides said during a panel discussion. Amy Levine. Senior Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Energy & Commerce, which has introduced a net neutrality bill, said that "election year is a difficult year to pass legislation."
But a lot depends on how broadband providers behave. "I think where we go from here depends on what happens in the marketplace," she said. "If the market is looking for solutions, that lessens the need for Congress to act."
A bill sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), which makes net neutrality a matter of antitrust law, will likewise see little traction this year, according to David Whitney, Minority Counsel, Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property. Judiciary Committee Senior Counsel Seth Bloom said that although the Committee really believes in the principle of network neutrality, "there hasn’t been a great record of abuse in the marketplace" and "antitrust as a discipline doesn’t like to be highly regulatory or prescriptive."
Cynthia Brumfield at 9:04 PM|Comments(1)
Isnt this the same dialog which occurred with ICANN. Every time the ICANN warriors got together, they all agreed that transparency was the common principle all could agree on - and then which no one would abide by. There has been "consensus" on transparency for years now - consensus without action. The IETF passed a resolution in 2005 and NRIC passed a resolution in 2003 http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutraldis.htm
Posted by: Genny Pershing at May 21, 2008 8:54 PM
Blogs We Read
