(Silver Spring, MD) At the Freedom-to-Connect (F2C) conference held here today, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell held forth like a very wise Washington insider, offering a number of realpolitik observations to the mostly pro-regulatory crowd populated by net neutrality advocates seeking government intervention. But he also offered some well-backed views on the state of broadband competition and where policy should be headed.
Powell clearly thinks that competition is better than government regulation, not a surprise to old FCC hands. “I’d like to see government dedicate more of its energy and noise to driving competitive platforms,” he said. “If we’re going to get the Star Trek world I dream of [i.e. a versatile “communicator” that works everywhere], that third pipe has to be in place.”
“We believe magical things happen at three,” Powell said, reflecting on his roots as an antitrust attorney. “If you don’t ultimately get multiple platforms for distribution competition you run the risk of collapsing into the 100-year old monopoly model.”
Powell warned the attendees to be skeptical of what they wish for in terms of legislative or regulatory solutions to the net neutrality fears. “I’m worried about what’s going on. I’m worried about putting your faith in the governmental oversight process,” he said.
“Be careful of inviting the legislative process because the secondary consequences of their [Congress’] actions can be enormous,” he said. “Government has a way of turning on people.”
Moreover, phone companies and cable companies are potent foes in the policy arena. “Be careful because you’re playing their game. Regulatory battles are an art form and these guys are maestros.”
Powell also took a swipe at the Broadband Policy Statement issued under his successor’s regime, a statement that the Barton bill wants to codify into law. “When an Internet concept has a footnote attached to it that refers back to the Telecom Act, you’ve got a problem,” he said.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:44 PM | Print | Comments (3)
Courtesy of Art Brodsky at Public Knowledge, word is that the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing related to Telecom Act rewrite legislation on Friday, April 7 at 10 a.m. The subject matter is purportedly the power of the incumbent telcos and associated subjects such as net neutrality. Walter McCormick from USTA, Earl Comstock from CompTel, Paul Misener from Amazon and Prof. Larry Lessig from Stanford Law are said to be witnesses.
This move highlights a second power struggle surrounding telecom legislation in the House. The first is a partisan fight that emerged with the release of the Barton bill. This one reflects a possible jurisdictional battle between the powerful Commerce and Judiciary committees.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 3:59 PM | Print | Comments (0)
(Silver Spring, MD) No matter what Congress decides on net neutrality, the FCC will inevitably play a central role in implementing any net neutrality laws, according to a panel of congressional staffers speaking here today at the Freedom-to-Connect conference.
“The FCC is what we’ve got,” Josh Lamel, Legislative Counsel for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said. “The FCC is who our government looks to to handle regulation, deregulation. We can disagree with what the FCC does in interpreting something…but if we don’t turn to the FCC, who do we turn to?”
The Barton bill’s delegation of net neutrality disputes to the Commission, which will adjudicate those disputes according to a set of broadband policy “principles,” has sparked an outcry among net neutrality proponents. These pro-regulation advocates say legislation should mandate more stringent requirements and they don’t trust the FCC left to its own devices.
“To some degree this debate is premised on how much you trust the regulatory agency to handle problems as they come up,” James Assey, Minority Counsel of the Senate Commerce Committee said. To whatever degree the FCC is empowered to regulate, it seems clear that ultimate telecom reform legislation will, in fact, have some form of net neutrality requirement.
“Not having any net neutrality at all is politically a no-go because there are issues here about whether we have a competitive marketplace,” Dana Lichtenberg, Legislative Assistant to Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) said.
Still, network neutrality proponents should be cautious about asking government to solve their problems, Mike O’Rielly, Legislative Assistant to Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) said. “If you’re counting on government to solve a lot of the issues I don’t think you’re on the side of reality right now.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 2:21 PM | Print | Comments (4)(Silver Spring, MD) Say what you want about network neutrality proponents, their conferences are a lot more fun than the typical industry-backed events. David Isenberg’s Freedom-to-Connect (F2C) conference, held here at the AFI’s Silver Theater, is a relatively free-wheeling affair, populated by colorful activists, voluble public interest advocates, the press and a fiddle player that entertains the attendees during breaks.
Given the pro-network neutrality theme of F2C, it’s little surprise that no broadband providers were to be found at the conference. It’s also no surprise that the morning speakers all advocated the adoption of net neutrality regulations.
“It’s now time to stand up and fight,” Jeff Chester head of the Center for Digital Democracy said. Bruce Kushnik, head of Teletruth, said “we paid for open networks, not closed networks.”
Caspian Networks CEO Brad Wurtz warned the faithful that they will lose out if they stick to their fervently held beliefs. If network neutrality advocates seek to ban the creation of premium Internet tiers of service, “that’s a battle that we’re not going to win,” he said. “We need to drive a flexible bandwidth-based Internet model that guarantees privacy without discrimination.”
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 1:28 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Bolstered by what appears to be a major studio-backed PR campaign (NYT article here, LA Times article here, Reuters article here), two online movie distributors announced this morning that they will sell movies that customers can download and burn to DVDs. This download-to-own model is a breakthrough for traditional Hollywood films, which the studios have been reluctant to release via the Internet on anything but a rental basis.
Studio-backed Movielink announced announced it has deals with MGM, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal and Warner Bros that allow customers to purchase films for download and burning. However, the DVDs that are created from these film downloads will only be viewable via PC playback, a sign that the studios are not yet ready to cross the final boundary between PC and TV.
Movielink will makes films available on the same day and date they are released for traditional DVD sales. Among the films available will be Brokeback Mountain, King Kong, Good Night, and Good Luck, Pride & Prejudice, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Walk the Line.
Another movie web site, CinemaNow announced a deal to sell 85 download-to-burn films with Sony Pictures Home Entertainment and Lionsgate. Among the films available for download are Memoirs of a Geisha and Saw II.
The two sites are pursuing different pricing strategies. Films on Movielink are priced at $20 to $30 for new releases and $10 for old releases; movies on CinemaNow are priced at $9.95 to $19.95.
This move is clearly an orchestrated attempt by Hollywood to loosen up its strict online distribution policies to get ahead of the rise of unauthorized film distribution on the web. The move also possibly presages a similar deal with Apple’s iTunes, which has been wooing Hollywood for sale of full-length films via its popular platform.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:21 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
