Reframe Net Neutrality Debate, CDT Says

Some say net neutrality means a full common carriage regime for broadband networks, others want the focus put on interconnection, CDT told reporters. Some neutrality backers have tried to reach beyond online offerings to address use of high-speed networks in their entirety, the group said. Today’s Internet is neutral in many ways, setting the Web apart from other networks, especially cable TV, CDT said. Any bill should avoid “a bureaucratic, time-consuming or otherwise heavyhanded or over-inclusive regulatory scheme,” it said.

The latest telecom reform draft from Senate Commerce Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) (WID June 17 Special Report) lays out consumer rights network operators would have to protect, CDT Staff Counsel David Sohn said. The proposal, set for markup tomorrow (Thurs.), is aimed mainly at Internet traffic blocking, not discrimination on the broadband pipeline, he said: “That doesn’t fully protect the kind of neutrality we've seen on the Internet today… We would like to see rules that squarely address discrimination, spelled out more clearly in statute.”

CDT wants to know explicitly what actions network operators must avoid so the FCC is “truly in an enforcement role,” Sohn said. A solely consumer-oriented approach makes it too hard to translate lawmakers’ wishes into regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, he said. CDT hasn’t endorsed any bill, but clear-cut neutrality provisions such as those in S- 2917 introduced by Sens. Snowe (R-Me.) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) are preferred, CDT Staff Counsel John Morris said. The Stevens draft “could be the starting point for a good net neutrality bill,” he said. Snowe and Dorgan are expected to offer S-2917 as an amendment to the Stevens draft at markup.

A successful telecom bill, regardless of sponsor, needs a distinct neutrality provision that bars bias, CDT Exec. Dir. Leslie Harris said: “It is better to establish rules of the road in advance, so that neutrality will be factored into network architecture and business plans from the start.” CDT fears that once new non-neutral networks and business models are in place, overturning those deals could be “extremely difficult,” she said.

Defining the non-Internet portion of a company’s network could prove challenging, but sometimes the separation is easy to identify, Sohn said. Standard cable providers have dedicated a single 6 MHz slice to Internet activity, which is “quite distinct from the ESPN2 channel,” Sohn said. Figuring out how other operators distinguish Internet from non- Internet activity is “not an insurmountable burden,” he said. “Nailing down precisely what definitions should look like in statutory language would take some effort as legislation moves forward,” Sohn told us after the briefing.

Net neutrality rules need not last forever, Harris said: “Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the Internet portion of networks is growing and robust and is supporting the kinds of applications and services that consumers want.” In time, regulators could decide the Web is running smoothly and that practices on the pipe’s Internet portion aren’t “impinging or crimping” content consumers want, Harris said.

The think tank doesn’t see its position as a compromise between polar views from net neutrality fans and foes, Harris said: “We view it as a position that’s highly developed and focused after a lot of study.” To reach its conclusions, CDT spent months studying the topic, including closed-door consultation with stakeholders from all sides and a paper by MIT researcher Daniel Weitzner. In his report, Weitzner described 4 essential features of Internet neutrality: (1) Nondiscriminatory routing of packets. (2) User control and choice over service levels. (3) Ability to create and use new services and protocols without prior approval of network operators. (4) Nondiscriminatory peering of backbone networks. Those constitute the “social contract among Internet service providers that has been indispensable to its great openness and success,” Weitzner said.

Despite CDT’s good intentions, Hands Off the Internet Co-Chmn. Chris Wolf called the group’s proposal “bad news for consumers and for the future of the Internet.” The slippery slope created by the proposal would result in govt. regulation of the Web and shift the cost of building tomorrow’s Internet onto the backs of consumers, he said. The new draft of Stevens’ bill and the recently passed House bill offer “a true reasonable middle ground in this debate by strengthening existing FCC authority to protect consumers without creating new federal regulation of the Internet,” Wolf said.

“When you put lipstick on a pig it’s still a pig,” an AT&T spokeswoman told us. CDT’s proposal is a blatant attempt at dressing up “the many proposals to regulate the Internet,” she said. Even if the group’s recommendations were accepted, the result still would be “consumers paying all the costs of building a better Internet while Internet Goliaths like Google receive government-sanctioned corporate welfare to avoid paying their fair share,” the spokeswoman said.