Internet Trailblazers Trade Neutrality Barbs

Regulators must see discrimination as an “impermissible method of competition,” Cerf said. Anyone should be able to file a complaint against a broadband carrier perceived as biased against a Web service or application, he said, and the accused pipeline provider should have “to show they've not violated the principle.” Strict statutory deadlines must apply to processing complaints against ISPs, with injunctions and other remedies incorporated, Cerf said. Dispute outcomes should run in the Federal Register, serving the dual purpose of warning against bias and illuminating govt. decision- making, he said.

Cerf’s approach to bias didn’t sit well with Farber. He said he fears feuds between Internet providers and Web content companies could stretch for years, stymying progress for those involved and offering competitors advantages. “We're in a rapidly changing world in both applications and technologies and quite often… the FCC is used as a competitive weapon,” he said. Cerf said strict statutory deadlines -- “like administrative law procedure” -- would keep arguments from dragging on. “I'm not sure that’s worked in the past,” Farber responded.

But Cerf hasn’t quit his net neutrality crusade. The House may have voted down the measure and the Senate Commerce Committee followed suit, but he still has hope for the full Senate. “I haven’t given up,” he said: “If we wait to see if something bad happens… that’s the threat that worries us.” Legislation introduced by Sens. Snowe (R-Me.) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) in the Senate and Rep. Markey (D-Mass.) in the House was “intended to put everyone on alert,” Cerf said.

The network architecture “we've known and loved” might see dramatic change the next 5-10 years, Farber said. That complicates things for lawmakers and regulators, he said: “There are a lot of very serious and very detailed technical questions that arise. For those to be welded into law… may cause us to have more obstacles than we care to have in the future evolution of our networks.” Pushing for “hazy laws,” hoping regulatory bodies will be able to “rapidly adjudicate those and rapidly be responsive to new technology… is probably expecting too much,” he said.

The network has “never been a very fair place,” Farber said. Online services routinely use “bypass carriers” like Akamai to offer better performance in certain areas, he said. The net neutrality debate has “turned into a show,” with partisans throwing “everything into the kitchen sink” and obscuring basic questions about the Internet’s future. The core concern is whether consumers get a choice for broadband service and how stakeholders guarantee that choice, he said: “The focus shouldn’t be on protecting companies against companies, it should be protecting users [from] companies in general.”

Farber believes mandating net neutrality is a “slippery slope,” he said. He worries that once a law is passed in this arena, “it would be irresistible” for legislators to impose more rules on the Internet, he said. “It is beyond me why [Ed] Whitacre stirred up this hornet’s nest,” Farber said, referring to the AT&T chief’s declaration that Google, Vonage and others can’t expect to use AT&T’s “pipes [for] free”.

The Internet experts shared their grimmest scenarios for the neutrality debate’s outcome. Cerf’s nightmare involves no law being passed and “after the mergers are all settled and the best behavior policies are no longer needed, local exchange carriers and others begin to do as the threats have said -- limit users access to the rest of the Internet based on who pays them.” Farber’s is a bill passing, leaving Net providers bogged down in legal and regulatory mechanisms “that slow us down to a crawl,” hampering the next-generation Web’s evolution. Both said they fear the U.S. will lack effective tools for fighting abusive Internet practices, should they materialize.

Educating lawmakers and their staffs on complex high- tech issues is a chore, they agreed. Cerf called that “a never-ending challenge,” given the Capitol’s ever-revolving doors. Some “get it” and others don’t, he said, numbering among the enlightened Sen. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Rep. Markey but not saying who he deems dim. He suggested Senate Commerce Chmn. Stevens (R-Alaska) doesn’t grasp Internet issues. “Do a Google search for ’tubes’ and ‘Internet’ and see what comes up,” Cerf said, referring to Stevens’ notorious explanation of how the Net works.

It would be “more effective, no matter what side you're on,” to sharpen the focus of what’s said to the Hill, Farber said: “They're confused because they hear different things from different people on the same side of an argument.” There are “too many bumper sticker [slogans]” and “too much noise” polluting the net neutrality fight, but not “enough facts in digestible form,” he said. Maybe Congress needs an Internet comic book, Cerf said: “Comics are a remarkably terse and effective way of communicating basic ideas. That medium may be good way of getting basic facts in place.”