Net Neutrality Debate Started in 1999, Tauke Says
ASPEN, Colo.-- The net neutrality debate, which threatens to hang up the telecom bill, isn’t new, Verizon Exec. Vp Tom Tauke said Tues. at the Progress & Freedom Foundation’s annual conference here: “It’s a debate many of us have participated in at least twice before; it’s kind of ‘Groundhog Day’ for broadband.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The issue emerged in 1999 with the “open access” debate. Cable companies that owned ISPs were denying access to other ISPs. The FCC refused to intervene and the market worked out the problem, Tauke said. The next version of the argument came when the FCC was considering how to regulate broadband services. With the FCC’s decision to treat broadband as an information -- rather than telecom or cable -- service, the market again was allowed to work, Tauke said.
Now comes the net neutrality fight, in which “'old rules’ advocates call for nondiscrimination and demand that business models be shaped by regulation,” Tauke said: “For all the fireworks over net neutrality, I believe there is now an emerging consensus” that the issue is consumers and their ability to get information and services they want: “Relationships between and among players [should] be resolved in the marketplace.”
Telcos remain firm in resisting net neutrality nondiscrimination requirements in the telecom legislation. “We would oppose any bill with strong net neutrality language,” said USTelecom Pres. Walter McCormick. Congress isn’t likely to go that way, said Howard Waltzman, majority chief counsel, House Commerce Committee. “There would not be a bill sent to the president that included [net neutrality nondiscrimination requirements] because the House would not agree to it,” Waltzman said: “I do not believe the Snowe- Dorgan amendment would pass the Senate.”
“I see no need for Congress to act where there’s no problem,” said Qwest CEO Richard Notebaert. It’s “preposterous” to think that network operators would degrade services when consumers are the focal point of their business model, Notebaert said. The FTC is an appropriate agency for policing any bad behavior on the part of network operators, he said, and the new task force announced Mon. (WID Aug 22 p1) will assure greater scrutiny: “The FTC is not only able to regulate Internet services; it is the most appropriate government entity to do so.”
Meanwhile, Tauke said Verizon won’t seek federal franchise legislation next Congress if the telecom bill (HR- 5252) fails: “We aren’t going to be starting out from the same place -- the appeal of video is going to be less.” A big reason is the success Verizon has achieved on the state level with franchise laws, Tauke said, so the momentum for federal reform “is going to be less.”
“I think the stars are aligned” for passage of the bill, Tauke said, maintaining optimism that the political hurdles the legislation faces can be overcome. But Verizon make seek other goals next Congress, Tauke said. “Every year there are new challenges,” he said: “I still see a need to streamline and update rules like USF [Universal Service Fund].” But in terms of federal action, “this is the year for video choice,” he said.