Even Andrew Noyes has checked out. I'm hanging in there.
"Leading the Way in Broadband Innovation: What Should the US Strategy Be?"
Ambassador Richard Russell, President's office on Science and Technology Policy
Milo Medin - CTO, M2Z Networks
Susan Crawford, Visiting Professor, Yale Law School
Joe Waz, VP of External Affairs and Public Policy, Comcast
Quick hit and run liveblogging:
Crawford - Broadband is not Internet Access. We've failed to have an industrial policy pushing access, we have no competition, and that "Shamu and Godzilla" are battling with bundles. Internet Access is a utility like electricity, sewers, etc.
Waz - Cable is a historical accident: CATV was originally built to bring TV signals to people who couldn't get it. He thinks wireless will lead to competition, and that we're gonna have multiple wireline providers "trying to beat the tar out of each other." Docsis 3.0 is being spurred by Verizon FiOS. Bundles are pushing adoption (cites Triple Play).
Moderator Wildstrom asks if there is a contradiction between the idea of competition and the idea of Internet as a monopoly. Punts to Crawford, who believes that this is a natural monopoly, and that 700mhz as a "third pipe" is a pipe dream (my words, not hers). She believes whoever provides access should be considered a utility. Calls Comcast a bandwidth hog for using their bandwidth for TV.
Medin calls her idea "a travesty."
Russell also disagrees. Two ways to look at problem: a) one heavily regulated carrier or b) multiple providers and have marketplace competing at multiple levels in different ways. Right now? We have the worst of both worlds in competition between cable and telcos, but not alot. All networks, except FiOS are retrofitted to carry the Internet. Hard to hit a Gigabit with Wireless, but some people would rather have ubiquity than higher speeds (like me!).
Russell wants a 4th and 5th pipe somehow, and believes that would drive prices down dramatically.
Crawford says by a utility, she means non-discrimination.
Waz responds to the "bandwidth hog" comment by saying that must-carry is a bandwidth hog. DOCSIS 3.0 will allow more channel bonding. Crawford agrees, but as an Internet provider, TV is still a bandwidth hog (she says).
Wildstrom: Do we need Universal Service for Broadband?
Russell: Universal Service is good, but can be cautionary tale because it could deter new market entrants who aren't getting subsidy.
Wildstrom: No excuse for huge POTS Universal Service fund.
Medin agrees, and says that we should target infrastructure by geographic need.
Crawford has hope for White Spaces, despite her skepticism on wireless.
Russell: Hybrid systems could be a solution for rural areas. The developing world is going wireless. Poorest slums in Kenya are filled with mobile phones, it's the first thing people buy.
Waz: Why are we talking about Net Neutrality instead of fixing "digital divide?" Net Neutrality and FCC involvement is irrelevant. He wants the "fine minds of Palo Alto" on rural access.
Crawford: Why not make rural access open? Why can't we have both?
Medin: Traffic shaping dates back to NSFNet, not new at all. Question w/ management is "what is the goal?"
Crawford is wary of the network operators having too much control...refers to common carrier system. Medin thinks that's crap. His solution to Net Neutrality is to have more networks! "Competition can discipline the system..." Notes that FCC grants tons of waivers to licensees who don't build out.
Russell: what we want to avoid is anticompetitive behavior, and the FCC is doing a good job of being "the cop on the beat..."
Wildstrom: Authors of '96 Telecommunications Act thought they were creating competion. Why did that fail? Was it killed by anticompetitive behavior?
Waz: You don't expect someone to share something they built that would result in their own demise...put a ten year freeze on voice over cable. Government needs to "clear the way"
Crawford agrees that the protracted litigation around '96 Act killed it, but the separation between the content and the provider was a good idea.
Medin: '96 Act was a compromise, engineers don't like compromise. Compromising on engineering leads "crap for policy...cutting the baby in half."
Russell: Remember the '96 Act took 10 years to write, should have been called the '86 Act. Had way too much to do with Long Distance and wrongly believed that competition could exist by everyone sharing the same 80 year old copper wire.
Crawford: The '96 hardly mentions the 'net except for the defunct CDA.
Russell asks Crawford if because of uncertainty on FCC's interpretation of Title I of '96 Act, people aren't writing code. Crawford segues into a Net Neutrality argument, but Medin cuts her off and notes that lots of business are getting funded that depend on networks, and if someone does something egregious, it'll get dealt with by competition. Medin is still arguing for more pipes..."if you don't like Comcast, jump on FiOS."
That's it for this panel...one more to go, let's see if I can survive.
Leave a comment