At the Freedom2Connect conference on Monday Pulver.com general counsel Jonathan Askin (right) put together a panel of House and Senate staffers to discuss the prospects for network neutrality legislation this year.
The panelists were:
Dana Lichtenberg, legislative assistant to Rep. Bart Gordon, Tennessee Democrat
James Assey, minority counsel, Senate Commerce Committee
Mike O’Reilly, legislative assistant to Sen. John Sununu, New Hampshire Republican
Josh Lamel, legislative assistant to Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who sponsored net neutrality legislation recently, was also no the panel but I can’t find any notes attached to him. It may be that some remarks attributed here to others were made by him, and so I apologize in advance. (I also got into the room late and may have missed some remarks for that reason.)
They were questioned by Drew Clark, a reporter for the National Journal
Q: What is going to happen with net neutrality legislation?
Lichtenberg: My chairman doesn’t feel that the issue is ripe yet
O’Reilly: We are still studying the issue.
The problem is there is no common definition of net neutrality. Are you counting on the FCC to save your bacon? Im not sure you can count on the commission to do that. People are still saving some cards
Q — The phone companies want to offer cable service nationwide./ And the cable companies don’t want to give that. Yet both sides agree they don’t want net neutrality rules? How does this complicate things
Lichtenberg – There was an attempt to limit the legislation to cable franchising, and not get into these sticky wickets. But it’s all connected. Video and cable networks are your voice and data networks. It’s hard to limit the issue.
Two, in defense of cable, they would be fine with a national franchise as long as they get the same rules. Their big concern is to be treated in a non-discriminatory way. Without the same rules they could die. The cable companies are much smaller than these big companies – all the cable companies combined will not be equal to AT&T BellSouth. And we need to be concerned about the voice market. VOIP is the same pipe as video, and if we’re not careful you could wind up discriminating against a VOIP provider vs. the one provided by the network.
James Assey – In some senses they are separate, in some ways they are combined. On the Senate side we have limited power to control what members offer what amendments. The bill takes a life of its own.
Q – Tech companies like Microsoft and Google and Yahoo want network neutrality, but the issue is much broader. Both Dana and Mike have bosses who are involved in legislation that will impact the VOIP community.
Lichtenberg – VOIP providers have been required to provide E911, which means linking to the local Bell company. It’s a market barrier if you can’t do it. Until now we’ve allowed liability protections to encourage people to do E911.
O’Reilly – E911 hasn’t driven the debate necessarily. The folks involved in VOIP are engaged in the debate. Today it’s voice and tomorrow it could be video.
Lichtenberg – What’s important is interconnection, not just E911. They’re having troubles connecting. It’s something the House bill will look at, basic interconnection rights.
O’Reilly – Sen. Sununu is a supporter of the 4 network neutrality principles.. But it is a question of definition and liability. Who are the decision makers? Is it the commission? We’ve had concerns the last many months. Everything is intertwined.
Lichtenberg – The FCC is what we’ve got. The FCC is who our government looks to to handle regulation, deregulation, in general. We can disagree with what the FCC does. If we don’t turn to the FCC who do we turn to? Do we turn to the DC Circuit Court?
Q- Can we come up with a solution that doesn’t just support incumbent carriers?
Lichtenberg – We think there is a way to deal with this problem legislatively, and that’s why we introduced legislation. Others are scared because of the potential consequences. We won’t know that until if and whether legislation passes. But it’s a fair question about the incumbents. It depends on people in this audience. In the media debate there was a huge groundswell and they backed off from that.
Assey – We have to address this with a degree of humility. We have had a provision of law that prohibited network operators from unfair discrimination. To some degree this debate is based on how much you want to trust the regulatory agency to address problems as they come up.
Q – What does the wireless broadband world teach us about net neutrality.
Assey – Wireless carriers are Title Two carriers, and subject to the rules of other phone networks
Q – What about WISPs
O’Reilly – I don’t disagree. We might be sympathetic on points. If you’re counting on government to solve issues you have problems. My boss co-sponsored the whitespaces bill (a bill to let unlicensed operators use spaces between TV stations). We are examining those issues.
Q – So what does the audience want? Net neutrality in legislation, letting the FCC rule, or Sen. Wydens bill.
Assey – Neither. Option number 3. (Wyden got most support, but most audience members were most interested in getting more open spectrum.)
Assey – At the risk of setting off a riot, I wouldn’t disagree that unlicensed spectrum has been a driver of innovation. The one thing about unlicensed is there is a neutrality in the rule of these systems – they have to accept interference. That is a rule of neutrality. When there are central network operators the issues are slightly different.
Q – At most conferences people are very respectful of the House and Senate staff. I want a round of applause for the hill staffers.
Askin – Right now it’s impossible to get Congressional staff to travel. It’s easier for the Senate because they just pop on the red line. I want to acknowledge Dana for coming from House side, who is in a battle to make sure good language gets into the coke bill.
