NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Vint Cerf Comments On Government's Role In Internet Broadband Access
Vint Cerf Comments On Government's Role In Internet Broadband Access
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000399.html
Greetings. Some offhand comments by Google's Vint Cerf at a recent
event seem to have a triggered a panicky "Vint Cerf proposes
nationalizing the Internet" buzz that's been ramping up fairly
rapidly.
Holy BitTorrent, Batman! Army paratroopers seen dropping into
parking lots at AT&T and Comcast, while the Transportation Security
Agency orders us all to remove our shoes before surfing the Web!
Settle down, everyone. As usual with these kinds of stories, the
truth is significantly different from the breathless buzzing.
Here's how Vint described his thinking on this issue to me last
night, presented verbatim. And I'll note right here that I agree
100% with his analysis. If the Internet is really the essential
infrastructural and economic pillar that is claimed all around, it's
time that we started treating it that way.
- - -
[ Comments From Vint Cerf ]
"In a NYC event called Personal Democracy Forum, the question of
broadband access came up. There isn't enough facilities based
competition in broadband and in my opinion there isn't likely to
be. I expressed the opinion that perhaps the Internet should be
treated more like the road system. You don't have multiple roads
going to your house for example. Instead, it is a common
resource. I said something like "maybe we should treat the
Internet more like the road system."
The discussion went on and the point was made that the incentives
for the present set of broadband carriers (basically the telcos
and the cable companies) stemmed from their origins as
purpose-built networks. Telephone nets were designed and built
to deliver one service: telephony. Cable systems were built for
one purpose: to deliver television.
In that context [and although it was not said, given the monopoly
characteristics of each] the FCC separately regulated them. This
worked reasonably [some might disagree] as private sector systems
each oriented around a single service. The rules were organized
around how that service was to be provided including the network
built to deliver it. The Internet service, however, has been
treated as a title I information service. There is no
regulation.
Moreover, the Internet is not purpose built for one application.
It is capable of supporting a wide range of applications. A
problem arises with the provision of Internet service via the
telephone network and the cable network. The carriers of these
services seem to feel that because they own the resource and
because the Internet service is unregulated, they can impose any
rules they like and constrain users of the services however they
wish. There is inadequate competition to discipline this market.
If broadband service is essential to the national economy and to
citizens, given the present means by which it is implemented,
and given that it appears unlikely that the usual competitive
pressures will lead to discipline among the competitors, perhaps
we need new national rules to assure that the service is openly
and equally accessible to any application provider and to all
users. Equal does not mean that everyone pays the same amount.
In particular, higher capacity might be priced at a higher rate.
Provision needs to be made, however, to deal with high cost (to
the provider) areas using a new form of Universal Service or
some other subsidy.
I would not rule out municipal networks that citizens decide to
build through bond processes (usually meaning the private sector
is engaged to build and probably operate). Some of us have
termed this kind of open access rule making "horizontal"
regulation since the openness is intended to be along the
Internet service layer. Applications and services provided
above that layer can be highly competitive and provided by any
application provider on the network.
In the UK, BT has been split into a wholesale Internet business
and a retail business. Anyone can buy raw Internet service at
wholesale and then operate any application service above that.
Capacity is priced based not on bytes transferred but on maximum
rates of use (usually capped). The idea is to provide new
incentives for broadband Internet providers to keep the system
open to new applications and to promote substantial competition,
not at the facilities base but above the IP layer. At present,
the incentives do not favor such a posture."
[ End of Vint Cerf's Comments ]
- - -
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com