NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Vint Cerf Comments On Government's Role In Internet Broadband Access
Lauren -- I won't say I have a lot of definite insights to offer, but I thought I'd add some pointers to put this into a likely much more useful context. See this 1992 Executive Order by GHWB on "Privatizing Infrastructure": http://www.waterindustry.org/12803.htm (The only other link I could find for that online is way down on: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00000501----000-notes.html) Privatization and deregulation have been the thrust of theories of government policy for some time now. 1983 was the year of Reagan's television speech in which he showed his placards saying "Privatize" and "Deregulate." Our notions of government policy for common carrier stem in large part from the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887: http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/interstate_commerce.html http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docimages/pdf/doc_49.pdf . . . which largely was inspired by the troubles the States had with the interstate railroad corporations from the Civil War on. But the name of the agency created, the Interstate Commerce Commission, shows the broadness of scope that was envisioned for it. The ICC oversaw the phone industry before the FCC was established, and indeed the ICC was at the time a new model for government agencies that inspired the design for many later agencies including the FCC. At that time, the States found themselves unable to uphold local policies against the railroad companies, so it was (eventually) envisioned that a Federal agency could play a role in controlling the market powers of such entities via interstate commerce regulation. (These days, a questioning that was alive in the Civil War era has recently re-arisen regarding the rights that are supposedly accorded to corporate "persons" -- perhaps this area of inquiry will show ways of looking at and addressing this same lump of issues much more fruitfully.) By 1995 many of the functions of the ICC were held to be defunct (privatized and deregulated away), so in that year it was terminated, with its remaining functions turned over to the Surface Transportation Board: http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title49/subtitlei_chapter7_subchapteri_.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Transportation_Board (By their FAQ page, they apparently continue to get questions about whether they are the Interstate Commerce Commission.) . . . and this also dovetails with the history of the Federalism Executive Orders of Reagan and Clinton: 1987 Reagan Executive Order 12612 on Federalism http://www.uhuh.com/laws/eo12612.htm 1999 Clinton Executive Order 13132 on Federalism http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/EOs/eo_13132.html The Clinton order originally was somewhat different (and still has notable differences from Reagan's), but the States put up a clamor regarding his original version (see http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/eo/bl13083.htm), and after consultation he ended up with the above version. In the respects I'm describing here, the two orders are substantially similar. In connection with questions of government and infrastructure, the notable thing about the philosophies exhibited and implemented by Reagan and Clinton in these orders is that the according of powers to the States in the context of privatization and deregulation also disregarded the problems that inspired the Interstate Commerce Act. Speaking very generally and noncommittally: changing notions of the relationship between the Federal government and the States have been reflected in changing orientations regarding the implications and appropriate uses of the Commerce Clause. Seth Johnson Lauren Weinstein wrote: > ________________________________________ > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> > Sent: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:54:47 -0700 > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Cc: lauren@vortex.com > Subject: [ 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 > > > -- [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.