It only took a couple of months, but the telecom industry, with some other chosen companies, established a technical playpen that could have far-reaching implications for Internet policy. The new Technical Advisory Group (TAG), announced June 9, starts with a core group led by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. There are no consumer or public-interest representatives in the original cast, although Google and DISH Networks are members.
We certainly believe in bringing technical expertise to complicated issues surrounding the Internet. After all, it took a lot of work to figure out that Comcast was sending reset packets that cut off their customers who were using BitTorrent, particularly as Comcast denied doing anything wrong.
While having technical experts talk to each other about technical matters has been a standard way of doing business for decades, the main concern over this TAG is what role it will play in the highly charged world of Internet practices and policy. It depends to whom one speaks. Dale Hatfield, the group's "facilitator," was quoted in the original announcement as saying, "The TAG will function as a neutral, expert technical forum and promote a greater consensus around technical practices within the Internet community." That's fine and as it should be.
Others had a different interpretation. Randy May from the Free State Foundation (a local Maryland version of Progress and Freedom) and Tom Lenard from the Technology Policy Institute, each were quoted as saying the TAG is a step toward industry self-regulation, with May going to far as to say the group was a reason for the Federal Communications Commission to "ditch the reclassification" of broadband telecommunications services. Those organizations tend take the sides of industry, and have the freedom to say things that industry dare not utter in public, even though industry itself tends not to be reticent about saying what it thinks.
The context for the origin of this TAG -- You're IT group is important in trying to determine how it will evolve. The idea was first broached by Verizon Exec. VP Tom Tauke in a March speech largely dedicated to the proposition that the industry can largely take care of itself without much need for the government to intervene.
Throw out "traditional regulatory models," Tauke said: "Instead, we could structure a process that uses the innovative, flexible and technology-driven nature of the Internet to address issues as they arise. Instead of the traditional rule-making process, federal enforcement agencies could structure themselves around an on-going engagement with Internet engineers and technologists to analyze technology trends, define norms to guide such questions as network management, and understand in advance the implications of new, emerging technologies.
"Technology leaders and experts from all players involved in the Internet should set up voluntary organizations and forums to provide advice, recommendations, and advisory opinions to government agencies. This will help inform the agencies' role as backstops that deter damaging activities that undermine the vibrant competition and openness that defines the Internet."
Under Tauke's formulation, the FCC is the backstop to an industry-organized network that would define norms and understand the implications of technologies. That's where this started. Tauke's speech certainly leaves open to interpretation a view that the group is but a mere gathering of wise persons dedicated to making sure the bits flow freely.
Whatever this TAG group is, aspires to be, or turns out to be, it should be clear that it should be as open in its membership and its deliberations. Closed doors and closed processes will not engender any public support.
There should be no mistaking this for any kind of a substitute for a complaint to the FCC. An industry body's recommendation should not be given equal weight to that of a regulatory agency. Google, one of the original members, agrees.
As Google Telecom Counsel Rick Whitt wrote: "To be clear, the BITAG is still very much a work in progress, and we welcome the involvement of other interested entities, especially those representing the Internet user community. Further, the purpose of the BITAG is not to replace the oversight and enforcement authority of the FCC or any other government body. Rather, we hope the BITAG can bring together some of the smartest technical minds in this space to provide some useful guidance to policymakers and Internet stakeholders alike."
And no one, no one, should take this group to be any reason at all for the FCC to abandon its program to make sure that there is an official, regulatory cop on the beat to protect consumers, promote innovation and provide rules of the road. Those are the steps that lead to economic growth. The reclassification exercise is built around the need to redirect universal service funds, to allow the FCC to deal with privacy, cybersecurity and other issues they will not be able to deal with absent the proper legal authority. The TAG -- You're IT group will deal with none of those and heaven knows they need to be dealt with.
Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky
Josh Silver: Harold Ford's Corporate Crusade Against Net Neutrality
If the FCC heeds Harold Ford's advice, you can say goodbye to candidate Obama's promises of universal, affordable Internet access and Net Neutrality.
Even as revenues have increased, the telecommunications sector's job-loss trend has accelerated. In fact, industry statements have indicated that job cuts will continue - but with no mention of FCC action as the culprit.
Art Brodsky: Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales' Open Internet Problem
Jimmy Wales' failing to take a position on net neutrality -- despite the impact this debate will have on his websites and his business -- is both telling and troubling.
Harold Feld: Rep. Mike Doyle Shows Washington How To Stand Up For What's Right
Rep. Doyle's colleagues should learn from his example of how to respond when corporate interests dress up their agendas in populist clothing -- whether on net neutrality, financial reform, or any other issue.
The FCC today issued a notice of inquiry seeking comment on three policy proposals that describe possible approaches to regulating broadband access. Based on the comments made by FCC chairman Genachowski, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, and Commissioner Michael Copps, playing in the same playpen as Comcast, Google, and Verizon does not appear to be on their minds. None of them acknowledged the formation of the group much less the positive contribution that could be provided in the form of expert advice from this alliance.
Then again, these three commissioners in particular appear to have problems with organic strategic alliances that result when the market realizes that cooperation provides, at times, the highest returns. The concept of net neutrality never smiled favorably on partnerships. In promoting net neutrality, Mr. Genachowski and company turned their back on how minority content providers could enter into agreements with access providers on terms and conditions for the transmission and pricing of traffic.
It’s not surprising given the “my way or no way” attitude the FCC is taking toward reclassification. Even when in light of no statutory authority to reclassify broadband as telecommunications, the FCC is dead set on doing so without the necessary help of Congress. We should expect they would take this attitude toward Congress as well.