Tim Karr has an excellent analysis of what we can look forward to the technological and policy battles we can look forward to in 2008. A lot of these areas directly intersect with the work I do at the New America Foundation and Tim's done a fantastic job of laying them out in an accessible way. Lots of links to background information and further reading:

Setting the Stage for a People-Powered Web in 2008

Posted January 4, 2008 | 09:19 AM (EST)

In the dimming days of 2007, we bared the Telcos' ugly side for all to see. Powerful communications companies including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast brought us a year of privacy invasions, threats to free speech and the deceptive blocking of Internet applications and access.

But all is not bleak. The year saw a number of prospects for getting high-speed Internet access and open communications to more Americans. But protecting a free-flowing Internet from these would-be gatekeepers depends largely on decisions we will make in 2008.

Below you'll find ten hopeful moments from 2007. Each in its own way has set the stage for the year ahead:

Read more...

The New Network Neutrality includes ten criteria laid out by Sascha Meinrath and Victor Pickard that help create a more participatory and democratic Internet:

• Requires Common Carriage.
• Is Open Architecture and Supports Open Source Driver Development.
• Is Open Protocol and Open Standard.
• Supports and End-to-End Architectures (i.e., is composed of a "dumb" network).
• Is Private (e.g., no back doors, deep packet inspection, etc.).
• Is Application-Neutral.
• Is Generally Low-Latency and First-In/First-Out (i.e., requires adequate capacity for both).
• Is Interoperable.
• Is Business Model Neutral.
• Is Run by its Users (i.e., is internationally representative and non-Amerocentric).

Download the full paper here.

This is from an interview I did with the Lone Star Iconoclast. I'd meant to post it awhile back, but things got busy...

Interview With
Sascha Meinrath,
Community Wireless Networks Expert

URBANA, Ill. — Last week, the Senate heard testimony from various consumer groups and progressive think tanks on "Network Neutrality," the subject of popular debate as Congress attempts to reform the 1996 Telecommunication Act.

Read more...

My good friend Ben Scott testified today before the Senate Commerce Committee, illuminating why network neutrality is so important. Below is the synopsis:

June 13, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Craig Aaron, (202) 265-1490, x 25

Free Press asks Senate to Save Net Neutrality, Ensure Universal Access to New Networks

Policy Director Ben Scott testifies on behalf of consumer groups at Senate hearing on major telecom legislation

WASHINGTON -- Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott will testify today before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on behalf of Free Press, Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America at a hearing on the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686).

The full text of Scott's prepared testimony is available at http://www.freepress.net/docs/scott_2686_testimony_final.pdf

The hearing will be webcast live beginning at 10 a.m. EDT at http://commerce.senate.gov

A summary of the testimony follows:

"Free Press, Consumers Union, and Consumer Federation of America appreciate this opportunity to testify on the revised draft of the Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). We strongly support the goal of this legislation: to expand consumer choice and access to competitive video and broadband services.

"American consumers currently face high prices and very little competition in both the video and broadband Internet markets. Monopoly and duopoly provision of these essential communications services limits innovation, widens the digital divide, and permits rates to rise beyond the reach of many households. As the United States falls further behind in the global race to lead the world in broadband, action must be taken to remedy the failures of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and bring vigorous competition to video and broadband that will enhance the diversity of media choices for consumers. This is a window of opportunity to make broadband and video services available and affordable with robust content choices for all Americans.

"However, our haste to bring competition must not result in a blind giveaway to one industry or another. Such action would simply yield anti-competitive activity in another direction and leave our problems unresolved. S. 2686 takes many positive steps but leaves much undone. Without substantial changes to the bill, the benefits of video and broadband competition will not reach many American households -- particularly in the low-income and rural areas which need those benefits the most. The bill opens the door to competition, but doesn't ensure that new networks will be built universally. Key public interest protections and services have been abandoned, the most important of which is Network Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet.

"Any franchising framework without reasonable build-out requirements cements the digital divide into statute. On the one hand, it allows telephone companies to cherry-pick the most profitable franchise areas in the country and ignore all the others. On the other, it gives the incumbent cable operators an incentive to lower prices in competitive areas and raise them in non-competitive ones. Without regard to conditions of effective competition, the bill would eliminate prohibitions against discriminatory cable pricing. The end result will be that the most lucrative markets in the country will have video competition, new technologies and lower prices. But less prosperous and rural areas will be left out of the new networks and may well experience higher prices for the monopoly service still available. The unintended consequence will be systematic redlining on a national scale -- leaving millions of consumers with empty promises.

"On the question of Network Neutrality, this bill applies the most important principle in communications law -- nondiscrimination -- indiscriminately, leaving out its most important application. The firewall of Network Neutrality, which protects competition, maximizes consumer choice, and guarantees fair market practices, has been abandoned on the Internet -- endangering the most important engine for economic growth and democratic communication in modern society.

"Nondiscrimination made possible the grand successes of the Internet. Its removal can take them away. This will not happen immediately, of course. But once the practice of network discrimination begins, it will be virtually impossible to reverse. The loss of Network Neutrality will be a perpetual regret to all consumers and producers of Internet content and services, as well as to this Congress. Yet S. 2686 merely instructs the FCC to study the process that will destroy the Internet as we know it.

"Notably, nondiscrimination is applied throughout this bill as a critical protection against abuses in the marketplace and a promoter of competition. The bill has it right in each case, but fails to bring the same logic to the Internet. For example, local franchising authorities must treat competitive video providers in a nondiscriminatory manner in the use of the public rights-of-way. Local governments that propose to build broadband networks must not use local ordinances to discriminate. Under the program access rules in S. 2686, cable operators may not use their market power to make exclusive or discriminatory deals with programmers that are denied other operators. Telecommunications providers must treat facilities-based VOIP providers in a nondiscriminatory manner. USF support must be distributed according to principles of competitive neutrality.

"The only sector that does not enjoy this protection against discrimination is Internet content, applications and service providers -- the most dynamic marketplace in our economy. We should apply the principles of nondiscrimination everywhere in an even-handed fashion. We must protect Internet freedom by preventing the telephone companies and cable operators from putting toll booths on the information superhighway.

"It is both just and reasonable to apply nondiscrimination protections across the communications sector. Everyone loves nondiscrimination until it is applied to their own properties. The same telephone and cable companies that demand nondiscrimination in program access and interconnection hypocritically deny its importance in the broadband market. This duplicity must not be codified into law. The move toward discrimination and exclusivity for Internet content spells disaster for consumers -- meaning higher prices, fewer choices, and a gatekeeper standing astride what was heretofore been a truly free market.

"This legislation also takes some positive and welcome steps. First, we applaud S. 2686 for opening up more unlicensed spectrum for innovative wireless broadband applications. The empty broadcast channels represent a massive public asset for next-generation communications that is ready for immediate use. This type of spectrum reform contained in this bill is much needed and overdue.

"Second, we also strongly support the protections against pre-emption given to municipalities that would offer broadband to their constituents, either via public networks or the public-private partnerships already enjoying success in hundreds of communities. It is critical to remove all barriers to the development of broadband services.

"Third, we believe that the reforms of the Universal Service Fund proposed in this bill are steps in the right direction. The expansion of the base of contributions and insertion of stringent accountability and audit measures will help stabilize a critical public-service program. We also support the application of USF funds to broadband in underserved areas. However, we are disappointed to note that the requirement for USF-supported networks to become broadband compatible has been removed from the bill. The USF programs must evolve to bring the dominant communications technology to all American households.

"Fourth, we support the establishment of mandatory channel allocations and funding for public, educational, and government access television. This bill will bring online thousands of new channels that will provide an important public service and dedicate funding to support them. We must ensure that our most successful access channels -- those currently operating at budgets above the 1 percent franchise fee allocation -- are not harmed by this bill.

"Finally, we support a rigorous application of non-exclusivity and nondiscrimination requirements to MVPD programming. Consumers have long been denied choices in video programming because of the anti-competitive activities of the system operators. This bill recognizes that the program access rules must be strictly applied and expanded to prevent MVPDs from using market power to execute anti-competitive practices. The terrestrial loophole certainly should be eliminated, but Congress should also move toward expanding diversity of programming through an a la carte pricing system and reform of the retransmission consent rules.

"The Communications, Consumers’ Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 presents Congress with a great opportunity to make broadband and video services competitive, affordable, and open to all content, applications and services that flow over the networks to consumers. In many ways, this bill is a step in the right direction. However, the lack of build-out requirements and the failure to protect Network Neutrality are severe flaws. If left unaddressed, they will undermine the positive outcomes of this bill and leave consumers worse off than they were before. No reform of communications law that solidifies a duopoly of wireline triple-play providers can be pro-consumer without Network Neutrality and system-wide build-out requirements."

Roycroft Consulting has just released a study of the detrimental economic impacts of not maintaining Network Neutrality. Documenting myriad areas where consumers will lose if network owners are allowed to discriminate at will, the report includes real-world examples of network discrimination:

...in 2005 Vonage, a provider of Internet telephone service over broadband access facilities, complained to the FCC that Madison
River Telephone Company had blocked ports used for VoIP applications, effectively disabling consumers’ ability to utilize VoIP. On March 3, 2005, the FCC approved a settlement agreement in which Madison River agreed to pay the U.S. Treasury a fine of $15,000, and to no longer block VoIP ports. Sabotaging non-cooperative competitors by excluding them from the “fast lane,” or extorting rents, while favored affiliates and partners are given advantages, are consequences which must be anticipated from telephone and cable companies who demand the right to discriminate and exclude. [Report Page 7]

as well as warnings about the impact this type of discrimination would have on innovation and the freedom to utilize broadband access as we see fit. As Roycroft quotes from Verizon Wireless' Acceptible Use Policy:

Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-tomachine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess is for individual use only and is not for resale. We reserve right to limit throughput or amount of data transferred, deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using NationalAccess or BroadbandAccess in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Verizon Wireless reserves the right to protect its network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. [Report Page 7-8]

The real-world impacts, were this type of Acceptible Use Policy extended to the Internet more broadly (instead of just 3G services) are fairly clear-cut. As Roycroft explains:

The fact that Verizon’s 3G wireless broadband service has usage restrictions associated with uploading, streaming, VoIP, or peer-to-peer will hinder innovation in these areas. If these types of restrictions were placed more broadly on network users, due to the rise of “differentiated” last-mile networks, the impact on innovation would be pronounced. If, for example, end-users have limited upload capabilities or cannot use a service for streaming, then the incentive and ability to innovate in these areas is greatly reduced. Similar restrictions have been introduced on an intermittent basis whenever the principle of network neutrality has been relaxed. The threat that network operators may introduce such restrictions on an intermittent basis also pollutes the open environment for innovation on the Internet. [Report Page 8]

Roycroft also points out the dangers of "vertical integration" to diversity of content -- and issue we have seen ad nauseum during the media conglomerization processes of the last 25 years:

With vertical integration the owners of last-mile broadband
facilities could acquire providers of Internet content, services, and applications, and sell consumers bundles of e-mail services, search engine capability, and e-commerce—similar to the bundling strategies pursued by telephone and cable companies with voice and video services that they currently offer. Such a transformation would rob consumers of their ability to choose, and diminish the benefits of competition which are currently available to users of Internet content, services, and applications.

Roycroft also points out that this conglomerization both far from done and is quite likely to hit the wireless market particularly hard (something I pointed out back in 2004 in my chapter in the book, "The Future of Media"):

Due to the FCC’s elimination of restrictions on the amount of spectrum that can be controlled by a firm in a specific market area, major mergers of wireless firms have occurred. AT&T (the long distance provider and CLEC) spun off its wireless operations in 2001. AT&T wireless was then acquired by Cingular Wireless (jointly owned by the SBC and BellSouth, [who are now also merging]) in 2004. Voicestream wireless merged with Omnipoint Communications and Aerial Communications in 2000. Voicestream was later acquired by Deutsche Telecom and now operates under the T-Mobile name. In 2005 Sprint combined its wireless operations with the wireless operations of Nextel. Also in 2005, Western Wireless was acquired by the wireless and local exchange operator Alltel. Based on the evaluation of wireless markets in 2006, some industry observers indicate that the wireless market may still be “too crowded,” and point to the likelihood of further consolidation.27 The consolidation in the wireless industry points to an emerging oligopoly market in wireless, with the two largest wireless firms (Cingular and Verizon Wireless) being owned by two of the three remaining RBOCs. [Report Page 12]

And with fiber, this phenomenon may be even worse -- since a home only needs a single fiber line, whichever company builds a Fiber-to-the-Home system will have a straglehold on that local market, thus allowing a company to determine pricing and service quality without much fear of competition. One of my favorite offerings from the report is the fact that network discrimination has already been tried (and failed spectacularly) previously:

It is notable that network differentiation has already been tried by consumers in the narrow-band dial-up world, and consumers overwhelmingly rejected that approach to the provision of electronic information and communication services once the open-access Internet, built on a foundation of policies that promoted network neutrality, became available. At one time firms like America Online, GEnie, Delphi, Prodigy, and Compuserve offered consumers proprietary data processing and data communication services over incompatible and noninterconnected networks. This approach to selling data services ultimately faded as the public Internet became available. Most of the firms that pursued the network differentiation business model no longer exist, and those that do survive have combined Internet access with their proprietary offerings.

Consumers have already voted with their feet away from the proprietary data network model, once given the opportunity to consume electronic data and communication services in an open-access environment. The reason for this exhibited consumer sentiment is the same in the broadband world as it was in the dial-up world—consumers place a high value on services based on policies which encourage protocol standardization, interoperability, and network effects. It is only now, because of telecommunications policy reversals that enable the owners of last-mile broadband facilities to leverage market power in last-mile broadband markets, that the inferior market offering of restricted access to Internet services could be forced on the consuming public. [Report Pages 14-15]

What is important to remember is that network discrimination all but necessitates the creation of proprietary (rather than open) networking protocols. And these protocols will inevitably fail to create the innovative open environment we take for granted on the Internet today. If Network Neutrality isn't protected, we all but guarantee that households across the United States will receive worse services for higher prices.

As has been reported, the House Judiciary Committee passed the Internet Freedom & Non-Discrimination Act" Thursday by a vote of 20 to 13. With over 750,000 people petitioning Congress to prevent broadband discrimination it's rather incredible that some representatives still voted against this bill. Given that this issue has huge bi-partisan support, and cuts across the political spectrum, forging, amazingly an incredibly strong left-right coalition of supporters, why did the Republican party organize many of its Judiciary committee members to vote against the bill? Interested in finding out how representatives voted? Here's the tally:

Judiciary Committee: HR 5417, the Internet Freedom & Non-Discrimination Act

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th Aye
Hon. Hyde (R) Illinois, 6th --not voting--
Hon. Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th No
Hon. Smith (R) Texas, 21st No
Hon. Gallegly (R) California, 24th No
Hon. Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th Aye
Hon. Chabot (R) Ohio, 1st No
Hon. Lungren (R) California, 3rd Aye
Hon. Jenkins (R) Tennessee, 1st Aye
Hon. Cannon (R) Utah, 3rd Aye
Hon. Bachus (R) Alabama, 6th No
Hon. Inglis (R) South Carolina, 4th Aye
Hon. Hostettler (R) Indiana, 8th No
Hon. Green (R) Wisconsin, 8th No
Hon. Keller (R) Florida, 8th No
Hon. Issa (R) California, 49th No
Hon. Flake (R) Arizona, 6th --not voting--
Hon. Pence (R) Indiana, 6th --not voting--
Hon. Forbes (R) Virginia, 4th No
Hon. King (R) Iowa, 5th No
Hon. Feeney (R) Florida, 24th No
Hon. Franks (R) Arizona, 2nd No
Hon. Gohmert (R) Texas, 1st --not voting--
Hon. Conyers Jr. (D) Michigan, 14th Aye
Hon. Berman (D) California, 28th Aye
Hon. Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th Aye
Hon. Nadler (D) New York, 8th Aye
Hon. Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd Aye
Hon. Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th --not voting--
Hon. Lofgren (D) California, 16th Aye
Hon. Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th Aye
Hon. Waters (D) California, 35th Aye
Hon. Meehan (D) Massachusetts, 5th --not voting--
Hon. Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th Present
Hon. Wexler (D) Florida, 19th Aye
Hon. Weiner (D) New York, 9th Aye
Hon. Schiff (D) California, 29th Aye
Hon. Sánchez (D) California, 39th Aye
Hon. Van Hollen (D) Maryland, 8th Aye
Hon. Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th Aye

Without broad public support, this is a long shot, but expanding the Clayton Act to prevent discrimination in broadband service provision would be a huge boon to residential and business users throughout the country. With the major manufactures who supply equipment to the telecom incumbents recently throwning their support behind the telecom incumbents position (is anyone surprised?), protecting the public from corporate excess is of growing import. In much the same way that the original Clayton Act was a direct response to the Robber Barons of the Industrial era, much like Claton upgraded the Sherman Act, a new revision is certainly necessary to curb the malfeasance of todays Telecom Robber Barons.

From today's Benton Headlines:

SENSENBRENNER OFFERS NEUTRALITY BILL
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced a bill Thursday that would apply antitrust sanctions against cable and other broadband-access providers that discriminate against Web-based providers of content, services and applications. The bill would amend the Clayton Act to require broadband-access providers to interconnect their facilities on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; to operate their networks in a nondiscriminatory manner so that unaffiliated content, service and applications have an equal opportunity to reach consumers; and to refrain from interfering with consumer access to lawful content, services and applications. Under the Clayton Act, passed in 1914, injured parties may sue in federal court to obtain an injunction, recover treble damages and collect attorneys’ fees.

"This legislation is a necessary step to protect consumers and other Internet users from possible anti-competitive and discriminatory conduct by broadband providers,” Rep Sensenbrenner said of the bill offered the bill with bipartisan support from his panel's ranking Democrat, John Conyers (Mich.), and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.). Sensenbrenner’s statement said he came forward with his bill because the House Commerce bill (H.R. 5252) fell "well short of ensuring that broadband-network providers do not abuse their market power.” Amazon.com, eBay, Google, InterActiveCorp, Microsoft and Yahoo! issued a statement in support of the Judiciary bill (H.R. 5417).

From: www.multichannel.com

Sensenbrenner Intros Net Neutrality Bill: www.broadcastcable.com

Politicos propose new action on Net neutrality: news.com.com

Consumer Groups Applaud Bipartisan Bill on Network Neutrality: www.freepress.net