My good friend, Marvin Ammori, is hosting the University of Nebraska Space & Telecom Law Program's Telecom and Space Conference in DC tomorrow. It's an all-star lineup and certain to contain a good amount of interesting debate. I'll be there for an afternoon panel and look forward to the day's discussions.

“Looking Back at the Past Eight Years, Looking Toward the Next Four”

November 13, 2008
Washington Court Hotel
525 New Jersey Avenue
Washington, D.C.

8:45 a.m. Welcome (Matt Schaefer, Director, UNL Space & Telecom Law Program)

8:50 a.m. Opening Remarks FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein

9:00 a.m. Morning Keynote Discussion
* Richard Wiley, Partner, Wiley Rein, former Chairman, FCC
* Ben Scott, Policy Director, Free Press
* Cecilia Kang, Washington Post (moderator)

10:00-11:00 a.m. Wireless Issues
* Fred Campbell, President, Wireless Communications Association & former Wireless Bureau Chief, FCC
* William Webb, Head, Ofcom Research & Development (U.K.)
* Terri Natoli, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, Clearwire
* Robert Pepper, Cisco (invited)

11:20 a.m. - 12:20 p.m. Network Neutrality
* Marvin Ammori, Professor of Law, U. of Nebraska College of Law & former General Counsel, Free Press (moderator)
* Frannie Wellings, Telecom Counsel, US Sen. Byron Dorgan
* Rebecca Arbogast, Principal, Stifel Nicolaus,
* Markham Erickson, Executive Director, Open Internet Coalition
* James Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President-External and Legislative Affairs, AT&T

12:30 p.m. Lunch

2:00-3:00 p.m. International Issues
* Tricia Paoletta, Harris, Wiltshire, & Grannis
* Ambassador Richard Russell, US Ambassador to ITU WRC-07
* Helen Domenici, International Bureau Chief, FCC
* Jonathan McHale, USTR

3:20-4:20 p.m. Broadband Policy/Universal Access
* Sascha Meinrath, Research Director, Wireless Future Program at the New America Foundation (moderator)
* Derek Turner, Research Director, Free Press
* Christopher Libertelli, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Skype
* Link Hoewing, Vice President – Public Policy Development and Corporate Responsibility, Verizon
* Scott Reiter, Director of Industry Affairs, National Telecommunications Cooperative Association—The Voice of Rural Telecommunications

Senator Durbin has launched a 4-day online discussion with everyone who's interested. This is an incredibly rare opportunity to help directly impact national telecommunications legislation -- your ideas and feedback will be used to help draft legislation to provide ubiquitous, affordable broadband. You can listen to Durbin's 2-minute intro below:

I will be one of the featured experts on Thursday evening and will be following the conversation over the next four days. If you're interested in having your voice heard -- this is definitely a great opportunity to do so.

Here's a great clip from my good friend Ben Scott, Policy Director of Free Press:

Ben explains in 5 minutes why the AT&T/iPhone exclusive contract is bad for consumers, innovation, and the general public.

I am only just now getting a chance to make a first read of this amended 128-page document. AT&T's goal is to pass it by tomorrow -- with almost zero debate, due diligence, or public input. From what little I've garnered thus far, this amendment is an utter disaster for Illinois residents. It's being crammed through in a late-night legislative coup because it would never pass if legislators actually had time to read and analyze this massive document -- first I'll begin with most of the "old" language from SB678.

As I first reported yesterday evening, AT&T is attempting to pass an incredibly bad piece of legislation by amending it to a popular bill in the dead of night. Amendment number 3 leads off with a number of great ideas -- the creation of a "Broadband Access on Passenger Rail Plan" and the "High Speed Internet Services and Information Technology Law."

But then the real purposes of this amendment, to limit consumer choice, empowerment, and control over Illinois telecommunications, begins to shine through. A great example is on Page 3-4, Section 10-15:

19 (a) Notwithstanding any other statute, the Lieutenant
20 Governor, with the advice of the Broadband Deployment Council,
21 shall authorize the creation of a nonprofit corporation called
22 Connect IL to implement a comprehensive, statewide high speed
23 Internet deployment strategy and demand creation initiative

Yet a closer look at this non-profit demonstrates demonstrates that its very structure ensures that the private sector (and not consumers, government officials, and/or non-profit organizations) will control the entity (on Page 4):

13 (b) Connect IL's governing board shall be appointed by the
14 Lieutenant Governor, with the advice of the Broadband
15 Deployment Council, and shall not exceed 11 members, with a
16 maximum of 6 representing the private sector and a maximum of 5
17 representing the government and nonprofit sectors. Four of the
18 private sector members shall be from the largest incumbent
19 local exchange carriers, one shall be from the cable television
20 industry, and one shall be from the Internet Service Provider
21 (ISP) industry. Members representing the public sector shall
22 include one member from a public Illinois university, one
23 member that represents Community Technology Centers, one
24 member from the Department of Commerce and Economic
25 Opportunity, one member from the Lieutenant Governor's office,
26 and one member from the Department of Central Management.

As someone who serves on the Broadband Deployment Council, I have watched as incumbent representatives have systematically undermined the very innovations that this group is supposed to foster. The position that Connect IL would be any different is incredibly naive. Right from the get-go, Connect IL is an industry-controlled front group whose purpose is to obfuscate systematic, structural failings of the market sector to deploy affordable high-speed broadband to many Illinois residents and communities.

Section 10-20 (Pages 5-6) further exemplifies just how utterly impotent Connect IL will be:

In Section 10-20(a)(1), Connect IL is empowered to:

13 (1) Create a geographic statewide inventory of high
14 speed Internet service and other relevant broadband and
15 information technology services.
16 (A) identify geographic gaps in high speed
17 Internet service through a method of GIS mapping of
18 service availability and GIS analysis at the census
19 block level; and
20 (B) provide a baseline assessment of statewide
21 high speed Internet deployment in terms of percentage
22 of Illinois households with high speed Internet
23 availability.

Section 10-20(a)(2-5) (Pages 5-6) states that Connect IL will:

24 (2) Track and identify, through customer interviews
25 and surveys and other publicly available sources,
1 statewide residential and business adoption of high speed
2 Internet, computers, and related information technology
3 and any barriers to adoption.
.
.
.
16 (4) Collaborate with high speed Internet providers and
17 technology companies to encourage deployment and use,
18 especially in underserved areas, by aggregating local
19 demand, mapping analysis, and creating market intelligence
20 to improve the business case for providers to deploy.
21 (5) Establish a program to increase computer ownership
22 and Internet access for disenfranchised populations across
23 the State.

This all looks great -- in fact, I'm all for it, and I suspect that most consumer advocates would be happy to hear that these ideas were included in this amendment... and they might even have stopped reading right there, but there's a poison pill. In the very last paragraph of Section 10-20, in subsection "f" there's this clause:

14 ...any information that is designated
15 confidential or proprietary by an entity providing the
16 information to the nonprofit organization or any other entity
17 to accomplish the objectives of this Article shall be deemed
18 confidential, proprietary, and a trade secret and treated by
19 the nonprofit organization, Connect IL's governing board, or
20 anyone else possessing the information as such and shall not be
21 disclosed.

We already know from telecom incumbents' own FCC proceedings that all of the information that Connect IL is supposedly going to measure is considered proprietary. In essence, this entire section is a lark -- there's no intention to ever collect this information, provide it to the public, or otherwise meaningfully aid the general public or decision-makers with useful data.

And just to make the impotence of Connect IL entirely explicit, there's Section 10-25 on pages 7-8:

22 ...Nothing in this Article
23 shall be construed as giving the Lieutenant Governor, the
24 Broadband Deployment Council, the nonprofit organization, or
25 other entities any additional authority, regulatory or
1 otherwise, over providers of telecommunications, broadband,
2 and information technology.

Section 10-30 transfers all money from the "Digital Divide Elimination Infrastructure Fund" under the control of the Connect IL industry front group by creating the " High Speed Internet Services and Information Technology Fund."

And the thing is, this amendment just gets worse from here.

Included in this amendment are provisions that radically change Section 13-505.4 of the "The Public Utilities Act" -- the apply named "Provision of noncompetitive services." The introduced section of law (Paragraph c on pages 10-11) would create both bundling of services and the precedent for service providers (through bundling) to leverage state-wide franchise in one service (for example, the state wide video franchise that AT&T is demanding) into completely new media (for example, Internet service provision). Parsing through the jargon, legalese, and purposeful complexity of this paragraph, it would appear that AT&T is attempting to undermine local control of almost every media but enabling a lowest common denominator approach to franchising.

As an example, if AT&T gets a state-wide video franchise, they can then declare video to be bundled with Internet service provision, and thus ignore local authorities, mandates, consumer protections, etc. by declaring that Internet provision is now covered by the state-wide video franchise. More importantly, it would allow a telecom incumbent to undermine local buildout of telecom services by basically legalizing predatory pricing. If this amendment passes, municipal entities will lose the power to control any "service, service element, feature, or functionality or bundled offering" and have little recourse against telecom incumbents who artificially lower pricing to prevent local authorities from being able to build out publicly-owned infrastructure.

[UPDATE 1]

Sec. 21-101 on Page 14 states:

15 (g) Providing an incumbent cable or video service provider
16 with the option to secure a State-issued authorization through
17 the termination of existing cable franchises between incumbent
18 cable and video service providers and any local franchising
19 authority, is part of the new regulatory framework established
20 by this Article.

In essence, combined with the power to engage in anticompetitive pricing, the intent of this amendment is to legally protect telecom incumbents (or "video service providers") that break their contracts with local municipalities. So, if you received a 5-year franchise in say, 2003, and you've utterly failed to meet your build-out requirements, this law would enable you to break your agreement without compensation or recompense for the communities who these incumbents took advantage of.

The law also explicitly exempts "any person or entity that provides cable television services" (Sec. 21-101.1) -- clearly AT&T doesn't want it's competitors benefiting from this massive corporate welfare program. Sec. 21-201 also exempts satellite video and broadband providers through the defining of "access" to exclude them (very clever, though entirely anticompetitive).

"Broadband service" is defined on Page 16 as:

6 (c) "Broadband service" means a high speed service
7 connection to the public Internet capable of supporting, in at
8 least one direction, a speed in excess of 200 kilobits per
9 second (kbps) to the network demarcation point at the
10 subscriber's premises.

Thus locking the State of Illinois into an absolutely ridiculous legal definition for this service. More importantly, it adds a new twist -- that the speed is only to the "demarcation point." So an apartment building of 20 units would be considered to have "broadband service" if a single line were run into the building that had 200kbps of throughput (in a single direction). This means that the state of Illinois would legally define as "broadband service" speeds that are a tiny fraction of a dial-up modem. It's a remarkable leap backward for Illinois.

[UPDATE 2]

I've just learned that all of Section 10 -- the parts attempting to set up the Connect IL initiative -- have been cut from SB678.

[UPDATE 3]

AT&T's SB678 just passed the Illinois House 113-0.

[UPDATE 4]

Low-income buildout requirements for SB678 are still defined (on Page 18) using a household income of $35,000 -- which is far above the poverty level -- in fact, in much of rural Illinois, $35,000 is very close, and for some areas under the median income. This allows telecom providers to still ignore poor constituencies while still being able to claim that they serve legislatively-defined "low-income households."

Section 21.301(c) makes it possible for incumbents to break existing franchise agreements with local municipalities (and thus avoid current buildout requirement and their timelines). From Page 21:

5 (c)(1) An incumbent cable operator may elect to terminate
6 its agreement with the local franchising authority and obtain a
7 State-issued authorization by providing written notice to the
8 Commission and the affected local franchising authority and any
9 entity authorized by that franchising authority to manage
10 public, education, and government access at least 180 days
11 prior to its filing an application for a State-issued
12 authorization. The existing agreement shall be terminated on
13 the date that the Commission issues the State-issued
14 authorization.

Following paragraphs make explicit that local franchise rights will be usurped by state franchises -- thus formally eliminating local control over services, land use, agreement enforcement, and consumer protection.

[UPDATE 5]

I've finally made it through the PEG and related language of the bill. These sections are actually quite good and I can understand why many folks who've been working on these specific facets of the bill are quite happy with them. However, the elimination of local control over franchising, and the transferal of this control to the State Legislature, is going to cause massive problems down the line. On the one hand, I applaud folks who've worked to make the best out of a bad situation, on the other hand, let's not forget that this is a bad situation to begin with.

Buildout requirements are still a joke -- all but guaranteeing that broadband in Illinois will continue to stagnate. The speeds that incumbents need to deploy are inane all they need to do is (from Page 59):

1 ...provide
2 wireline broadband service, defined as wireline service
3 capable of supporting, in at least one direction, a speed in
4 excess of 200 kilobits per second (kbps), to the network
5 demarcation point at the subscriber's premises, to a number of
6 households equal to 90% of the households in the holder's
7 telecommunications service area by December 31, 2008, or shall
8 pay within 30 days of December 31, 2008 a sum of $15,000,000 to
9 the Digital Divide Elimination Infrastructure Fund

To make things even more ridiculous, there's a clause that would allow for the extension or exemption of buildout requirements if the incumbent claims (from Page 60):

9 (3) The inability to access developments or buildings
10 using reasonable technical solutions under commercially
11 reasonable terms and conditions.

Since "commercially reasonable terms and conditions" are left up to the incumbents to define, this creates a de-facto unenforceable buildout requirement. This is something that I'd pointed out in my original analysis of HB1500 at the beginning of March.

Sec. 21-1401 is fairly self-explanatory (from Page 68):

3 (a) The provisions of this Article are a limitation of home
4 rule powers under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of
5 the Illinois Constitution.

That's right -- this bill, introduced 24 hours ago (Thursday morning) and set to pass today (Friday), would limit powers granted by the Illinois Constitution. And these constitutional limitations will continue for over half a decade -- until October 1, 2013.

In the end, this is a bill that looks good on the surface, but contains so many loopholes, caveats, and redefinitions that it fails in its primary mission to spur connectivity to Illinois residents.

This posting comes out of months of discussions with telecommunications lawyers and wireless developers, FCC and congressional staff, implementers and integrators, municipal representatives and community organizers -- people with a high degree of experience and expertise in the realm of wireless networking. Part of the reason for the posting stems from a recent resurgence of interest in the M2Z application on several important virtual groups I participate in, part of the reason is that this has been sitting on my to-do list for quite some time, and part is because the M2Z application is both innovative and problematic, which is a rare and intriguing combination.

From M2Z's September 1, 2006 (amended) "Application for License and Authority to Provide National Broadband Radio Service in the 2155-2175 MHz Band":

M2Z Networks, Inc. (“M2Z”) hereby submits its license application to construct and operate a nationwide broadband wireless network in the 2155-2175 MHz spectrum band (the “Application”). Expedited acceptance and grant of the Application will enable M2Z to rapidly make available free, high speed broadband access to nearly every consumer, business and non-profit and public safety entity in the United States without relying on the Universal Service Fund or other taxpayer dollars. Grant of this Application would promote broadband deployment; yield near ubiquitous broadband access within 10 years of license grant and commencement of operations; and serve the public interest, convenience and necessity

...M2Z will transform the broadband marketplace by creating a nationwide, free broadband alternative for most Americans within an exceptionally short time frame. M2Z, therefore, requests that the Commission act expeditiously on the instant Application so that current and would-be consumers of broadband services can benefit from the increased availability and competition that M2Z’s service will bring to the broadband marketplace.

On the face of things, this is a wonderfully exciting development. But delving deeper does raise a number of concerns, not only with the spectrum use proposed, but with the current state of wireless regulation and it's disregard for pending technological innovations that make most spectrum policy obsolete.

Read more...

Continue reading »

Here's a great list from the Ramsay Report of all telecom bills introduced (thus far) in the new congress:

Read more...

Continue reading »

Lots of folks have asked me for a copy of the presentation I gave at the 2007 National Conference for Media Reform. Beyond LANS, MANS, and Community Intranets: The CAIDA COMMONS Project is available here. The general COMMONS Project website is currently housed at: http://www.caida.org/projects/commons.

Viviane Reding, Member of the European Commission responsible for Information Society and Media, gave a talk this past Summer, The Review 2006 of EU Telecom rules: Strengthening Competition and Completing the Internal Market.

James Enck wrote of Viviane's talk, "Little did I know at that time that Viviane Reding was about to drop the structural separation bomb" yet pointed to the seeming disconnect between current EU practices and support for the US telecom model:

I am puzzled, however, by the extent to which she seems to be enamored of the AT&T breakup (failing to mention that it has all but recoagulated over the past year) and the dual-infrastructure (DSL/cable) nature of facilities-based competition in the US. In my experience, none of the brighter minds in industry in the US are anywhere near as sanguine about the situation on the ground there, and many would argue that the entire access formula needs to be rethought from scratch.

Jim Kayne pointed to some extremely interesting highlights from the speech:

• First, at 45 billion Euro in 2005, European investment in the sector has overtaken investment in the US and the Asia Pacific Region.
• Second, a pan-European telecom industry is emerging. The search for economies of scale and the implementation of pan-European strategies, cross-border investment has driven merger and acquisition activity to above 70 billion Euros in 2005, the highest level since 2000. Incumbents today are receiving between 5 and 27% of their income from European business outside their home country. Some are becoming challengers in other EU markets even while remaining incumbents at home. This development is changing the market position, business orientation and also policy view of many operators.
• Third, good implementation of the EU regulatory framework is paying off. EU countries that have applied the EU rules in a timely and efficient manner, following the principle of competition, have clearly achieved the best results in terms of investment in new networks and take-up of new innovative services. The regulatory reform index of the OECD shows that those countries with a poor record of regulatory reform have less investment. While investment in the electronic communications sector is rather high in the UK (0.42% of GDP), Denmark (0.72 % of GDP) and the Netherlands (0.79% of GDP) -- in all these countries we observe, in principle, a very effective application of EU rules -- investment made in the German market reaches only 0.27%. The correlation between investment and competition in infrastructure in the EU is particularly visible in the broadband markets. Countries with strong competition between incumbents and cable operators tend to have the highest broadband penetration. Thus, broadband penetration levels in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands are all above 20% and have already left behind the broadband penetration level in the US.

  Europe's lesson from the liberalisation of the telecom markets is therefore: Competition has been a key driver for investment and innovation. This is a very important lesson also for other network-based markets, inparticular for the energy markets.

In Viviane's talk, she points out that "It is our aim to create a Single European Information Space in the field of electronic communications and media services by 2010. The main objective of the Commission’s strategy is to strengthen the forces of competition in the internal market, notably by modernising EU rules where needed." which would have similar purview as the US FCC, but is also empowered with governmental funding and a history of forcing common carriage and competition among incumbents and newcomers. She goes on to state:

In the Review 2006, I want to tackle three issues:
• First, spectrum – historically a rare public good – has become economically strategic in the wireless society. We urgently need to look at how we can use it more efficiently in the EU.
  • to strengthen the application of the principles of technological neutrality and service neutrality to spectrum allocation, where possible;
  • to introduce spectrum trading across the EU in selected bands agreed at EU level; and
  • to improve the coherence and consistency of authorisations for applications with a pan-European or a significant internal market dimension. Those who develop wireless services with a wider reach than a single country should be able to obtain a market entry authorisation as easily as those who offer services only in one Member State.
• Second, what concrete steps can we take towards better regulation? Liberalisation of markets has led to many remarkable successes in this sector. Now we have the chance to regulate less in some markets where competition is already effective, and regulate in a more focussed and more consistent way in markets where competition still has not yet developed.
  • The most effective way to achieve a real level playing field for telecom operators across the EU would of course be to create an independent European telecom regulator that would work together with national regulators in a system, similar to the European System of Central Banks. In such a system, national regulators would continue to act as direct contact points with operators and could directly analyse the market. At the same time, a light European agency, independent from the Commission and from national governments, could ensure by guidelines and, if necessary, instructions that EU rules are applied consistently in all Member States. I have personally insisted that the idea of creating a European telecom regulator is also included as a policy option in the impact assessment of the Commission Communication that I will present this week to allow a broad debate on all these issues.<
• Third, how can we best achieve competition and investment in Europe’s internal market? This will lead me to say a few words on the present debate on “regulatory holidays” and on structural separation in some EU Member States.
  • I understand of course that some incumbent operators are under a lot of pressure because of economic challenges and technological developments such as Voice over IP. However, I firmly believe that the response to these challenges must be new and more successful business models, and certainly not protection, by regulators, from competition. I simply do not buy the argument that investment will only happen if we stop regulating monopolies. In particular in network-based economies, effective competition does not prevent, but drives investment. The EU rules do not permit “regulatory holidays” precisely to prevent the re-monopolisation of markets. Any move in that direction would be a step backwards. It would open the door to higher prices and less choice for consumers. It is my firm belief that “regulatory holidays” are not a policy option for the Review 2006, where we want to pave the way for completing the successful process of market liberalisation. We cannot go into the future in reverse gear.
  • I believe that the policy option of structural separation could answer many competition problems that Europe’s telecom markets are still facing today. Perhaps we have to be as radical as regulators were in the US in the 1980s to make real progress? Of course, we will have to find our own European solutions, adapted to the needs of our continent. But “a European way of structural separation” is certainly a policy option that needs to be discussed intensively in the forthcoming months. This option is therefore also raised in the economic Impact Assessment attached to the Communication the Commission will adopt this week.

More info here, here, and here.

A coalition of groups filed comments with the FCC in support of the mandating of Digital Television converter box specifications that would open up unused TV bands to unlicensed devices. Without these mandates, manufacturers will refuse to spend the extra few cents it would take (per several hundred dollar device) to filter out of band emissions. Thus severely limiting the reuse of unused frequencies.

As the press release states:

For close to a generation, telecom policy analysts have argued that the TV broadcast band was extremely inefficiently utilized and that parts of it should be reallocated for more efficient uses...the quality of the converter boxes NTIA mandates will affect the utility of the white spaces within TV channels 2-51. The stakes in enabling use of TV band white spaces by unlicensed devices are critical. The desirable propagation characteristics of TV band spectrum make the white spaces ideal for the deployment of high-quality, affordable fixed and mobile wireless broadband services, particularly in rural areas where such services are vitally needed and where the most TV band white space exists. Fostering the deployment of affordable and ubiquitous wireless broadband services will allow more households and businesses to access the Internet, and will carry enormous benefits for small business productivity, as well as for government efficiency, public safety, and education. Opening up more unlicensed spectrum will provide a new hotbed for innovation in wireless services.

You can read about the importance of this little-followed rule-making here, or download the coalition's comments here.

Telecom incumbents are trying to change the Internet -- and they've spent millions of dollars over the past couple months to buy Thursday's US House of Representatives vote on the COPE Act. These corporations are fighting for legal cover to discriminate against content they don't like, and their plan took a big step forward Thursday evening with this most recent vote. Congressional leaders refused to allow a vote in support of Network Neutrality, disallowing the Sensenbrenner amendment from coming to a floor vote. Here's the post-vote synopsis -- the next step is to contact your Senators and prevent this fundamental change to the Internet from going through:

June 8, 2006
Contact:

Jeannine Kenney
(202) 238-9249
Ben Scott
(202) 265-1490

House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet through Passage of COPE Act

Net Neutrality Advocates Look to Senate to Save Internet Freedom

WASHINGTON (June 8, 2006) - Today the US House passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) without meaningful network neutrality provisions promoted by the diverse, right-left www.savetheinternet.com coalition of public interest and business groups. The 152 to 269 vote coincides with a massive lobbying effort by telephone companies to enter the national television market and prevent preservation of network neutrality requirements. "Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, today's vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation." said Consumers Union Senior Policy Analyst, Jeannine Kenney. "The American public favors an open and neutral Internet and does not want gatekeepers taxing innovation and throttling the free market," said Ben Scott, Policy Director for Free Press. "The House has seriously undermined access to information and democratic communication. Despite the revisionist history propagated by the telcos and their lobbyists, until last year, the Internet had always been a neutral network. It is the central reason for its overwhelming success. This issue is not about whether or not the government will regulate the Internet. It's about whether consumers or cable and phone companies will decide what services and content are available on the Net." The grass-roots coalition backing network neutrality includes more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals who have rallied in support of net neutrality at . The coalition is left and right, public and private, commercial and noncommercial. Supporters of net neutrality include the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP, ACLU, and every major consumer group in the nation. It includes the founders of the Internet and hundreds of companies that do business online. This is not Google vs. AT&T," said Mark Cooper, Director of Research at Consumers Federation of America. "CFA has been battling to keep the phone companies from putting tollbooths on the Internet since the early 1980's, but now every business and every consumer that uses the Internet has a dog in the fight for Internet Freedom. This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality." The battle for Net Neutrality - or Internet Freedom - now moves to the Senate, where there is significantly stronger bipartisan support. Senators Snowe (R-ME) and Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" that enjoys the strong support the SaveTheInternet coalition.

Representative Joe Barton, discussing the recent vote to allow content discrimination on the Internet: "You will not see a second-tier Internet. These companies are going to spend billions of dollars and offer new choices in markets where there is one cable company." -- one has to wonder, has Barton drunk so deeply of the telecom incumbent cool-aid that he's left his reason behind? Talk to just about anyone living just about anywhere that doesn't have provider competition and they'll tell you that their service options are insanely limited, the pricing exorbitant, and the quality sub-standard.

From DrewClark.com

The House passed the telecommunications legislation of Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, just past 10 p.m. on Thursday. The final vote tally on the bill was 321-101. Among Republicans, 215 supported it, with only 8 opposed. A majority of Democrats, 108 versus 92, voted for passage. The one independent voted no. Earlier in the evening, an amendment seeking to strengthen the Barton bill's "network neutrality" provisions failed 269-152, on an amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass.
Normally when major legislation is being passed by Congress, even late in the evening or early in the morning, there is a crowd of reporters following the event. Not so last night. Shortly after the members left the floor for the evening, I caught up with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Barton in the speakers' gallery. Barton was ready for a crowd, but since I was the only one there, here is our exclusive interview.
DREW CLARK: How do you feel at this moment?
JOE BARTON: Stunned and absolutely ecstatic. I think this sends a very strong signal to the country and the Senate that the county is ready for a broadband policy that promotes competition, good jobs for American workers, and new services for consumers.
CLARK: What about the vote on network neutrality?
BARTON: On that vote, we almost ended with a two-thirds vote against Markey. The premise of the Markey amendment is just flawed. If you had passed Markey, even if you go by his own analogy you would have forced the [auto] dealer to sell both cars at the same price. [He was referring to Markey's argument that both a Ferrari and a cheaper car could travel the same speed on the highway.] We want to empower the consumer to make choices from a broad array of services. The consumer will regulate the choice, not the regulator.
CLARK: Are you at all afraid that without neutrality rules, we are letting the genie out of the bottle and creating a second-tier Internet?
BARTON: That is a bogus argument. You will not see a second-tier Internet. These companies are going to spend billions of dollars and offer new choices in markets where there is one cable company.
At this point, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., walks into the Speaker's Gallery. I ask Barton about the prospects for the bill in the Senate, and he points to Upton, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
FRED UPTON: It is my understanding that the Senate Commerce Committee is likely to mark up their bill this month and be on the floor in July. We have established a very good relationship with [Alaska Republican and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman] Stevens and his members: [John] Sununu, [Sam] Brownback and others, in addition to Stevens, through work on digital television, decency legislation, we have [bridged] any breaches that might have existed.
CLARK: What about the Universal Service Fund? There is a considerable difference with Stevens on that.
BARTON: We will work with Sen. Stevens, and we will find a compromise that satisfies most of the parties. I fundamentally disagree that we should saddle a new service with a fee that in the Internet era makes no sense. Why put a fee that was based on a monopoly service? With wireless and the Internet, you don't need that model. We can give them the functionality of the Universal Service Fund without given them regulation.
[At this point, Ed Markey walks close to our circle, greets Barton, but gets ready to leave.]
ED MARKEY: I agreed with everything he says, [referring to Barton. But I assume Markey is joking.]
CLARK, to Baron: How is your relationship with FCC Chairman Kevin Martin?
BARTON: I have a cordial personal and professional relationship with the Chairman and the other commissioners.
CLARK: [I ask him about the pointed letter he sent to Martin on Wednesday over the issue of cable operators being required to carry broadcasters' digital multicasts.]
BARTON: Multicast must-carry is another example; there is no reason in a broadband Internet competition model to impose regulatory [rules] based on some sort of constrained capacity. You don't need must-carry [when technologies] have no capacity constraints whatsoever.