Jonathan Frankel, a lawyer with WilmerHale (which seems to be related to Hale and Dorr)wants to let us know what the Net neutrality debate looks like to Congress.He says there isn’t much room for learning or for advocates to educate lawmakers. Most of the discussion is hollow on all sides. Platitudes and slogans. There isn’t even a consensus in DC about what Net neutrality means, because it’s a theoretical debate at this point. There’s one instance of a rural provider blocking VOIP but the FCC came down on them like a ton of bricks and he hasn’t seen other instances since. Right now, the Internet’s “third party” content adds value to the providers’ real value stream, TV programs. [I am, as always, paraphrasing.]

Both sides are guilty of using scare tactics to get the Hill’s attention. Pro Net Neutrality folks say that some medical Web sites will be slowed or blocked. AOL’s experience shows that customers won’t be satisfed with wall gardens and any provider that restricts access will lose market share. [Really? How about the one that offers “family-safe” content? Or “school-quality” information?] The quality of service guarantees won’t degrade anyone’s experience and will make video and VOIP better, he says. The fact that consumers aren’t buying the fastest connections available is a practical reminder that for the average user the current level of delivery isn’t affecting their experience. [Say what? Give us more bandwidth — symmetrical — at a lower price and see what the market demands as satisfactory performance.]

On the other side, the providers are exaggerating “a little” by saying they need to charge content providers for quality of service to afford to build out access.

He’s wary of legislation ahead of facts on the ground. The 1996 telcomm legislation was a “disaster” because it didn’t address the real facts about revenues. The Snowe NN amendment is too specific about when discrimination could be allowed. It should wait until there are real facts and an actual record. E.g., in a few years it’s possible that “third party content” [that’s you and me, sister] might compete with the TV shows the providers sell us.

Sen. Ron Wyden has put a hold on the Stevens bill because it has no NN and the leadership has told Stevens they won’t bring it to the floor unless he can guarantee the 60 votes required. Frankel doesn’t think anything will happen until after the election. If the Dems gain control of the House, the telcos may soften on NN because they want to get the other part of the Stevens bill passed (the franchising part ).

[Tags: massnetcomms net_neutrality digital_rights ]

Categories: Uncategorized dw