This congressman understands the issues.

by Alex Goldman ISP-Planet Managing Editor [April 14, 2006]

He is a genial and thoughtful presence, and as Rick Boucher (D-VA) took the stage at the Freedom to Connect conference, he was greeted by congratulations on his recently announced engagement. As he likes to say, "We have decided since I will be 60 in August and she just turned 50 last week, we probably are mature enough to handle marriage."

Boucher, who represents Virginia's ninth district, has been making headlines for years with his forward-looking positions on internet issues.

He opened his speech by saying that the timing of the conference was exquisite because the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet was about to begin considering telecommunications legislation.

He added that after a two week recess, he expected to see a bill on the House floor in early May, passing in mid May.

He said that the process would start with members of Congress stating their positions on the issues. Later that week, on April 8, 2006, Boucher set forth his position on net neutrality highlighting three key roles for the government:

• ensuring unimpeded consumer access to any lawful content, applications and services on the Internet;
• allowing consumers to attach and use any device that does not harm the broadband network; and
• prohibiting broadband network operators from unreasonably favoring themselves or their affiliates in the provision of Internet services.

At the conference, Boucher touted a proposal put forward by four House Democrats but admitted that the measure would need Republican support to pass. Later that week, the measure was defeated (see GOP Defeats Dem's Net Neutrality Moves).

What the Bells want
Boucher said that the Bells are looking for a statewide franchise fee (as opposed to the current system, in which TV providers negotiate with local governments). He expected that the Bells would pay 6 percent to local government, which he said is typically 1 percentage point higher than what cable pay. They would also have to carry public access and educational channels. They would not be allowed to redline but there would be no specific buildout requirement. He expected the raking Democrat, John Dingell (yes, of Tauzin-Dingell), to propose a buildout requirement.

Cable companies would be allowed to take advantage of the statewide franchise in any area in which a competitor (other than satellite) was present.

Local government
Boucher said that he strongly supports the right of local government to offer broadband. He said that mesh networking offers an efficient and lower cost way of putting broadband in place even in a financially unfortunate rural community.

"I am pleased to tell you this provision is not controversial," he said. "I can predict with confidence that if this bill becomes law, we will then open the door for local governments to offer this service."

ISP-Planet continues to argue that ISPs should get to know their local mayor (and sheriff). Public-private partnerships offer ISPs the opportunity to grow and to combine their knowledge with the fiscal trustworthiness of local government.

Net neutrality
"I have less than good news on the final subject I will speak about today," concluded Boucher. "I am talking about net neutrality. The phone companies have decided to derive a new revenue stream by charging content providers like google a fee that will entitle that content provider to get fast lane treatment. Everybody else will get regular speed into the home."

"The major problem as I see it is how is a startup going to be able to pay every last mile provider to get into the home? These companies have to give services away to get established. They won't be able to pay the toll, and latency matters. They won't be able to compete. Consumers won't wait to access a startup's services in the slow lane when other established companies are operating in the fast lane."

"Of course, we don't know how his will work in practice, but I am worried."

Boucher's solution, the amendment that was defeated, was to force the network owners to offer fast lane treatment to all if it was offered to any one content provider.

However, the network owners may some day regret this. If the future of the internet resembles cable television (and so many regulators who do not understand the internet seem to understand cable television), then in future, the network owners will pay the content providers, instead of the reverse. A net neutrality provision would protect the monopolists from this possible future.

Question and answer session
A hectic and enthusiastic question and answer session followed Boucher's speech. For the Q&A, we rely on the notes of David Weinberger as well as our own notes.

Boucher replied that the anti-trust aspects of the issue can be addressed in the House Judiciary Committee (of which Boucher is also a member) but not in the Telecommunications Subcommittee.

He added, "you're right, this is a competition issue. It is an effort to exert market power from transport to content. Under traditional anti-trust practice, that is viewed with deep suspicion."

Cynthia de Lorenzi, former CEO of Patriot.net, had a pointed question. "I'm from Fairfax, Virginia, and I just sold my ISP because Verizon was laying fiber and cutting off the copper, replacing a redundant network with a network that is not redundant. Why are we cutting off copper when we put in fiber? It's a usefully redundant network, and unlike fiber, it doesn't run on batteries."

Boucher agreed that there is no reason why the copper plant should be removed (as we argued three years ago: see Triennial Review Part II: FCC's Fiber Failure). He asked whether a company would buy the copper and suggested that the Bells would fear wireless competition more than copper competition.

However, we believe that there are many ISPs that would be eager to buy the copper infrastructure, and that no Bell would be willing to sell it.

— End