jac

Dr. Michael Noll has a succint column which puts the FCC’s recent decision in historical perspective: #

Telecommunication networks are telecommunication services whether they carry voice, video, or data signals, and should be regulated and treated as common carriers. The information accessed over telecommunication networks are information, computing, or entertainment services and should not be regulated. #

Back in the early 1970s, we struggled over where to draw the line between unregulated information service and regulated telecommunication service. #

Today, local telecommunication service companies clamor to retain unregulated control over the last mile to homes and businesses. Since these companies provide lucrative video content over their facilities they want to protect this content from bypass by direct consumer access over the Internet. Such practices are clearly anticompetitive ­even though in theory the traditional telephone company now competes with the traditional cable company. #

AT&T was broken up over 25 years ago because of issues created by bypass. And bypass again is creating problems ­this time over video entertainment which can be accessed directly over the Internet. #

It has always been about content versus carriage. Decades ago, AT&T and Knight-Ridder Newspapers jointly investigated the market for access to information in the home through a service called videotex. The newspaper industry went into a tizzy and lobbied successfully for legislation forbidding AT&T from providing content over its telecommunication facilities. Today, the cable industry packages and even owns some of the video content provided over its coaxial cable to homes. #

The issues, just like decades ago, are unnecessarily made to appear complicated. Lawyers and lobbyists make a fortune, and politicians scratch their heads in delay and confusion. But being neither a lawyer, lobbyist, nor politician, the issues are as clear today in my mind as they were decades ago. If it looks like telecommunication involving transmission and switching, it is telecommunication ­ and should be treated as common carriage. And clearly in my opinion, content should be separated from carriage. #

Dr. Noll is presumably referring to Comcast’s blocking Bittorrent, and isn’t buying Comcast’s network management defense. Given the nature of Bittorrent traffic, I think the worst that Comcast can be accused of is acting from a mix of pure (network protection) and impure (blocking movie downloads) motives. They went too far, but the threat of Bittorrent traffic to a network is real. #

That said, the comparison to bypass is an apt one. Consider a world in which Comcast owns NBC or develops a Comcast-exclusive series, and the resulting temptation to inspect packets and throw away packets containing copyright violations. #

In addition, the cable industry is facing a big change. Cable’s current business model looks a lot like broadcast – it’s based on channels, and many content providers pay for their channel. But its future business model is on-demand, and looks a lot like . . . Bittorrent. Getting from here to there while growing revenues (and without becoming the dreaded ‘dumb pipe’) presents a lot of unknowns and challenges. #

#