Live from Innovation ‘08: Network Management/Neutrality
Monday, May 12th, 2008 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
SAN JOSE, CA: Okay, I promise this is my last post from Media Access
Project's Innovation '08, the first of two conferences before Silicon Valley
digerati with the aim of developing consensus on tech policy for the next
President. (Read my entries on working
together, the role
of government, and PRO-IP).
I served on the first panel, which not surprisingly had a heavy focus on
creative works and their distribution. The second and final panel was on network
neutrality or management, whichever your preference. Stanford Law Professor Mark
Lemley called for regulation, making as his first argument that ISPs might block
eBay (our host). AT&T's Jeff Brueggeman naturally begged to differ,
insisting that his company has no intention of violating any of the consensus
principles behind net neutrality. Skydeck's Jason Devitt said trust was the
issue, and said net neutrality rules were needed in the wireless space, because
it's too difficult for companies such as his to get onto the platforms.
(Brueggeman asked Devitt if he had ever tried, and he said no, he figured it
would be too difficult. Later, Brueggeman said AT&T Wireless had at least
1,000 providers on its network and it could surely accommodate another.)
By and large the conversation was civil, but everyone's positions were pretty
fixed and there was little consensus, not unlike most other panels I've gone to
on this subject dating back five years or so. As a result, when it came to
Q&A I decided to start. I noted that House Telecom Subcommittee Chairman Ed
Markey, sponsor of net neutrality legislation, insisted last week that there
should be a clear regulatory distinction between legal and illegal creative
works online. He insisted his bill did not prevent targeting of infringing
works, and became so worked up he said the very notion was a red herring. I
asked the panelists if they agreed with Markey on the distinction, and if so
what should ISPs do to reduce infringing content?
To my delight, all three panelists agreed that there should be no protection
for infringing works, and all three said an argument could be made for targeting
such works. Lemley — who is not warmly received among some in the creative
works community based on his past writings — said he would be fine with
filtering, but that ISPs should not block whole services or protocols.
Lemley also said another interesting thing. He said there are clear sides
drawn in net neutrality between Internet services on the one side and ISPs on
the other. He said in the creative community, individual creators want to be
sure they have access to consumers on any platform, while copyright owners also
want the freedom to work with ISPs to target infringement. He said if the
creative works community (okay, he called it the content community) decides to
come down en masse on one side or the other, that could decide the debate.
It was an interesting observation. It raises all sorts of interesting
questions. I don't pretend to have the answers. But while he discusses a
potential conflict that creators face in this debate, they are united in their
desire to see a reduction in piracy, and it seems that ISPs and network
neutrality advocates share that desire.
That's a great place to start.
