A recent article on CNET reports that AT&T; is warning that the internet will hit full capacity by 2010. It is an attention grabbing headline.

Of course, there is a catch.

When you get into the body of the article you see that Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T;, warned that at least $55 billion is needed in new infrastructure investment in the next three years in the U.S. on top of $75B needed worldwide.

Before you go running for cover, Cicconi said that AT&T; is doing its part, with plans to spend $19B on its network infrastructure. Some audience members asked if the hidden motivation behind Cicconi’s speech was AT&T;’s position on net neutrality. He responded by saying he believed government intervention in the Internet was fundamentally wrong.

There is nothing magic or ethereal about the Internet–it is no more ethereal than the highway system. It is not created by an act of God, but upgraded and maintained by private investors.

The CNET story includes a quote from the US Department of Justice that merits reproducing, especially given my post from Monday on the NDP perspectives on government interference in network management:

However well-intentioned, regulatory restraints can inefficiently skew investment, delay innovation, and diminish consumer welfare, and there is reason to believe that the kinds of broad marketplace restrictions proposed in the name of ‘neutrality’ would do just that, with respect to the Internet.

William Archer, CMO of AT&T; Business will deliver the luncheon keynote address on June 16 and Eric Loeb, AT&T;’s VP International External and Regulatory Affairs will be speaking on Network Neutrality at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit on June 18.

Have you registered yet?

A little more than a year ago, I wrote that no additional laws are needed to protect the internet from discriminatory practices by internet access service providers.

Today, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told the US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that his agency has all the authority it needs and that new legislation is unnecessary. He was speaking at a hearing on the future of the Internet.

He reiterated the FCC’s Internet policy principles and included a comment on the application of network management:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet,

• Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
• Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
• Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network;
• Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The Commission explicitly noted that these principles were subject to reasonable network management.

The full text of his statement can be found here.

The last few weeks have featured a who’s who in Canadian broadcast parading past the CRTC as part of the BDU hearings.

It should be interesting on Wednesday with Jim Shaw due up at 9:00.

Last week, he launched a preemptive strike (possibly preparing for a for a future cabinet appeal?) with a letter to the Prime Minister that said:

Instead of focusing on meeting customer preferences for open access to programming, cutting subsidies that reward broadcasters for the wrong behaviour, removing restrictions on programming and cutting onerous bureaucratic rules that limit customer choice – all of which are realistic and reasonable doorways to the future, we are forced again to look backwards to the past.

The CRTC review does not mark a movement toward a light at the end of the tunnel, but rather a fumbling toward deepening darkness.
…
The CRTC`s historic approach to cable as a mere instrument to promote Canadian content is outdated. Cable, in competition with the telcos, is building Canada`s information superhighway and our telecom and broadcasting policies should encourage not hinder this development.

What is really needed are not more subsidies and micro-regulation by the CRTC, but rather a made-in-Canada broadband policy.

This is the final week scheduled for presentations. Wednesday morning’s appearance by Shaw should be especially entertaining. You can watch the hearings on CPAC on-line or listen to an audio feed by clicking here .

---

Update [April 23, 9:30 am]
Jim Shaw was a no-show at the hearing on Wednesday, sending Shaw Communications president Peter Bissonnette to head up what the CRTC chair called a “B-team”, reminiscent of Shaw’s critique during the Canadian TV Fund proceeding.

NDP MP Charlie Angus issued a statement last week that says the Conservatives have ignored recommendations on net neutrality. The statement was issued in response to Industry Minister Prentice’s comments on April 2 in the House where he refused to wade in with government interference on the CAIP / Bell competitive dispute.

Angus’ statement says

Prentice should accept the recommendations of the Telecommunications Review Panel that laid out a practical guide for CRTC involvement on maintaining fair and open access of the internet. The panel stated: “open access is of such overriding importance that its protection justifies giving the regulator the power to review cases involving blocking access to applications and content and significant, deliberate degradation of service.”

Unlike many on the left who misquote the Telecom Policy Review Panel recommendation, I will credit Angus with recognizing that the TPRP acknowledged the technical, efficiency and legal constraints that may be used to impede internet traffic flow.

He cites the entirety of recommendation 6-5 in his letter. Many other observers of the TPRP consistently neglect to quote the full text, so kudos to him for that part of his letter. However, Angus falls into the same trap as most who are not familiar with the entire report.

The reality is that the CRTC already has all of the tools it needs to discipline bad behaviour in internet traffic management. The TPRP created its tight recommendation on internet traffic (6-5), because it felt that the existing anti-competitive provisions (Section 27(2)) are “much too general and rely too greatly on the regulator’s discretion.” So recommendation 3-13 was to replace 27(2) with tighter, more specific measures.

We wouldn’t want ministerial interference in a court proceeding. Why are we looking for the Minister to intervene in a regulatory complaint?

The net neutrality panel at The 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit will be taking place on June 18. Have you registered yet?

I wrote last week about the expected release of the CRTC’s agenda for dealing with social and other non-economic regulatory measures in light of the Minister’s Policy Direction.

Yesterday, the CRTC issued its most current view of the action plan to address these areas. You can find the timetable in the Appendix to the decision.

The Commission rejected a somewhat bizarre call from the consumer groups to delay an examination of privacy issues until the government revises the national privacy law:

The Commission considers that delaying its review of privacy measures pending the federal review and tabling of amendments to PIPEDA would unnecessarily postpone consideration of an important matter that many parties consider to be a priority.

The priorities coming up in the next year:

• Retail quality of service indicators, standards, reporting, and rate adjustment plan Mandatory disclosures in directories (e.g. terms of service, statement of consumer rights), billing inserts, and websites
• Statement of consumer rights
• Process for disconnection, late payment charge, dishonoured payment charge, deposit policies and toll restrict
• Privacy safeguards and obligations