Legislating social policies for IP-enabled services
Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) held the third of three hearings about rules for IP-enabled services.
The hearing started an hour later than scheduled, which gave the crowd a heck of a long time to chat. We chatted. Exchanged cards. Prognosticated. The room grew warmer.
And then, when a few congressmen trickled in, an enormous panel of people got up and said We want Congress to create a huge variety of rules, right now, for all IP-enabled services. (IP-enabled services are everything you can think of that uses the internet protocol — web servers, applications, newspaper web sites, the DNS, you name it.)
The Alliance for Public Technology representative asked for “accessibility solutions” for “IP-enabled technologies.” Two mayors asked for control over public rights of way and local power over video services of all kinds. A representative of a state Public Utilities Commission asked for rules that would “help the telecom sector recover” and would provide “certainty for investment” (always a request of incumbents). Another state representative said that the internet was no different from an interstate highway, that new technologies are traps for the unwary, and that states need to be able to set speed limits and other rules. Someone from the National Governors Association said that phones had become very complicated, and now involved things like the world wide web.
An underlying theme had to do with cable franchise rules — apparently phone companies are looking for federalized rules that will allow them to provide video without being subject to franchising limitations.
At one point there were more than ten representatives there, all busily checking their blackberries. Gradually the congressmen present melted away, until only one was left. He looked around, and suspended the hearing, hoping that more people would be around later to ask questions. The crowd swung into chat mode again.
It's clear that there's already a draft bill out there that deals with these many desires. I have no idea how this will all work out, but I have to say I'm worried — there seems to be no push whatsoever in the other direction. No one is saying Do Less. And all the chatters have clients who want more.
Comments
Got something to say?