Nethead/Bellhead — Noticing DHS
I have been working on the questions I'd like the panels to debate on September 28. The first panel will deal with justifications for regulation.
Consider the following text from a May 1998 World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) paper, Statement on Convergence:
“WITSA believes there are three legitimate justifications for regulation. The first is to foster or stimulate competition. In most cases, the WITSA believes that general competition rules will suffice, and markets should be allowed to operate free from government intervention. However, when dominant suppliers exist in a given market, or when market forces - for whatever reason - are not able to ensure discipline, then some form of regulatory oversight may be required.
A second justification for regulation is to protect and enhance the public good. However, use of this condition must be made lightly and sparingly. Instances where this justification may traditionally apply may even be disappearing in the face of competition. For example, the build-out of telephony networks to provide ubiquitous access to basic services has long been considered a legitimate reason for regulation. However, this view is now being challenged with the introduction of the new technologies.
A final justification for regulation is the equitable allocation of scarce public resources. Spectrum, for example, has long been considered a scarce resource and regulation was used to insure its distribution in an orderly and reasonable manner.”
Consider also this statement from the Department of Homeland Security, filed in the IP-enabled services proceeding:
“[National Security/Emergency Preparedness] NS/EP considerations provide a compelling rationale for applying a certain amount of regulation to IP-enabled services. The purpose of such regulation would be to ensure the prioritized availability of certain communication services to Federal, state, and local officials and first responders in times of emergency or national crisis.”
What is/are the justification(s) for FCC regulation of IP-enabled services, as those services are defined in n.1 of the NPRM? How persuasive are these justifications?What are possible responses to these proposed justifications?
So — that's the first panel. I'll be sending out emails asking for links to materials that should be posted in connection with the conference. We're planning to have a must-go-to conference web site that collects these resources.
In working on these paragraphs, I've been struck by what DHS is asking for. Scott Bradner pointed me to this a week ago, but it has taken me some time to actually climb the learning curve (thanks, Scott!). I've linked to their statement above.
They say, “In times of emergency or network congestion, [National Security/Emergency Preparedness] NS/EP priority treatment may be required for certain communications such as electronic mail, instant messaging, video feeds, or video conferencing sessions. The Commission's rulemaking process must keep this in mind.” (This is on p. 8 of their filing.)
And, “In the event of crisis, NS/EP national leadership must receive end-to-end priority treatment over other users. . . . NS/EP traffic must be identified with its own class of service — above and beyond “best effort.” (p.9)
And, on p. 10, “It is the intent of DHS to take advantage of the technology developed by the industry to achieve its objectives of assured NS/EP communications during crises. The NCS intends to continue to work with the industry through voluntary and contractual arrangements, subject to Congressional budget constraints, to support NS/EP services and features [including standard priority markings of NS/EP communications]. If these voluntary and contractual arrangements are insufficient to achieve assured NS/EP IP-enabled communications services, the NCS would request the FCC consider imposing regulatory constraints on all providers of IP-enabled services. . .”
So: One of the possible reasons we need regulation of ip-enabled services is to assure priority of national security communications. And, whatever we do, we should not interfere with CALEA for ip-enabled services.
The FCC is clearly under enormous pressure.
Comments
Got something to say?