I’m hoping new FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will spare a few minutes to address critical issues that have the potential to dramatically reshape the face of communications services in the 21st century. These include …
Kevin Martin is reportedly a hard-liner on indecency: He’s said that broadcasters’ First Amendment rights should be limited by both law and “good taste,” which presumably he plans to define during his tenure as FCC chair. Given the vast amount of dreck on network TV, enforcing decency standards will probably consume most of Martin’s time and energy.
But I’m hoping he’ll also spare a few minutes to address critical issues that have the potential to dramatically reshape the face of communications services in the 21st century. These include:
Creating a sensible and consistent definition around what a communications provider is, and what communications services are. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently evaluating whether cable companies that offer broadband Internet access are providing “information services” or “telecommunications services.” Telecom service providers must open their networks to competitors, while information service providers don’t have to. But the real question isn’t, “Which category applies to cable companies?” – it’s whether the distinction continues to be meaningful, and if not, how legal and regulatory infrastructure for next-generation communications services needs to adapt. For example, does VoIP provider Vonage offer information services or telecom services? If it offers information services, do IP telephony offerings from Verizon, Sprint and SBC/AT&T also qualify? And if Vonage offers telecom services – which is how a phone call historically has been defined – how can it be forced to open up its network, when in fact, it doesn’t have one?
Rethinking universal services. As noted in previous columns, the payment scheme for universal services relies heavily on the increasingly blurry distinction between information and telecom services. The current scheme goes even further – it makes the decision based on a provider’s historical business, not what services the provider offers. AT&T, Sprint and MCI pay into the fund because they’re defined as telecom providers (even though they make a significant amount of revenue providing information services). And Vonage doesn’t pay because it’s an information service provider – even though it’s offering ordinary phone services. . . . Even aside from its abuse by mobsters and billionaires, the universal service fee needs some serious rethinking.
Assessing the affect of QoS and content control. Both Vonage and Nuvio recently complained to the FCC that ISPs were giving QoS priority to other packets than theirs, leaving Vonage and Nuvio VoIP packets to receive best-effort service. Is this fair (after all, neither Vonage or Nuvio paid to receive top-of-line service)? Or is it discriminatory, and if so, should it be permitted? There are no obvious answers, and the questions have particularly broad-reaching effects on everything from peer-to-peer networking to the future of the communications industry overall.
Here’s hoping Martin will lift his eyes from the, um, boob tube long enough to envision an effective 21st century communications environment.
