Most conferences I attend focus on telecom products, markets and/or technology. Yesterday was very different. I was in Washington DC to participate in a one-day conference on IP-based communication policy. An opening poll of the audience showed about 75% lawyers and a fairly even split between those from inside the Beltway and those from outside -- in short a very different audience profile than I’m used to.
While there was a spectrum of opinion, two groups stood out. The first was the traditional telecom industry and their regulators. Together they are steeped in a regulatory tradition that extends back well before the Communications Act of 1934 to earlier common carrier regulations of canals, railroads and the telegraph. Here the assumption is one of natural monopolies that must be regulated, either directly or in order to facilitate competition.
The second group were those in the business of computers, computer networking and/or the Internet -- people who expect radical change at least every decade, preferably more frequently, and give little thought to regulatory issues until and unless they really block progress. Can you guess where my sympathies lie? :-)
What a dichotomy!
For most of the morning, the two groups appeared to be talking past each other with little common ground. Things got better as the day progressed, and the corridor discussions were extremely interesting, but an enormous gap remains.
Not unexpectedly, the computer/Internet group mixed its issues -- from rights-of-way to IP transport to net neutrality to applications & content to copyright law -- and buried all in computer networking jargon.
On the traditionalist side, both Earl Comstock, partner at Sher & Blackwell and John Nakahata, partner at Harris Wiltshire and former FCC Chief of Staff, expect a new telecom act to work its way through congress in the next 2-4 years (but not sooner). However, the sense from multiple speakers was the new act would evolve current regulatory infrastructure, merely modifying or refining such things as inter-carrier compensation, universal service fund, CALEA, E911 and so on.
Other impressions of traditionalist camp: the duopoly in broadband access is what we have and what we can expect -- it merely needs to be better regulated; and IP-based communications means cable telephony and Vonage-like services, not Skype.
On a positive note, in mid-afternoon Martin Geddes asked the audience how many people had heard of Skype (almost all) and how many had used Skype (perhaps 1/3rd). I tried (probably w/o success) to raise the question of carrier-neutral access to local rights-of-way as a way to move beyond the broadband duopoly. And several people, both on panels and as questions from the audience, raised the issue of more access to spectrum for broadband wireless Internet access.
Later in the afternoon, Jason Krikorian of Sling Media demonstrated the Slingbox personal broadcaster, a product that makes your home TV and PVR content available to you over the net, anywhere, including on the stage in DC where Jason clicked through channels on his TV in California. This was very well done and, hopefully, helped expand the audience’s view of IP-based communications.
Finally let me say that, in one-on-one and small group discussions, it’s clear there are a lot of very smart people in each group and a lot more understanding that I’ve given people credit for above.
A number of friends were in attendance including David Isenberg, Bob Frankston, Martin Geddes, Steve Smith, the Pulver crew and many others. I also made a number of new contacts, both inside-the-beltway and out. And I finally spoke with Susan Crawford, whose blog I’ve followed for quite a while now.
Net-net, it was a very good conference. My thanks to Pulver.com and to Jonathan Askin, Jeff’s General Counsel and Wartime Consiglieri, who was the prime driver behind this event.
