Verizon: Current telecom law is 'irrelevant' to the modern Internet

The vision of an Internet without the FCC

Now that the Broadband Plan (which some say is more a list of goals than a concrete agenda) has been published, there is renewed debate over whether a federal government agency should be dictating just how broadband buildout in this country is to be completed, and which companies should be the ones doing it in what areas. What Verizon would want is an authority comparable to Bill Kennard's 1990s vision of the FCC in the broadband space. But if Julius Genachowski's 2010s FCC resembles something different, maybe there's a new way to go about realizing that early vision.

"The instinct is to impose regulation, but it's a balancing act. We want order, but we also don't want to hinder investment and innovation in this dynamic broadband and Internet marketplace. How do we accomplish this?" asked Tauke.

He immediately responded by saying he didn't have all the answers. But then he adeptly proposed one: essentially, implicitly, and without fanfare, the creation of a new federal rulemaking authority overseeing just the Internet:

"Traditional agency 'fact finding' -- often through notices or public requests for comment -- are usually geared towards specific rules or regulatory outcomes. Instead, we could structure a process that uses the innovative, flexible and technology-driven nature of the Internet to address issues as they arise. Instead of the traditional rule-making process, federal enforcement agencies could structure themselves around an on-going engagement with Internet engineers and technologists to analyze technology trends, define norms to guide such questions as network management, and understand in advance the implications of new, emerging technologies. Technology leaders and experts from all players involved in the Internet should set up voluntary organizations and forums to provide advice, recommendations, and advisory opinions to government agencies. This will help inform the agencies' role as backstops that deter damaging activities that undermine the vibrant competition and openness that defines the Internet."

This new agency was nameless in Tauke's speech, except for the fact that it did not bear the name "Federal Communications Commission."

It should be a Republican plan. But Republicans aren't in the majority at the moment (and if Tea Partiers keep throwing bricks through Congresspersons' windows and leaving death threats on their answering machines, Republicans could end up staying there). Tauke's proposal has the virtue of implicitly creating an entirely new government agency (that should be fun!). And it would empower that agency to give government grants to low-income households who would otherwise not be able to afford service -- the kind of approach that resounds with more liberal agendas.

The NDN has yet to issue a response, though one is likely forthcoming, and will be well thought-out. And if it ends up supporting Tauke's position, somewhere over the horizon, one might glimpse the face of Sun Tzu smiling.