An informal browsing of their members seems to indicate that most are related to cloud computing or other remote services. I question whether this is really representative of the "Internet infrastructure" without network owners and ISPs. Regardless of what they call themselves, though, i2 has stated that they believe in a robust and growing Internet environment to encourage innovation.
The most interesting part of i2's site is the explanation of their policy positions. Most of their positions are not particularly surprising for businesses relying on the Internet for their business models. I'd like to highlight a few interesting implications of their positions, though.
"The i2Coalition will not engage in partisan politics, believing that neutrality and the ability to work with members of any political affiliation are necessary to the attainment of i2Coalition goals."
I was confused when I first read this. It is really awkwardly worded. Clearly they aren't neutral. They have policy objectives, and are going to work with the people most likely to implement those objectives. The cynic in me wants to believe that this is an SEO trick -- that they needed to jam in the word "neutrality" to increase their web traffic. I haven't come up with a better explanation. Nothing wrong with that, of course; we've all got to eat.
"The free exercise of human rights, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the protection of personal privacy, is essential to foster effective Internet advancement and to maintain a free and open Internet. The i2Coalition will work to safeguard these rights on behalf of its members so long as these do not present conflicts with the primary purposes of the public policy initiatives as outlined."
A bold an important statement about the fundamental nature of expression, individuality, and dignity on the Internet. It is immediately followed by the ultimate caveat: these goals are subsidiary to i2's economic goals.In a cleverly roundabout way, i2's policy statement makes clear what most companies never want to say out loud: that economic concerns will always trump freedom and privacy. That's not spin; it's exactly what the text says.
"The i2Coalition is opposed to the formation of additional oversight or regulatory agencies at the federal or state level for online communication services, or the expansion of authority for existing agencies to those services."
Federal agencies? Almost any casual viewer of i2's site is probably asleep by the end of this sentence, but let me assure you that this is where the real action is. The issue of whether the Federal Communications Commission can regulate the Internet as such is a confused and dicey one, but initiatives like the National Broadband Plan rely on it. Agree or not with its methods, the National Broadband Plan is aimed at ensuring that all Americans have access to high-speed Internet access. If no Federal agencies have jurisdiction to operate in the Internet industry, any National Broadband Plan is probably dead on arrival.
"The i2Coalition is opposed to the taxation of online services, including the imposition of sales and use or recreation taxes on information, downloads or other services provided by online communications services."
"The i2Coalition supports efforts that will speed rural broadband adoption."
These two points have to be read together. A lot of people oppose "taxing the Internet". A lot of people also support universal rollout, or the attempt to provide broadband Internet access to all Americans. I can't imagine how i2 plans to accomplish both.
We have to be honest about history here. Universal rollout in the telephone system is paid for by taxes. Customers with plain old telephones pay a fee to the Universal Service Fund. The USF subsidizes carriers who serve low-density markets where effective rollout would be economically unfeasible. You can agree or disagree with this on policy grounds, but the bottom line is that universal service for telephone probably would not have happened without subsidies. (Opponents of the Internet tax will point out that the USF is a recent phenomenon. But for many years AT&T was a government-condoned monopoly and was effective authorized to subsidize its own rural businesses by charging customers above market prices. It walks like a tax, and it talks like a tax ...)
The only plan I've seen for universal rollout that doesn't involve taxes that is even facially credible is the proposal to nationalize network architecture (the wires in the ground that make up the Internet as such). I highly doubt that i2 is in favor of that. So here is the question for i2: Which one of these will you pursue?
No comments:
Post a Comment