This morning I wrote about the congressional hearing discussing a draft of legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services.

I didn't have time to listen to the entire hearing and comment on all of it, so I've been keeping my eye out for other news sources on this important piece of legislation. According to ZDNet, "In a joint letter, representatives from Google, Amazon, eBay and InterActiveCorp voiced opposition for the draft's failure to impose "Net neutrality" requirements equally on all three categories of services".

In addition, I learned that Microsoft's Paul Mitchell, senior director and general manager of Microsoft's TV division wasn't happy either. Mitchell complained about two provisions in the current draft. One provision that's that all VoIP providers, a category that is vague enough to include XBox (XBox Live), MSN Messenger, and LiveMeeting products, must provide E911 service. Xbox requiring e911 support? Are you kidding me? And Live Communications, a business application similar to WebEx that enables collaboration and voice over IP communications requires e911 support? C'mon. If I'm doing a web conference for business with VoIP interaction capabilities, I don't need e911 support - I'll just pick up my business desktop phone and dial 911. The FCC and Congress really need to clean up this confusing mess of rules and regulations that could impede technological progress, communications, and commerce on the Internet. Seriously. This is getting ridiculous.

In any event, the second provision states that all broadband services must register with the states in which they do business. According to ZDNet, he suggested that only VoIP services that provide a "substantial replacement" for telephone service should have to provide E911 and broadband services should be under exclusively federal, not state, jurisdiction.

A representative representing Google Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf sent me a copy of Vint's letter yesterday which urges Congress to think carefully about any new regulations for the Internet. Vint couldn't make it to the hearing since he was busy receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House for his work in creating the Internet protocol TCP/IP.

It's an interesting letter that I planned on posting yesterday. It's important enough to include it here.

Dear Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell,

I appreciate the inquiries by your staff about my availability to appear before the Committee and to share Google’s views about draft telecommunications legislation and the issues related to "network neutrality." These are matters of great importance to the Internet and Google welcomes the Committee’s hard work and attention. The hearing unfortunately conflicts with another obligation, and I am sorry I will not be able to attend. (Along with my colleague Robert Kahn, I am honored to be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Wednesday at the White House for our work in creating the Internet protocol TCP/IP.)

Despite my inability to participate in the planned hearing in person, I hope that you will accept some brief observations about this legislation.

The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an explosion of offerings – from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging – that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design.

My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.

As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.

I am confident that we can build a broadband system that allows users to decide what websites they want to see and what applications they want to use – and that also guarantees high quality service and network security. That network model has and can continue to provide economic benefits to innovators and consumers -- and to the broadband operators who will reap the rewards for providing access to such a valued network.

We appreciate the efforts in your current draft to create at least a starting point for net neutrality principles. Google looks forward to working with you and your staff to draft a bill that will maintain the revolutionary potential of the broadband Internet.

Thank you for your attention and for your efforts on these important issues.

Sincerely,

Vinton Cerf
Chief Internet Evangelist
Google Inc