The FCC's recent Network Management Order concerning Comcast's broadband network management practices purported to establish rules of "reasonable" network management in the context of an "adjudication" of an advocacy group's "formal complaint" concerning Comcast's treatment of P2P traffic on its network. I have written elsewhere about the legal and procedural defects of the Commission's approach that I believe will doom the action's chances on appeal. Here I discuss one relatively unexamined feature of the Order, which is the FCC's conclusion that "a hallmark of whether something is reasonable" is whether a provider discloses the practice to its customers. What will this mean in terms of future FCC enforcement actions?

Last week, we hosted another successful CEO luncheon featuring Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. Discussion at the event, now available as a webcast here, managed to cover topics ranging from the COPE bill to customer service. Below is, for me, some of the more memorable moments.

I had the pleasure last evening of speaking at an America's Future Foundation event titled "Should the Government Regulate the Net?" AFF consists of conservatives or libertarians in their 20s and 30s; in just over a year I'll turn 40 and I suppose will join America's Past. But I enjoyed the AFF crowd, which filled to standing-room a banquet room in the Rayburn House Office Building. I particularly enjoyed their probing questions. In my prepared remarks I sought to address some of the hysteria surrounding the net neutrality debate, and in so doing evoked the possibility of a mutant snakehead rising out of the Potomac River, walking down the Mall and devouring the US Capitol. That, I suspect, isn't likely to happen, but neither are the scary stories we often hear, as was made clear by a fellow panelist, Heritage's James Gattuso.

In a nod to my onetime (and hopefully still) friends from the VoIP world, I will say that the Gutknecht amendment to COPE regulating VoIP "up" to the level of regular wireline voice is among the minor nuisances of the bill. As described, the amendment:

[P]reserve[s] FCC authority to require VOIP providers to: (1) Contribute to the Federal universal service fund when they interconnect, either directly or indirectly, with incumbent local exchange carrier networks; and (2) Properly compensate network owners for the use of their network just as incumbent and competitive carriers do today.

In thinking about how much the communications and computing world has changed in just the last few decades, I'm always wondering how my kids will react when I tell them about how Dad used technology in the past. Case in point: "long-distance service." My kids won't even know what the heck that term means. And they will certainly laugh when I tell them how their grandmother used to impose a strict, time-limited plan on my calling activities to keep our phone bill down. (I used to have a girlfriend in high school who lived across an "inter-LATA" boundary which made my calls to her absurdly expensive even thought she was less than 30 minutes away. Once the monthly phone bill went over $100 bucks, my call privileges were severely curtailed by Mom!)

Anyway, what got me thinking about all this was this announcement yesterday by Skype that all US and Canadian-based Skype customers can now make free SkypeOut calls to traditional landline and mobile phones in the US and Canada. Sure, Skype isn't a perfect substitute for traditional telephony. But it's good enough for many. And its move will force other telecom providers to reconsider their current pricing plans and cut rates even further. One wonders how Vonage and other VoIP providers can survive in world of cut-throat competition.

Meanwhile, back in the surreal world of Washington, we continue to impose extensive regulations on various phone companies due to fears of consumer harm. Hmmm... let's see, someone is providing free phone service to the world and regulators are still worried about consumer harm. Seems silly to me.

News this week that proponents of network neutrality regulation are redoubling their efforts in the Senate reminds us that this legislative battle is far from over [TRDaily subscription required]. Also ongoing is the insistence -- in (virtually) all neutrality proposals -- that regulators pretend consumers will never have a choice of providers using technology other than cable modems and DSL. Sadly, if those favoring this regulation of the broadband Internet emerge victorious, make believe may become real, as I discuss in a recent op-ed.

Thoughtful policymaking requires, at a minimum, that participants offer concrete proposals for effecting their bright ideas. It is primarily in that spirit that this week's proposal to graft a network neutrality mandate onto the Communications Act can be commended [TRDaily subscription required]. The proposal also draws favor to the extent it acknowledges that consumers benefit not only from substantial flexibility in how they use Internet content, applications and devices, but also from escalating broadband transmission speeds and capabilities.

Beyond that, however, this latest attempt to regulate broadband providers -- for acts they might commit in the future, that might undermine consumer welfare and that might not be disciplined by market forces -- demonstrates the difficulty of turning bright ideas about how the Internet should evolve into legislative directives that answer more questions than they raise. And, indeed, proponents of network neutrality mandates should worry that consumers will raise questions.

Much can, and no doubt will, be said about recent efforts to address "network neutrality" concerns by granting the FCC authority to adjudicate disputes relating to its Policy Statement on this issue. Certainly, these efforts can be seen as an important step forward -- at least compared to proposals that Congress mandate network neutrality immediately and in all circumstances. But there are also clear downsides to this "adjudication authority" approach and, in the final analysis, one wonders whether this kind of legislation would change the FCC's behavior as a practical matter.

Recent reports suggest that "bundling" multiple communications services has not emerged as the "killer app" for attracting or retaining customers. Only a small percentage of subscribers buy bundled services and many of these subs eventually abandon their bundles. Moreover, very few customers have expressed interest in relying on one company to satisfy all of their communications needs, no matter how diverse companies' offerings become. So much for the notion that mergers and the bundling capabilities of the Internet Protocol will transform cable and telephone companies immediately into invincible competitors deserving of regulation.

But the idea that the competitive power of bundles -- if it ever manifests -- may do so only in the future provides another reason why policymakers should be reluctant to regulate service bundles.

As I mentioned in my testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee and again at an economics conference this week, addressing network neutrality concerns on a case-by-case basis can mitigate some of the potential risks associated with prophylactic rules in this area. But it's worth underscoring another benefit that would result if Congress adopted this approach in new legislation: it would clarify government's authority to address the concerns underlying proposed network neutrality mandates.