USIIA today released a white paper that outlines ten principles for broadband policy and suggests that there should be an industry self-regulatory organization for broadband questions (that would handle conflict resolution and drive consensus on policy, among other things).  USIIA's white paper does not contain good news for internet users, as I'll explain in a moment. 

But I'm conflicted about the essential move that USIIA is making, which is to assert that "the industry" can manage its own house.  In general, I'm all for industry self-management.  Here, though, it looks as if providers of transport are ganging up with providers of content to ensure that all internet experiences are carefully managed.  Who gave transport providers the right to cut across layers of the protocol stack and dictate what applications run on their networks?  Answer:  telephony and cable history.  But that's not the same as the history of the internet, which is full of aspirations to not discriminate against other layers.

This self-regulatory move is different from, say, the ICANN model.  ICANN is organized to manage consensus on global domain name policy, and to coordinate entries into the root.  But ICANN carefully does not get into other layers, and nor do domain name registries.  Com doesn't try to manage the services that .com registrants can use or see. 

So although I'm all for industry taking care of itself through contracts, as long as there is adequate competition and real choice, there are at least two problems with the USIIA model:  First, it's masking an aggressive push towards fully managed networks in which transport and content are fused.  It's not so much "self regulation" as "cartel creation," and it's based on magnificent layer-crossing.  Second, the provider principles are founded on the assumption that adequate competition exists in the broadband world in the US, and I'm not sure that's true.  Take a look at this quote from p.8:

Consumer advocates have for the last decade pressed for government mandates and subsidies that would eliminate barriers to entry and bring an unlimited stream of new competitors into the broadband markets. This is done for two reasons, both incorrect. The first is the belief that there is in some way a dearth of competition in broadband when in fact most population concentrations have a choice of four or more platforms with at least one competitor in each.

Is that true?

USIIA is suggesting that "the broadband industry" needs to transition to a "consumer-focused" marketplace in which external legislation and regulation isn't needed.  There's a coy suggestion n.8 on p.12 that USIIA might itself be the right self-regulatory body for broadband issues:

It may be assumed that the US Internet Industry Association would serve as the industry body, since it already has non-profit incorporated status, a strong reputation for service to the Internet industry and a recognized presence in the industry. 

USIIA's principles add five provider-oriented bullet points to the four that were foreshadowed by the FCC earlier this month (plus one about spyware services, just to balance the slate between "consumers" and "providers").  Here they are, together with questions they raise in my mind: 

1.  Network providers are entitled to interconnect with broadband transport services and other network providers through agreements and commercial contracts based on volume, terms, points of connection and other established market parameters;

Is this a principle that would cut against the idea of providing commodity transport? It's a moot point for the moment, based on Brand X and the FCC's declaration on DSL treatment, but why is this a principle that is good for  users?

2.  Network providers are entitled to offer vertically-integrated broadband access and applications;

How does this principle relate to end-to-end?  If something is successfully vertically integrated, users don't get to choose whether or not to use it.  It's the only choice.

3.  Network providers are entitled to offer proprietary services to their customers, so long as the provision of such services does not interfere with the customer's right to access content and run applications of their choice.

Is the "so long as" meaningful?  If a provider's terms of service say "you can't do X," won't that trump whatever "rights" the user has in the abstract?  If contracts are to be respected, surely the EULA is the most respected of all.

4.  Network providers are entitled to offer managed services to their customers;

What's the difference between this and No. 3?  And what happened to the "so long as" proviso in No. 3?

5.  Network providers are entitled to operate on the same basis as other network providers in the same market without interference from local governments or political subdivisions.

This seems to be a shot at derailing municipal broadband efforts.  Why shouldn't cities get a chance to do this if they want to?

These principles, together with the FCC's four, seem to point in just one direction:  a new internet, carefully managed and monetized for the benefit of network managers.  Why is this better?

The USIIA work deserves a close look, but it doesn't seem like good news for anyone other than large incumbents who want to make deals without interference.