Paul Kapustka's Blog

...that says they really haven't scored a victory until they face down the twin emperors of Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg and draw some blood there. Without either Big Ed, Ivan the Slick or Comcast's Brian Roberts present, Tuesday's exercise was merely a scrimmage compared to the big game that comes later.

That said, we still had an event, so we need a scoreboard. Here is my unofficial, highly subjective scorecard from today's Senate hearings (viewed via the mushy-looking Real Networks webcast) on Network Neutrality, scored on a 1 (bad) to 10 (good) basis; scores are pretty much in order of chronological appearance:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.):
Not actually a member of the Commerce Committee, Sen. Wyden (who called himself a "frustrated ex-member of the committee") gave a brief opening statement to rally the Net Neutrality troops: "There are powerful interests who are trying to break the Internet," he moaned. Says he will introduce legislation to make sure "no bit is better than another one." Um, including spam? Call us when your bill passes.
Score: 4.0

Vint Cerf, Google: Too cereberal for his own good. Smacked down by Stevens for using the "I'm an engineer, not an economist" line too many times. Vint, neither are they! But that doesn't stop them from grabbing millions for bridges. His star quality is undeniable, and Congress is sure to heed his warning -- "nothing less than the future of the Internet is at stake." And the "future Googles waiting to be born" is also a good rally point. But he fumbled on Ensign's questions about whether or not nets in Japan are open. Good thing for the NN team that Citron was there to bail him out.
Score: 6.0

Walter McCormick, USTA: The ultimate RBOC tool. Smooth and polished, McCormack is a lobbyist personified, and was treated as such. He could only rely on the standard arguments: "There isn't a problem" yet, and that NN rules will discourage investment. Waffled when asked by Sen. Dorgan about Verizon's bid to make Google pay -- "I wasn't privy to the comments Verizon made." (Hint, Walt -- you can read them here.) Smacked down by Boxer when he tries to tweak Google for censoring search in China. McCormick is nothing but Ed Whitacre's puppet, and the strings showed.
Score: 3.5

Jeffrey Citron, Vonage: One star of the show for the Net Neutrality team. Hides his natural arrogance well on this stage, and is well-prepared with facts to answer questions about USF and whether or not Vonage pays for its network use. Could make the points stronger, but he also knows that he doesn't have the juice to tweak Congress so he has to be their friend, or at least a very respectful presenter. Came to Cerf's rescue with Japan answers. Could be the poster child going forward, since Vonage is the only app provider (that we publicly know of) that has been blocked.
Score: 8.5

Kyle McSlarrow, NCTA: Showed a new strategy from the incumbents -- paint Network Neutrality as something that will "risk throwing the system into neutral." Huh? The real debate is about RBOC and Cable desires to have tiered systems and preferential treatment of content. This is classic Swift-boating, trying to change the definition of the argument. Won't be successful, with people like Lessig on the other side to call BS, but McSlarrow has friends in Ensign and other GOPers with strong telco ties. Also trots out the "there isn't a problem here" and "need incentive to invest" chestnuts. Neither argument holds a lot of weight, especially since Boxer shows she reads magazines that tend to quote Whitacre. Bad metaphor award: "Right now, innovation is exploding down the broadband highway."
Score: 5.0

Earl Comstock, CompTel: Too bad about the nanny stuff -- he could have been a great addition to the FCC. A Republican who opposes the Bells, with a command of history (grandpa telecom award for: he was THERE when they wrote the Telecom Act way back when!), Comstock advances an important point (reinforced later) that "the answer to quality of service is bandwidth." Also opens up a can of whup-ass on RBOCs for noting that they had promised 45 Mbps networks in the past, and have not delivered. "The Bell companies seem to be the best at making promises and the worst at keeping them." Ouch! He's right when he says "this is a fight about who is going to control innovation." Now take that sword to K street and see if it works.
Score: 7.75

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska): That this guy is in charge of the debate should scare us all. Can one of his staffers sit him down for a few minutes and explain "all that gigabit stuff?" Seems overwhelmed and can't figure out why Japan can get 100 Mbps and we can't get diddly. (Hint: they require operators to share networks. It's called "competition.") Had to love the open-mike catching him schmoozing with Cerf during the break… asking if he was related to the cartoonist. Weak questioning asking Cerf why Google doesn't just build its own network. Maybe, because they don't have a 75-year monopoly to string copper to everyone's house? Or local monopolies like cable providers? Demerits for twisting every question into something about Alaska. Bad metaphor silver medal for trying to compare networks to oil pipelines. Maybe if Google could harmlessly allow them to search for oil in ANWR… ah, never mind.
Score: 4.0

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): With all the overseas trips these guys take, how can they know so little about what goes on in other countries? Why is Dorgan asking Vint Cerf if Network Neutrality works elsewhere? Though he "comes down on the side of freedom on the Internet" let's not forget that Dorgan joined with Conrad Burns to torpedo Sununu's free-the-VoIP legislation in 2004. Ostensibly on Net Neutrality's side, Dorgan will bargain as long as USF funds pour into the Dakotas. Watch soon for the "FiOS coming to Bismarck" headlines and a vote-switch from do-right-by-my-constitutents Byron.
Score: 4.0

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.): How does a guy from Nevada know so much about Wall Street? Will hammer that we need a "financial incentive to build networks" over and over again until you just give him the money for fiber rollouts just to keep him quiet. Claims that Great Britain and Japan are not free markets and he is right -- of course neither was AT&T but that's not his point. In fact, he says "I don't trust the Bell companies" and with his great-looking hair you almost believe him! He wants competition, between the cable companies and telcos! That's the American Way! Cerf weakly replies to Ensign that net rollouts in Japan "seem to be able to make money," but Ensign is not listening, he's slicking his hair back. Do not discount the hair, or his highly effective and well-thought-of aide-de-Internet camp, Mike "Sully" Sullivan, who is the gel behind the hair.
Score: 8.0

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.): With a folksy twang asks Citron if "you-all are paying into USF?" Citron knocks it out of the park, unequivocably, yes we are, we pay fees to ISPs. Next question? "Do you-all support USF?" "My only wish (Citron) is that it be fair." Asks same questions of Comstock. Would probably ask the lunch-line staffer if they support USF. Do you think Sen. Pryor wants to see USF continue? Do you think he really cares about Network Neutrality? Was he awake the whole time?
Score: 2.5

Sen. George Allen (R-Va.): I Dream Of Jeannie Award for trying, but failing, to come up with a metaphor claiming that passing Net Neutrality regulations would be bad. "Do you pass a law.. that lets the genie back out of the bottle?" he asks, confusingly. Ah, Senator, do you mean that "tiers of service" will foster more innovation than the current setup? He reminds us of Brick, the weather guy in Ron Burgundy, Anchorman -- who is similarly unable to construct the party-in-my-pants joke when the fat is in the fire. Later on he drew laughs for comparing the Senate to a "wounded sea slug." George, they're not laughing with you. Here's a tip of the genie bottle to Sen. Allen.
Score: 2.5

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): Enthusiastic but needs to read blogs like Om Malik's -- they would tell her that the BusinessWeek article about Verizon she is quoting is only half-right, and not the best place to start an argument (that "little pipe" of Verizon's is 20 Mbps, so tough to call that "squeezing," Babs). She understands the issues, but isn't clear on the specifics, which is scary for the Net Neutrality team -- they should have done a better job of preparing her. Barbara, meet Vint. Vint, Barbara. But showed that "I'm the Senator here" when she sliced McCormick in half when he tried to end-around her questions with a swipe at Google. Recovers again later when she finds another friend in Lessig to toss softballs at. Shows she knows the score as to who is behind each presenter, which is more than half the battle. But someone get her a browser and a Bloglines feed!
Score: 7.0

UPDATED, 4:47 pm PST, with second panel scores:

KYLE DIXON, Progress & Freedom Foundation: Kyle is the kind of guy you wish was on your team… smooth, well-spoken and an obvious command of the issues. Only (big) flaw is the "nanny" feeling you get from everyone at the PFF -- don't get me wrong, I love the PFF and the excuse to go to Aspen every summer! And they are smart smart folks there. But they never forget to let you know it, and to let you know they know it. Somehow Kyle can make the statements that Net Neutrality rules could "undermine the incentives to invest" and "doing so could make network neutrality the problem" and make them sound fresh and new, even if they are tired and old. When he says regulation could be a "slippery slope," you can almost feel yourself sliding!
Score: 8.5

LARRY (LAWRENCE) LESSIG, Stanford: Obi-wan with glasses… nah, that's not right, but kinda. Lessig is a higher power than the rest of us mere mortals, and he taps the force. His magic is strong, and he makes his points clearly and forcefully. And he's a showman, saying "you have my testimony" but instead he's going to talk off the menu! Cool! Does a good job of turning the whole premise around by stating that AT&T/Verizon's plans -- and not Network Neutrality rules -- are "a radical change in the regulation of telecom" and that the past success of a regulated Internet should be the guide to future success, not "theories." He's a little obtuse with his musical references and allusions to wading in horse dung, but comes on strong later with a clear explanation of the differences between tiered pricing for service levels (which he says is OK, even encouraged) and tiered pricing for access to applications (not cool, will cut off innovation to only those who already have cash).
Score: 9.25

J. GREGORY SIDAK, Georgetown University Law Center: Sorry, I tuned out on J. Greg after about 10 seconds -- he was low-talking and not making any clear points. According to his prepared materials he said he was a 20-year paid telecom consultant AND made a reference to his kid and the Fox show "24" in his opening statements, which earns him the Joe Buck irrelevant award. As in, we refuse to listen to you because you have nothing to say. Thanks for taking up some of Barbara Boxer's valuable time. And thanks for being local, so we didn't have to pay travel expenses.
Score: 1.5

GARY BACHULA, Internet 2: The sleeper of the show -- Gary had Sen. Stevens sputtering, wondering how the hell some snotty college kids are getting gigabits per second while fishermen in Alaska only have dial-in over wet monofilament. Bachula torched the AT&T and Verizon claims about the need for "specialized" video services with some hands-on experience. According to Bachula, Internet 2 users are streaming HDTV, holding conference calls -- all at best-effort configuration on their mile-wide pipes. "It's far more cost-efficient simply to provide more bandwidth," Bachula said. "Rather than introduce more complexity, telecom providers should focus on bandwidth and the [QoS] problems take care of themselves." But Gary, then how would you justify all those lawyers? The Jason Gore of the hearings, without the 84 on Sunday.
Score: 9.0

(P.S. -- thanks to all the Blackberry-holding attendees who helped with this report. You know who you are!)