Fair-Use Challenge to Hatch Complicated by Democrat’s Net-Neutrality Views

IPac is going after Hatch not only because “he wants to blow up computers used for file-sharing,” referring to Hatch’s 2003 remark that has dogged the senator since, the group said. The race is “a clear example of good vs. evil,” with Ashdown signing on to IPac’s statement of principles and displaying such geek prowess in his campaign as running a wiki on his site for voter suggestions, it said.

Ashdown may not be a perfect fit with the group, however. IPac is a signatory to Save the Internet, a coalition pushing for a law requiring network neutrality of network owners. In a recent Wired News interview, Ashdown said he believes net neutrality rules would create dangerous side effects for network health and that market forces alone will keep incumbents from messing with content.

“I don’t trust the telcos any farther than I can throw them,” but “the drawbacks towards guaranteeing ‘unfiltered’ access give me pause,” Ashdown told us. Govt. regulation of the Internet, no matter how well meant, ends up hurting small ISPs like his own as much as incumbents, he said: “An ISP has real cause to block attacks and unfriendly networks to maintain the health of their network. I have seen very little consideration towards that end” from neutrality supporters. “If Verizon wants to limit my access, it is not very hard to tunnel to a 3rd party who won’t limit my access,” he said: If even China can’t block users from going where they want online, “what makes [neutrality supporters] think that AT&T can do the same?” Besides, incumbents alienating clients via excessive network management will lose customers to rivals looking for competitive advantage, he predicted.

The Save the Internet coalition is a “big tent” able to embrace Ashdown’s views, IPac Secy. Ren Bucholz told us: “It’s a complicated issue that has a… broad array of policy solutions.” Ashdown has “leeriness of government intervention” and other members feel the same, but they're in this position because of the “lack of platform competition” worsened by the FCC Brand X decision, he said. Measures that are specific to net neutrality, such as Rep. Markey’s (D- Mass.) amendment to the House Commerce Committee telecom bill (WID May 3 p9), offer a “nonideal solution” but are “the best that we have right now.” Clear guidelines for enforcing local competition are the eventual goal, not “handing all the keys of the castle to the FCC,” which Bucholz thinks is Ashdown’s real concern.

Net neutrality is minor compared with copyright and DRM, Ashdown said, voicing doubt his views on the subject would alienate current or potential allies. Despite his position, “I'd have a hard time joining hands with the telcos” in the Hands Off the Internet coalition, he said, adding that he feels more in tune with Save the Internet members. Incumbents never do anything “in an altruistic sense,” he said. A Hands Off spokesman said the group wasn’t familiar with Ashdown’s position.

Ashdown is similarly unimpressed by the DearAOL.com coalition, now pressing AOL to kill its imminent Goodmail CertifiedEmail program that buys a pass through AOL’s spam filters, he said. “The market responds to market demands,” and AOL has many competitors that will siphon off customers who feel AOL is blocking desired content. Ashdown, who deems the AOL offering a “really dumb move,” said few areas of the U.S. depend on AOL for Internet services.

Faith in the market to prevent neutrality violations is naive, a Public Knowledge spokesman told us. According to Ofcom, the U.K. has 16 nationwide broadband providers, all because the system is unbundled, unlike the U.S. A 24 Mbps connection in London runs under $50, a far cry from U.S. prices, he said. Of Ashdown’s view that small wireless ISPs can gnaw at the cable-telco duopoly, he said: “There’s always stuff at the periphery -- what we're talking about is a mass market,” with options other than cable and phone companies grabbing a fraction of a percent.

Campaign Faltering, but Progress Seen

Ashdown spoke frankly of his campaign’s travails. “We've been trying to get people interested on a national basis in this race since the start of last year, and it’s been slow in coming.” He’s tried to meet with tech leaders none too fond of Hatch, with little success. Public Knowledge, for example, hasn’t answered his invitation to help take on Hatch. The group doesn’t get involved in campaigns, a spokesman told us. The Wired interview was the biggest recent boost, but, as with mentions on Slashdot and a few tech blogs, the publicity has been “short-lived,” Ashdown said.

Fundraising seems tough, given some circles’ antipathy to Hatch, Ashdown said: “A lot of donors who usually give tens of thousands to Democratic races in the state [are] slapping me on the back and giving me $500.” The campaign does what it can to stretch its dollars, getting good local media coverage and running well in rural Utah. Recent poll results are murky, giving Ashdown’s strength as 27% or 16%, which he reads as roughly 20% -- but Hatch is just above 50%, a historic low for the senator, he said. Voter concerns are overwhelmingly not tech-related -- they care about jobs, energy, and the Divine Strike nuclear tests -- but at each stop he meets a few techies. The only scheduled debate is Oct. 31, but Ashdown’s campaign will try to drum up interest among local Republican party chairmen.

Ashdown said he’s “dismayed at how the national party has reacted to this race,” with Senate Minority Leader and fellow Westerner Reid (D-Nev.) telling him “'Good luck’ -- that’s it,” he said: “You have to have a million dollars in the bank before they'll give you the time of day.” But the obvious gap between folksy Ashdown and the big-city party actually has “been a blessing,” he said.