A variety of stakeholders are forming an industry group “to come up with voluntary guidelines for managing network data traffic, a move aimed to appease regulators who are pushing for stronger Internet access rules.”  Frankly, this is overdue.  I basically agree with Public Knowledge that “there is a role for advisory groups to consult on items of technical importance.  Given that this advisory group is only just getting off the ground, we are cautiously optimistic that it may do some good.”  Others are more skeptical. At CNet, Declan McCullagh thinks it “indicates a cooling of hostilities over Net neutrality rules is underway.”  We’ll see.

To some extent, this is the way the Internet has always worked.  Various non-governmental bodies (IETF, ISOC, W3C, IAB, IESG, etc) provide forums for stakeholders and experts to collaboratively figure out how stuff works, how it could work and how they can make it work.

But while skeptics may argue that there’s just no way this sort of group could possibly resolve the policy questions surrounding net neutrality, some other net neutrality supporters have argued otherwise in the past…

• In 2006, Tim Wu argued that either “a code of honor or an actual law” could accomplish net neutrality.

• In 2009, Google’s Rick Whitt said “it’s about the outcome, not the path. ….  My observation is that, in fact, you can have a network neutrality environment without the regulation to get you there.  I would submit that we actually have net neutrality right now.  We don’t have a law, we don’t have legislation [...] we don’t have regulations adopted by the FCC that says “thou shalt have a net neutral world”.  [...] And so it really is about the outcome – it’s the environment we want, and not necessarily the path.   There are many ways to get there, this may be one of them, frankly.   Or other ways like self-regulating organizations, standards, bodies and the like.”

Government, like physicians, ought to take a “First, do no harm” approach to policy. Take minimal steps, then evaluate. If an actual problem exists after de minimis steps have been taken, it is possible that regulation could be appropriate, a cost/benefit analysis should be done and additional steps taken.  Or it is possible that a problem may not exist, in which case….great. Problem solved.

Starting on step 4 seems like an invitation to missteps and unintended consequences.

The Technical Advisory Group, I think, is a step in the right direction.  I hope the FCC sees it that way.

UPDATE: Er, no. This idea did not, in fact, originate in a March 2010 speech by Verizon’s Tom Tauke.  As noted above, the idea predated that speech by quite a long time.