Just by way of introduction to Digital Society readers, I’m a “cable guy.”  Just wanted to get that right out front as I start blogging as opposed to what I have been doing for the past 35 years, which is writing a column on cable law, politics, technology, business and the like.  Of course now we call it “broadband” instead of “cable.” When I started in this business, 40 years ago, it was called “Community Antenna Television” or “CATV.” As noted in my bio, here, I was President of the “Community Antenna Television Association” – better known as “CATA” for 23 years. The name of the organization changed in the mid-1980s to the Cable Telecommunications Association, but the mission was the same: to represent the interests of the smaller, independent cable television operators in Washington, and to try to explain, in English, the policy and legal issues to the cable industry, and explain the cable industry to the policy folks.

That’s my intention here. The misunderstanding and misinformation that is flying around about “broadband” and “the Internet” and “net neutrality” and the like has gotten critical. Folks are screaming past each other rather than trying to understand each other and find some sort of common ground. I know that there are some who argue that moderation (“The Mushy Middle”) and seeking common ground is a bad idea. I don’t. I’m a believer in the definition of politics as “the art of negotiation and compromise between competing interests.”

There’s no question that there are competing interests in this situation, and without sensible political compromise there isn’t going to be a resolution. It starts with understanding the real positions, fears, desires and objectives of the other side. Overheated rhetoric, on either side, is unlikely to win the day. Again, that’s just my position, I want to put it out there as part of my “full disclosure” so that I can cite it repeatedly, as I suspect I will have to, as those who choose name calling and opprobrium as opposed to reasoned discussion join the fray. Those who suggest that issues like “net neutrality” have simple, yes/no answers have already been proved wrong. I do understand the political tactic of moving to the extreme in order to try to “move the center,” however I think we are beyond that, too.

Prior to representing the cable industry I spent five years as an attorney advisor at the FCC as part of a team that wrote the first set of comprehensive federal regulations applied to cable. When I left the Commission the industry considered me “one of them.” Now that I have worked on both sides of the policy street, and I still am paid to consult, advise, and explain the industry, as well as write a column for CableFAX Daily every Thursday, I am labeled “one of them” by those insisting on comprehensive regulation. Been there, done that. The labels are irrelevant. Once all the name calling is over, it’s the information, the logic, the reasoning that counts and that’s what I intend to focus on.

It makes no sense to me for some to argue that “…the industry” should not be allowed to participate in discussions about regulating broadband. That’s like saying women should not be allowed to participate in discussions about laws relating to reproductive rights. After all, they have a vested interest!  Is the theory that only one side, the buyer, should be able to participate in structuring rules, but not the seller? The consumer but not the one who created the consumable? That can’t be, and it isn’t the way things work, so let’s get on with the discussion on a more balanced basis of respect.

As noted above, I’ve made my living for the past 40 years working in the policy, political, business world of telecommunications and broadband. I think I have a certain amount of expertise to share and certainly have positions that some will disagree with. Some of the buyer/user lobbyists have been around almost as long, and I have excellent relationships with many of them. We have learned to disagree without being disagreeable. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. We see things from different perspectives, we add to the debate by presenting differing points of view and objectives. If we can keep the discussion on that level then we have made a major step forward. Thanks to Digital Society for allowing me to use their platform to try to further the discussion.