Some time ago I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Vinton Cerf (Vint) - one of the 'fathers of the internet' who played such a vital role in creating the TCP/IP protocol that underpins it.  He now holds the post of "Chief Internet Evangelist" at Google. Vint has popped up in my mind in the context of the discouraging news coming out of Washington this week on the legislative actions of the House of Representatives over their attempts to 'preserve net neutrality'.  Although I believe the lobbying efforts and tactics of those who support net neutrality (as I most certainly do) were misguided, nevertheless it is a vital issue.   
These latest events suggest a clear swing in favour of existing telco vested interests and against the interests of the likes of Google (or indeed all of us!) who champion the cause of "open" neutrality.

In this week's edition of The Economist (10th June) which contains that journal’s excellent periodic ‘Quarterly Technology Review’, there is an interesting article about Vint.  The following is a  pertinent quotation from that Review:

"At Google, Dr Cerf plays several roles... [including]  representing Google on policy issues. In February he appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee in Washington, DC, where internet regulation and the question of “network neutrality” have recently become hot topics. This is because large telecoms firms, such as AT&T and Verizon, are proposing to build internet “fast lanes”, which would allow them to charge users and content providers for speedy, guaranteed delivery of data. This has  prompted a wave of protest from those, including Dr Cerf, who worry that this violates the fundamental non-discriminatory basis of the internet, and could thus hamper its innovative culture.

What particularly offends Dr Cerf about the telecoms operators' plans is that “they are trying to force us back into a 19th-century model in a 21st-century world,” he says. Under the old 19th-century model, telephone calls (like letters and parcels before them) are delivered from A to B, and the caller (or sender) pays the operator (or delivery firm) accordingly. 

The internet, however, operates on a completely different principle: users, whether giant corporations or individuals, simply pay for access to the network—the faster it is, the more it costs—and there are then no carriage or delivery fees. But Dr Cerf warns that although this simple approach has made possible all kinds of new services, the operators are now trying to move back towards the old model. 'If we follow their logic, every time I send you an e-mail I will have to pay,' he says.  'Operators should simply recover their costs through access fees', he insists."

Right on Vint! - I could not have put it better myself!

Maybe the time is ripe to try and convince Vint (and the likes of Google) that this entire issue of "net neutrality" (i.e. open access) against which the incumbent telco industry is fighting - needs to be tackled on the basis of a dual-fronted, pincer-movement.  That is to say that while we all (and the likes of Google) certainly need to fight to 'preserve' INTERnet neutrality, at the same time we ALSO need to fight to 'win'  LOCALnet neutrality.  For only in such a truly 'open access' world, will 'stuff' created at the periphery (i.e. by Google, you me et al) be able to freely pass to willing consumers somewhere else on the 'periphery' - unhindered and untaxed by vested interests operating under the obsolete telco business model.  

Vint understands this all too well as the Economist quotes make clear, BUT he and the other great "internet evangelists" have not (I believe) made the connection with the vital relevance of the OPLAN model in ensuring this becomes the lasting way of the world.  Only by 'squeezing' the telcom model off the face of the earth from both ends - the 'internet-centre-OUT' and the 'localnet-periphery-IN', will the desirable end game that Vint and we all see, finally emerge.

Anybody want to drop Vint a line?  I will, and will keep you informed.