One of the serious issues rarely addressed in the continued calls to regulate network neutrality is that the term means different things to different people. The central concept of network neutrality is rather simple—that the Internet should remain open to all users to access any content. But beyond that, there are different ideas and ideals that make it a much more complicated issue. For instance, some contend that regulation should prevent Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to any content or application provider, or from entering into exclusive content deals. Still others want network owners to strictly adhere to a nonproprietary, standardized Internet protocol (this protocol ignores emerging applications and technologies). And, again, for some the push for regulation is primarily to prohibit ISPs from restricting users’ access to content—although there’s no evidence that any providers have attempted to block access to legal content.

So, there’s no clear definition of network neutrality. And, despite the hype, there’s no evidence of a real problem, no consensus on what the potential problems might be, and no consensus on how to solve the hypothetical problems. Innovation has and will continue to propel the Internet in new directions without governmental regulation. Any ISP that degrades service, blocks access, or fails to innovate will be punished by a quick loss of customers.

At Cox Communications, our customers can visit any legal web site they wish on our open network (although we must adhere to laws requiring us to restrict access to illegal websites such as child pornography). We don’t, and won’t, block our customers’ access to legal Internet content.

We get excited any time an accurate distinction between VoIP and Internet telephony makes it into the media. Today’s kudos are for The New York Times and the article “An Internet Phone Pioneer, Poised to Go Public, Has Rivals at Its Heels,” about Vonage’s impending public offering. The article offers an interesting take on the heightened competition Vonage is getting from cable telephony and others. From the article: “Customers have also found that not all Internet phone services are the same. Vonage calls are connected by a variety of companies that route voice data over their networks. Some customers complain that calls can sound tinny. Cable companies, by contrast, use their own networks to connect most calls, which can mean more reliable connections. They also have workers who can visit customers' homes, not just operators at call centers. And with deeper pockets, they can offer more discounts and new services.”

This week, both BellSouth and Verizon refuted the USA Today article stating that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth handed over customer phone records to the National Security Agency. Clearly, as this issue deals with security and intelligence, there's probably more to the story than we know. But based on how it's being reported in the media and how it appears on the surface, there's a lot of questions and perhaps lessons that all communications companies can learn. For instance, the carefully worded statements issued by these companies don't necessarily clear up the issue. In fact, they raise more questions and make you wonder why it took over five days to determine if they did or did not participate in the NSA secret information-gathering program. Customers trust their telecom providers with a heck of a lot of personal information, and it's up to the provider to protect that information as much as possible. So it's reasonable for consumers to ask why does it take so long to figure out what private data has been shared and with whom? Even with the complexity of national security issues, you'd like to think that companies you trust enough to do business with would have a better handle on the security of their private records. However, this story has clearly taken on a life of its own through conflicting reports in blogs and news media, and through political posturing, making it difficult to know who's telling the truth.

When The Washington Post recently reported on Forrester Research findings that suggested consumers don’t like and don’t subscribe to bundles of video, voice and Internet services, we firmly disputed the conclusion. Those results certainly didn’t jibe with Cox Communications’ experience and customer results. Today, the quarterly American Customer Satisfaction Index was released, and these results are much more in line with our reality. In fact, the findings conclude that bundling of multiple services actually increases customer satisfaction.

The cable and satellite TV sector increased three percent in the latest ACSI, which asks consumers questions on perceived value and quality of a particular company’s products and services. The results are compiled for several industry sectors. According to Multichannel News, Cox Communications had the highest score of all cable companies in the latest ACSI, while DirecTV received the highest score in the cable and satellite sector. Also, according to the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, which compiles the ACSI, “As evidence of the converging communications landscape, Comcast and Cox Communications join the fixed line telephone service providers on the Index this quarter. Cox makes its first appearance as the highest scoring phone service at 76.” Verizon and Comcast were at 69, one point below the industry average. AT&T and BellSouth were one point above the average.

Last week, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency has amassed a secret database of tens of millions of Americans’ phone records and that AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth had handed over the info to the NSA. (BellSouth denies that it provided its customers’ records.) According to the newspaper, the NSA launched this secret program to create “a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders. Cox Communications and other cable telephone providers weren't approached by the NSA, perhaps because we are governed under The Cable Act, which provides an additional level of protection for customer’s privacy [click here for related article].

The Cable Act is very specific in terms of its protections for customer privacy and fairly restrictive on what operators may disclose. For this reason and because of our commitment to our customers’ privacy, Cox would never voluntarily provide customer information unless it was required by law, usually through a subpoena or a search warrant. The law does allow for one exception, which rarely occurs. In certain life threatening emergencies, cable companies are asked to provide law enforcement with assistance while a subpoena or court order is on its way.

This issue has gotten a lot of recent media coverage, and it’s obvious that Americans have strong opinions. Some Verizon customers have filed a lawsuit against Verizon for violation of several privacy laws, while a Verizon spokesperson claims that other customers have called in to thank Verizon for helping out with our national security. Either way, it’s important for all consumers to be aware of privacy policies and how companies adhere to these guidelines.

How costly is free speech? For Marc Cuban, owner of HDNet and the Dallas Mavericks, the price tag is at least $100,000. That's the amount Cuban was fined yesterday by the National Basketball Association for comments Cuban posted on his blog that were critical of NBA officiating. That fine was coupled with another $100,000 hit for Cuban's trip onto the court during a Mavericks playoff game on Sunday. The complaints certainly aren't a surprise from the always controversial Cuban. But the fine is sure to raise lots of questions about freedom of speech and blogging. For Cuban's reaction to the fine, click here, and here for Cuban's colorful comments on a recent NCTA National Show panel

First-quarter earnings announcements from the publicly traded cable companies continue, with Time Warner announcing results yesterday. Like Comcast, Time Warner Cable registered a stellar quarter that underscores the power of Cable’s bundle of video, voice and Internet services. The benefit of bundling isn’t new news, but you wouldn’t realize that from reading some recent press coverage. Take this statement from one such article: “Cable operators started taking on the phone companies head-to-head last year [emphasis added by us] when they began offering telephone service.” Actually, Cox Communications launched cable telephone in 1997. Today, there are nearly 2 million residential customers of Cox Digital Telephone, which is delivered over circuit-switched technology to some customers and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to others. VoIP has certainly enabled more cable companies to begin offering telephone during the last couple of years, but cable telephony didn’t actually begin with VoIP. For nearly a decade, Cox has been delivering serious head-to-head competition to the RBOCs and experiencing the customer satisfaction and business benefits of a "triple play" bundle of services. In fact, our telephone penetration is 33% of our total cable customers and 24% of all homes passed by our network. With all of that said, we do think it’s great that more in the media are suddenly cluing in to the Cable bundle, particularly in the face of RBOC bluster about their fiber deployments. Record results from cable companies to start a year that’s being touted as the industry’s most competitive is a strong statement from consumers about their preferred source for communications and entertainment services.