Vint Cerf, co-creator of the Internet, said today he is troubled by the prospect of companies like AT&T avoiding government regulation after the transition from traditional phone technology to all-IP networks. Already, he said, competition was decimated when the Internet moved from dial-up providers to cable companies and telcos.

Cerf—who made the Internet possible by co-developing the Internet protocol and Transmission Control Protocol technology 40 years ago—was speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show's "Silvers Summit" on technology geared toward the older population. "Some people think silver surfers don't know how to use technology. I have news for you: some of us invented this stuff," the 69-year-old Cerf noted.

This happened to be just one day after AT&T described its plans to retire the traditional Public Switched Telephone Network and become an all-IP telco. As we reported, AT&T wants to make this transition without being subject to what it calls "monopoly-era regulatory obligations," which AT&T thinks are unjustified in the Internet age.

Who better to weigh in on that topic than Vint Cerf? He took questions after his talk, and I got the chance to ask Cerf to address AT&T's plan and comment on whether he thinks extensive regulation of all-IP telcos is necessary. Here's what he said:

I'm not allowed to use foul language, right? My first observation is that it is vital that we maintain openness and neutral access to the Internet's capabilities… The fact that you can carry voice over the Internet is almost incidental to the fact that you can carry any digital content over the Internet. I would not wish to see the question of regulation turn on the notion that Voice over IP is PSTN or is a replacement for PSTN. It is a replacement for almost everything we can do, all of the old network functions can be done on the Internet.

Cerf went on to say network neutrality is important, that we must preserve the right of Internet users to choose what applications and websites they are able to access:

If no regulation leads to your loss of choice of access to applications and content, then that is not an acceptable outcome. If that's what the telcos are trying to accomplish, I am opposed. If all they're trying to accomplish is to make sure the Internet stays as widely open as possible, and they are willing to provide competitive access and give us choice, that's another story. I have to tell you that in the 1990s there were 7 or 8,000 Internet service providers because the Internet was provided through dial-up. If you wanted to switch you just changed the telephone number you call. When broadband came along the number of choices you had telescoped down to one or two: either a telco or cable company or both, and so competition evaporated. There isn't enough of it. Getting access to competition to discipline the market and give you choice is still an important consideration.

Is Google regulated enough?

Cerf is the "chief Internet evangelist" at Google, which recently avoided an antitrust lawsuit when the Federal Trade Commission decided not to bring charges over the company's search practices. One audience member asked Cerf what kind of regulation is necessary to protect consumers from predatory practices on the Internet, and from companies favoring certain kinds of content over others. The audience member mentioned that the question is relevant to Google, Cerf's employer.

Cerf answered, "With regard to the regulatory practices, what I am after more than anything else is to inhibit anti-competitive behavior. It's necessary to make sure that people who control underlying resources don't do so in such a way as to distort the market. If there is a distortion—and you have to demonstrate that if you want to take regulatory action—then... you need to do something about it to maintain choice for everyone and make sure the market is open for competition."

In a related question, Cerf said that businesses providing products and services on the Internet should be required to make everything accessible to people with disabilities.

Upgrading our brains: It won't always be science fiction

Still another question for Cerf centered on whether we will someday be able to "upgrade" our brains. Cerf noted that Google recently hired Ray Kurzweil, the futurist who believes humans and machines will someday become inseparable in ways that will enhance our brains and bodies and perhaps help us live forever.

"Ray is a real futurist," Cerf said. "His belief is that some point perhaps as early as 2029, that machines will be sufficiently capable that they would be smarter than a human, and that at some point we may be able to upload ourselves into a computer."

As for whether we can upgrade ourselves, Cerf said, "You have to question how does the upgrade work. If you assume our wetware is like a machine, and it is if you look at the chemistry, the question is how does the upgrade actually get injected."

This may involve DNA implanted into our brains and bodies to change their functionality. 'We're off into science fiction land right now," he said.

Yet it may not be science fiction in a few decades. Earlier in his talk Cerf had related the story of his wife, who lost her hearing at the age of 3 only to regain it in 1996 with a cochlear implant, a surgically implanted electronic device that restores the ability to hear.

"The cochlear implant I mentioned earlier would have been science fiction 30 years ago," he said. "And it isn't anymore. So it's entirely possible that we can grow ourselves new capabilities and I would not be surprised if that happens."