|
|
Don't let the government slow Internet progress The Internet has become a powerful communications and economic force because it has been free from government interference. To make sure the power and promise of the Internet continues, we need to keep it free of government interference.
|
|
Latest from the IFC Beware Of New Network Neutrality Push Thursday, March 27, 2008 Phil Kerpen With the introduction of the misleadingly named Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 by Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, the push for regulating the Internet under a so-called network neutrality regime has begun again in earnest. The angry left--including Free Press and MoveOn.org--is fully engaged, and Democratic presidential hopefuls Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are strong supporters. But network neutrality is more about imposing a top-down regulatory model on the Internet, which could lead to outright government subsidization and control, than it is about protecting freedom. The Markey bill has been described as simply commissioning a study of the issue, but the bill includes a new national broadband policy statement that would almost guarantee onerous new regulation. What is network neutrality? In its strictest form, it means a government mandate that Internet service providers have to treat all of the bits of data traveling on their network the same way. Proponents of network neutrality regulation have been crying wolf for more than five years now, warning since 2002 that telephone and cable companies would block users from accessing their sites. In those five years nothing like the doomsday scenarios envisioned by the network neutrality Cassandras has occurred, but their heated rhetoric about the Internet's end-times continues. The latest volley is the Markey bill, which purports to establish an assessment process at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), including public broadband summits and Internet-based commenting. Such an approach is reasonable, given that the outcome would likely be a vindication of current network management practices. Unfortunately, the Markey bill goes further, undermining the entire point of the assessment process by enshrining into law a new broadband policy statement that includes strict network neutrality language prohibiting network providers from prioritizing network traffic based upon source, ownership or destination. This language pre-empts the outcome of the assessment process, and effectively prohibits business models that might make sense for offering next- generation Internet services that are affordable and maintain a high quality of service. The Internet has finite capacity, and delivery of high-quality video is enormously expensive. Allowing a multiplicity of payers, where companies offering expanded services like movie downloads negotiate with Internet service providers for expedited transit, may be the best way to generate the revenue that's necessary for the Internet to continue to grow and innovate. If prioritizing traffic is made illegal, that could deter the kind of infrastructure investments that the Internet needs to continue functioning well. The language of the broadband policy statement in the Markey bill could prevent infrastructure companies from having effective control over the data traveling across their networks. That means allowing teenagers using massive amounts of peer-to-peer bandwidth for trading stolen videogames crowding out customers who need high-quality bandwidth for video conferencing, telemedicine or other next-generation services. We should not lose sight of the importance of protecting and encouraging investment in the billion-dollar networks that must continue to be built and upgraded. Some network neutrality proponents openly admit that the rules would lead to underinvestment in infrastructure, and call for government subsidization or outright ownership. This also has the potential to be an important presidential election issue, with strong support for so-called network neutrality regulations from Senators Clinton and Obama, and a much more reasoned, wait-and-see position from Senator John McCain. In a recent interview, McCain staked out a very reasonable moderate position, arguing that it doesn't make sense to take regulatory action unless and until some clear abuses take place. McCain argues for an FCC regulatory model that polices abuses rather than using proactive rule-making to create a government-designed market. There is a real risk of a network neutrality bill moving forward this year, especially if it can be smuggled through under the guise of commissioning a study. If proponents of economic freedom successfully defeat that effort, the outcome on this issue could well turn on the presidential election. Phil Kerpen is policy director for Americans for Prosperity. 3/27/2008 11:29:00 AM Read more! Nervous Network: Providers' freedom is the lifeblood of cyber democracy Letter to the Editor: Seattle Times Editor, The Times: Your endorsement of Internet regulation ["Internet in jeopardy as neutrality erodes," Times editorial, March 5] calls for government management of the Internet to "fix" a problem that simply does not exist. Every day there are new Internet services and applications being developed. They are improving Americans' quality of life by bringing new choices for entertainment, new opportunities for education and advancements in health care. This is the most dynamic sector of America's economy, driven by technological innovation and robust investment. It is all taking place because government policymakers have avoided the temptation to micromanage this rapidly evolving environment, and the entrepreneurs who are investing are free to explore a variety of partnerships, business models and services. Today, Americans can go anywhere they want on the Internet, they can attach any device or run any application. And consumers are free to choose from a host of providers of Internet access — telecom companies, cable companies, wireless companies, satellite companies and, in some areas, power companies and municipalities. Indeed, the U.S. government has noted that there are nearly 1,400 providers of Internet access, that citizens living in more than 90 percent of the nation's ZIP codes have more than three providers to choose from, and in more than half the nation's ZIP codes, there are six or more providers. So, there is no need to chill this robust activity by suggesting it is somehow troubling that all this innovation is occurring in the absence of a government-set broadband policy and Internet regulation. Let's leave ingenuity where it can continue to blossom — with the American people. — Walter B. McCormick Jr., president and CEO, United States Telecom Association, Washington, D.C. 3/27/2008 11:20:00 AM Read more! Comcast Targeted for Managing Network Congestion Wednesday, February 27, 2008 On Monday, the Federal Communications Commission held a hearing at Harvard Law School on how to address concerns that Comcast and other ISPs infringe “network neutrality” by degrading peer-to-peer traffic. It’s obvious that Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen knew what the demeanor of the event was going to be like when he said in his introduction, "It's a pleasure to be here as a participant and hopefully not the main course for your meal." The forces of anti-capitalism certainly are salivating at the chance to revive the crusade to impose net neutrality on ISPs. As mentioned in an earlier post, FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein wants to capitalize on the left’s fear and ire with companies like Comcast to create an Internet user “Bill of Rights.” Marvin Ammori, general counsel for Free Press, backed up Adelstein, declaring, “This hearing is… about the future of online television and about the future of the Internet. The facts aren't even disputed. Comcast is deliberately targeting and interfering with legal peer-to-peer technology, like BitTorrent and others.” Columbia University telecommunications law professor Timothy Wu concurred, averring, “Comcast shouldn't be telling people how they're supposed to use applications.” What exactly is Comcast doing that threatens all our rights so much that Colombia law professors and FCC commissioners must leap to our defense? When there are periods of high network traffic, the company restricts bandwidth flowing to computers engaged in high volume uploads (not downloads) to peer-to-peer sites, so that other consumers can have better service. Once congestion alleviates, the full amount of bandwidth to the uploading computer is restored. Frightened yet? The Bill of Rights was written to protect citizens involved in a compulsory relationship with the government. To say that we need more Bills of Rights to protect us from people we engage in voluntary transactions with is to misunderstand how markets function and to denigrate the importance of the real Bill of Rights. Proponents of net neutrality would surely respond that this case is different because in many cases only one ISP serves a given area. Yet even the possibility that a competitor may enter a given market is enough to force companies to cater to consumer demands. If Comcast decided to make all Mr. Adelstein’s and Ammori’s nightmares come true—which it is not—and block access to certain sites, Verizon or some company offering wireless service would come along and scoop up any alienated Comcast customers for a profit. Given the actual choice, I’d gladly take an ISP that manages its network over one that doesn’t. Why should some teenager uploading the latest Xbox game to BitTorrent while he plays World of Warcraft get to hog all the bandwidth when everyone needs the internet? 2/27/2008 11:32:00 AM Read more! Previous Posts: Top News
|
|
© 2007 Internet Freedom Coalition ® All rights reserved