|
Townhall.com…
The Internet Is
Threatened By Government Regulation, By Romina Boccia
The Internet is the most marvelous and open information highway
humanity has yet experienced. You are likely reading this column on a
screen on your laptop, desktop, or mobile handheld device. To reach
you, this piece traveled over a broadband network that connects this
web site's server to your device. If you are in the United States, the
network you are using is a part of an overall Internet infrastructure
that is owned and managed by more than 1500 providers.
Take a moment and marvel at the speed and quality with which this piece
and many other net applications--from social networks to streaming
video to voice services--travel to your device. And then ask yourself
why government would want to meddle with this great manifestation of
human ability and creative cooperation.
On December 21st, while most of us were eagerly awaiting the holidays,
the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) voted to significantly
change how the internet operates by imposing net neutrality rules on
the broadband providers who connect you and me to the World Wide Web.
Net neutrality rules refer to certain government regulation of
broadband providers. The FCC justifies this unprecedented step of
issuing rules to govern the network management of broadband providers
as necessary to preemptively “protect” consumers from potential future
discrimination by Internet providers.
Far from a demonstration of government's ability to protect its
citizenry, the FCC’s decision illustrates the dangers of unchecked
government. Regulators, such as FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, are
appointed by the President and enjoy the jurisdictional authority
delegated to them by Congress. Not only are they outside of the reach
of voters, they can be disdainful of Congress and the judiciary. In
passing these net neutrality rules, for example, this FCC acted in
defiance of a previous congressional decision rejecting a net
neutrality amendment and a recent court ruling specifying that the FCC
lacked the authority to regulate network management.
The process that lead to these new rules should alarm Americans who
still believe in a government with limited power that is accountable to
voters. They should be equally alarmed by the rules' content. Mandates
requiring transparency and outlawing blocking and discrimination may
sound reasonable, but they strip providers of the ability to manage
their services and limit their potential to make a profit.
And while many factors have driven the growth of the Internet, the
profit motive has been among the most important. Between 80 and 90
percent of the costs of providing broadband service are fixed costs.
Expanding service requires significant upfront investment. By adding to
regulatory uncertainty, net neutrality will deter additional
infrastructure investment as providers fear being unable to recoup
those costs. This will hinder innovation and expanded access.
Additionally, the prohibition on charging content providers for
delivery, and discouraging priority pricing for those who would like to
pay for a special fast-lane on the Internet highway, will shift costs
to consumers and businesses. This means that users will be paying more
for services that are less tailored to their actual needs and desires.
The FCC and proponents of net neutrality rules rightly argue that an
open Internet encourages investment and innovation, and even
Genachowski acknowledges that some regulation “will stifle innovation,
investment and growth.” The question we are faced with, however, is not
whether we want an open Internet (which we already have), but whether
we want an Internet regulated by consumer demands and the market
pressures of innovation in technology, or an Internet regulated by
government.
Left-leaning groups, such as the feminist National Organization for
Women, argue that government can and should preserve the open Internet
through regulation, because otherwise corporations may act as censors,
favoring supporting viewpoints over others. Women, they say, especially
benefit from net neutrality because the open Internet provides them
with information about their status, threats to their rights, and
opportunities for advancement.
A survey of how the Internet functions in reality, however, reveals
that the biggest threats to free speech and political organizing are
governments, not private actors. Companies who restrict access to
certain sites face competition for customers. Customers unhappy with
the restrictions flow to more open providers. Compare that to what
happens in China, where Internet censorship is the most stringent in
the world. When governments decide to exercise censorship, citizens’
only outlet is to escape into the underground to share forbidden
information.
Internet users do face a very real threat. It doesn't come from the
private broadband providers who may someday conspire to control our
access to innovation. The real threat is government regulation which
will stifle investment and innovation, raise costs for consumers and
businesses, and increase the potential for government censorship of the
Internet. Why would we want to take that risk?
|
|
|
|
