news

Recently, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has announced plans to codify an open Internet standard through the regulatory process.  This so-called “network neutrality” principle would bar Internet Service Providers (ISP) from blocking or degrading access to the Internet based on which site or service a user visits.
 
Consistent with many of this Administration’s early initiatives, it seems as if the FCC is too quick on the draw in embracing intrusive regulatory solutions, when market mechanisms are already working to ensure an open Internet.  The last time that I checked, my ISP did not block or slow my access to any site, nor have there been widespread cases of network operator abuse. Mr. Genachowski has put the cart before the horse and, at this point, the apparent heavy handed reach is, and best, unfounded and unsubstantiated.   

There have been few violations of the FCC’s current “network neutrality” statement of policy, thus begging the question of what specific incident warrants such broad government intrusion?  The answer is simple, nothing.  The Googles, Yahoos! and Twitters of the world continue to grow, innovate, and meet consumer demand while the AT&Ts, Comcasts, Verizons, and Sprints continue to outlay a larger and better fiber-optic and wireless infrastructure to continue to deliver the innovative content that is demanded by the users and producers.  This is particularly important to rural areas where high-speed broadband expansion continues to lag behind their more urban counterparts.  Thus, as our economy continues to struggle and unemployment continues to rise to levels we haven’t seen in decades, why would we want to regulate what is seemingly the last outpost for innovation and growth?   

As a strong believer in the transformative power of the Internet, we can all agree that popular services like YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter should not be blocked or slowed down arbitrarily by ISPs. As the Internet moves from the desktop into our pocket, it is critical that the same spirit of open innovation and consumer choice that has fueled the Internet's growth also be brought into the wireless space. We are quickly moving to a day where anything you can do on the Internet via your desktop you can also do on your mobile device—enhanced by the portability and versatility of today's handsets.

In a space where unbridled innovation is already the norm, it is not clear to me what benefits new FCC regulations would add to the current telecommunications mix. Consumers now expect open and fast access to any website or application—whether wired or wirelessly—and will revolt in a competitive marketplace if it is not provided to them. Consumers would not tolerate any carrier blocking or slowing down services for any reasons other than to protect its network from harm or fairly manage any bandwidth constraints—and nor would I. But what we have today at the FCC constitutes an effort to regulate in response to theoretical concerns and occasional isolated instances.

As President Reagan once said, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.”  The proposed FCC rules do not change the current open nature of the Internet and the inexorable move to fast and open access to Internet applications on mobile devices. At this point, "net neutrality" regulations are a solution in search of a problem. As such, we do not need federal regulation to keep the Internet free and open for all interested parties, we need the government to “get out of the way and stay out of the way.”