By Sonia Arrison TechNewsWorld Part of the ECT News Network
12/08/06 4:00 AM PT
Technology still moves fast, and it is incredibly important that the Internet remains open and free from restrictions, but this also means fighting government controls. The current debate over net neutrality is not one of consumers versus corporations; it is one of corporations versus corporations and if government gets involved it will mean a loss for consumers.
Shopping is normally good for the economy, but not when the shoppers are net neutrality advocates looking for friendly deals on a regulatory forum. Policy makers in Michigan, their current target, should tell pro-regulatory activists to go home, with good reason.
Those who support net neutrality legislation frame themselves as proponents of the Net, but in reality their recommendations would have an anti-Internet effect. The worry is that network providers like AT&T (NYSE: T) or Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSK) will start charging some Web sites more than others. It is true that network providers would like to charge high-traffic Web sites for their larger usage of the network, but it remains unclear why that would be wrong or unfair.
Government Intervention
Voip.com, an Internet phone provider, is one of the corporations calling for government intervention. Without government oversight, it argues, "consumer-friendly applications like VoIP, online gaming, and streaming homegrown video would likely be squeezed out by the larger corporations that can afford to pay for unfettered service."
It's obvious that Voip.com is simply trying to avoid the risk of paying more for their network use, but the thing Voip.com's executives have missed is that the Net is getting crowded. If network operators can't recoup their costs for the higher bandwidth use, then the network will slow down for everyone and services like VoIP, online gaming, and streaming video won't work so well anymore.
This would ultimately harm businesses like Voip.com, who will presumably then ask the government to fund upgrades to the networks since no private investor in their right mind would fund a network that can't properly recoup its costs. That leads straight to a network run by government, and we all know how well that would work, never mind the free speech issues that would then become a bigger problem.
Money Issues
Of course, it might be possible to avoid the above scenario if network providers got so desperate for cash that they simply increased prices for the end user. That's probably what the Googles (Nasdaq: GOOG) and the Voip.coms of the world really want and secretly predict will happen under a net neutrality regime. Too bad, because the theory is wrong and someone needs to point it out.
What they apparently don't realize is that if network providers were to suddenly jack up prices for the consumer, various consumer groups would begin lobbying for price controls. That argument stands an even better chance than net neutrality legislation of winning the day.
For those who have followed telecommunications regulation over the last decade, this debate is the "same-old same-old." Net neutrality would return network providers to a position in which the network needs to be upgraded, but no private investor is willing to throw their money at a proposition that loses money.
Protecting Freedom
Technology still moves fast, and it is incredibly important that the Internet remains open and free from restrictions, but this also means fighting government controls. The current debate over net neutrality is not one of consumers versus corporations; it is one of corporations versus corporations and if government gets involved it will mean a loss for consumers.
Those who didn't like the idea of encryption controls or Chinese government censorship should fight net neutrality regulations with all their might. On this issue, freedom-loving Democrats and Republicans should join together to save the Internet.
A past Supreme Court decision has already established that the states do not have jurisdiction over Internet-related services. That makes it even more annoying that pro-government activists, having failed to convince lawmakers at the national level, are creating uncertainty for the Internet industry by lobbying the states.
Such activity, especially during the holiday season, is rather Grinch-like. In the current battleground of Michigan, policy makers should set an example for the rest of the nation and send these regulatory shoppers packing.
Sonia Arrison, a TechNewsWorld columnist, is director of Technology Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute.
It Pays to Advertise on Cyber Monday December 07, 2006
"My recommendation to advertisers would be to increase their search advertising on Black Friday as it appears a popular day for researching products and services," he told the E-Commerce Times. "Whether people ultimately purchase online or offline, it is imperative to capture potential customers at the research stage of the buying process."
Related Stories
Nixing Net Neutrality August 25, 2006
If the loss of net neutrality principles was really a problem, advocates wouldn't need to scare Americans in order to win their support. Using government regulation preemptively to shortchange business partners is a reckless abuse of the public policy process. New laws should be based on facts and reality, not fear and hypothetical situations.
Net Neutrality Debate Grows More Vocal August 22, 2006
Cable companies say that they have invested more than US$110 billion in new networks during the last decade. Telephone and wireless firms have also sunk billions into new infrastructure. These companies fear that any proposal to regulate access to the Internet would erode their substantial investments.
Related News Alerts
More by Sonia Arrison
The Trouble With Augmented Reality and Other Cool Tech February 24, 2010
New technologies that allow users to interact with one another in virtual settings are undoubtedly cool, but augmented reality is served best with a heavy dollop of privacy -- or at least, choice. Social networking fans like Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg may believe that the new social norm is making one's personal life fully public, but the recent uproar over Buzz suggests that he's dead wrong.
Is Personalized Medicine Anti-Establishment? January 27, 2010
Affordable genome sequencing is coming soon, but few doctors appear ready to deal with the difficult issues this technology could raise. Suppose a doctor sequences a genome for cardiac data, but finds genes indicating a very high cancer risk in the process. Would the doctor have an obligation to tell the patient? "Doctors aren't prepared for these big conversations," said Stanford law professor Hank Greeley.
Net's Top Two Powerhouse Players Talk Policy December 18, 2009
Intellectual property was at the heart of many discussions at this year's U.S.-China Internet Industry Forum. Though the software piracy rate currently stands at 80 percent in China, there are hopeful signs. Now that it is moving toward a knowledge-based economy, the realization is dawning that it's in China's own best interests to do a better job of protecting IP.