Here we go again -- more advocates for government regulation of the Internet

I came across the public policy group, Internet for Everyone which is advocating a government solution to the "problem" of America's broadband deployment.  Here's what they say is their primary mission.

InternetforEveryone.org initiative calls on Congress and the president to act in the public interest by enacting a plan for the wired and wireless Internet...

The buzz words here are, "enacting a plan."  That's code for more government regulation. 

And here's what they want to achieve.

Access	Every home, business and civic institution in America must have access to a high-speed, world-class communications infrastructure.
Choice	Every consumer must enjoy real competition in lawful online content as well as among high-speed Internet providers to achieve lower prices and higher speeds.
Openness	Every Internet user should have the right to freedom of speech and commerce online in an open market without gatekeepers or discrimination.
Innovation	The Internet should continue to create good jobs, foster entrepreneurship, spread new ideas and serve as a leading engine of economic growth.

Those are fair and noble goals.  But let me also show you the highlighted statement in their brochure which can be downloaded from their website.

High-speed Internet, or “broadband,” is one of the most transformative communications technologies in human history. In just over a decade, broadband has completely changed commerce, public discourse, and how we interact with each other and the rest  of the world. Broadband  is no longer a luxury—it’s a public necessity.

Now, here's the part that I don't get.  If you admit that broadband "is one of the most transformative communications technologies in human history" and you agree that it, "has completely changed commerce, public discourse, and how we interact...", why would you want to risk passing new regulations that will impact investment and innovation and alter things in ways no one can predict?

Today, broadband is available to 90% of the nation and over half the nation is already subscribing to it.  And the vast majority of those customers have at least two broadband providers to choose from.  All that has happened in about one decade. 

How long did it take electricity and phone service to achieve over 50% acceptance levels? 

It took the U.S. Census Bureau 40 years from the beginning of the electrification of America to start measuring how many homes had electricity.  Their finding was that it was in just over 55% of American homes after 40 years.  Telephones were installed in less than 15% of all American households in 1902, nearly 25 years after the formation of Ma Bell.

Let's face it, the regulatory pendulum has a long history of swinging back and forth in this country and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to sense that it's swinging back toward more regulation.  Unfortunately, advocate groups like Internet for Everyone confuse the real issues when they equate access with acceptance and ignore the terrific success story we are all benefiting from. 

I certainly won't dispute that today's broadband service has revolutionized communications on this planet.  Frankly, I am very proud to have been a small part of helping make that happen.  I do argue, however, that the light-touch regulatory environment that was put into place under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is largely responsible for encouraging the huge investments that were necessary to create one of the most rapid roll-outs of a new product in history. 

We also mustn't lose sight of the fact that broadband was created because the cable industry spent over $120 billion to rebuild its infrastructure.  Oh, by the way, that money came from cable's own, at-risk capital -- not one penny of taxpayer money was used.   

Meanwhile, twenty years prior to cable's investment and the subsequent development of cable modems, the telephone industry had invented their own broadband service, DSL, but they locked it up in a vault for two decades in order to protect their lucrative T-1 business. 

Why did they revive it? 

Because of competition.  Before cable modems, Ma Bell and her pals were perfectly content to make you dial in to your 56k connection.

If Congress wants to focus on helping to get broadband deployed into unserved rural areas, I'm all for it.  But where competition is working, like it is in 90% of the nation, it's always best to leave things alone.

Maybe Internet for Everyone advocates the regulation of this great success story because of the impressive "broad alliance" that is listed on their website including special interest organizations, advocacy groups, and multi-billion dollar Internet corporations who want the government to regulate us, but not them.

Come on folks.  These are truly exciting times.  Our free market system is tried and true.  Regulate when regulation is necessary.  Leave the marketplace to govern business when competition is working. 

Comments

[Wyatt Ditzler]

Judging from the groups name and website, they just want Internet access for everyone that wishes to have access. Not sure if they are advocating that the state control the Internet, but provide a way for everyone to access the Internet.

Why not? We already subsidize housing, food, medicine, medical care, school, and many other things. Something as important as an Internet connection should probably be subsidized as well. Or perhaps treating Internet access as a utility, like electricity and water. Unless the Internet is not as transformative as everyone keeps saying...

As for the choice part..I have to say that in the many cities and little towns I have lived in, there has never been more than three ISPs. One DSL, one cable, one dial-up...To me that is not competition or choice.

[Chris Buechler]

They are fair and noble goals... but why do people think government involvement will make *anything* better? Much less subsidizing it! *shudder* Time has proven that anything the government gets into just becomes a mess and costs vastly more than if the private sector is left to handle things. The Internet is what it is today largely due to private investment and it should remain that way. The switch to digital TV, freeing the old spectrum, should bring even more broadband options to market and should be able to reach many areas where deploying cable and DSL services isn't financially reasonable for providers.

The Internet will take care of itself by leaving the private sector to handle it, the government needs to stay out of the way.