Issue Briefs
Net neutrality
January 2011
As the Obama Administration promotes its goal of accelerating broadband deployment to all Americans, proponents of "net neutrality" want to subject the Internet to an entirely new - and unnecessary - regulatory structure that would only curtail and severely slow the explosive growth of the Web.
The notion of net neutrality would impose government-imposed outcomes that benefit established Internet companies (Google, Yahoo) to the detriment of network operators - including Pennsylvania cable operators - and other Internet service providers and telecommunications companies in the Commonwealth.
Clearly, the Internet has hardly suffered due to a lack of enhanced regulatory oversight. Just ten years ago, only 5.1 million Americans subscribed to a broadband connection which - at that time - represented a speed that is about one-tenth of a common Internet connection today. In 2000, there was no Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter. There was no BlackBerry or iPhone around to access those services, even if they were available. These incredible innovations wouldn't have operated in the first place, because the network capacity to carry that kind of data did not exist. Nor did the demand.
Today, we have more than a 500-fold increase in broadband usage compared to ten years ago. Given this dramatic growth, a new regulatory structure such as net neutrality makes no economic sense. The current "hands-off" regulatory approach to broadband - in place since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - has been an enormous success for our nation and has encouraged private investment in new services and infrastructure...more than $8 billion by Pennsylvania's cable companies alone since 1996. By contrast, net neutrality laws would stifle that kind of investment, widen what is left of our state's "digital divide" and lead to an increase of equally needless lawsuits.
Those who call for regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality are, without question, offering a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of a market failure to justify the imposition of common carrier-like regulation on broadband services. "One size fits all" net neutrality regulation would replace the workings of the marketplace with government regulation, and have the government pick winners and losers.
By contrast, in the current market-driven environment, companies have the freedom to experiment with multiple business models, producing more choices and competition in content while providing consumers with more innovation than ever before.
No one would argue that the growth of the Internet, through the access of broadband infrastructure built by private investment - including Pennsylvania's cable companies - has been anything less than revolutionary in the communications, research and educational growth of modern society. It will continue to grow if simply left alone. Unnecessary regulation comes at a price, and in this burgeoning industry the price would be paid in lost business development, stifled economic growth and a major step backward in Pennsylvania's - and America's - historic technological expansion.
The current marketplace is working well to bring consumers the services and features they want at fair prices. Lawmakers should be very reluctant to replace that market-driven success story with a system of intrusive, burdensome regulation. Again, during a period when there is widespread agreement that our national policies should maximize broadband for all, Congress should not enact a policy of net neutrality that would stifle innovation in networks accessing the Internet and act as an obstacle to broadband, slowing its growth and reach to all Americans.
We strongly advocate that consumers be allowed to access any lawful content, applications and services available over the Internet, while utilizing today's expanding technology and hardware in a way that causes no harm to broadband networks. We would argue that this is the wish of most consumers as well.
© 2012 Broadband Cable Association of Pennsylvania