At a teleconference sponsored today by the Digital Society, I had the opportunity to join my colleagues Ev Ehrlich and Wayne Leighton in presenting our new study analyzing the potential impact of “net neutrality” regulations on the wireless broadband market. скачать порно клипы бесплатно
Our research found a basic and troubling irony. Most of the proposals in favor of net neutrality are based on claims that these regulations would enhance innovation and increase customer choice. In fact, such regulations would have exactly the opposite effect. They would strain essential innovation and competitive dynamics in wireless just as they are beginning to deliver profound consumer benefits and significant economic growth opportunities.
As today’s discussion emphasized, the U.S. wireless market is a hotbed of innovation and competition. This is especially true when it is compared to other leading economies of the world. As our study highlights, the U.S. is one of only four OECD countries (along with Canada, France and the UK) with more than four major national facilities-based wireless providers—not to mention the nearly 140 niche and regional players here in the U.S. Given this fact, my co-authors and I believe the net neutrality regulations being considered at the FCC would be the equivalent of making a perfectly healthy patient undergo a dangerous and unnecessary medical procedure. Side effects of this procedure could prove fatal to the innovation and consumer choice which net neutrality advocates claim to find so desirable.
The practices that would be banned by net neutrality regulations have proven efficient mechanisms for spreading and reducing risk, lowering transaction costs, enhancing marketing and delivering greater consumer value. All of these effects reinforce rather than undermine innovation and competition. While net neutrality limitations would move broadband wireless toward becoming a commodity service, it is the flexibility to deliver diverse consumer choices to the marketplace that ultimately advances competition, consumer value and innovation.
The rather thin rationale for imposing net neutrality regulations is based on the theoretical possibilities of market abuse. Yet no such harm has been done in the real world, in part because that kind of market power does not exist among any of the providers in the competitive U.S. market. Should abuses occur, current laws and regulations are more than adequate to correct them.
Let’s not kill a healthy and growing market by trying to cure a disease that doesn’t exist.