June 18, 2007

Political commentators have a frustrating habit of characterizing the network regulation debate (better known by the spin-doctored name “net neutrality €?) as a Goliath vs. Goliath battle. That narrative may make for good soundbites, but it’s far from being a complete €”or fair €”characterization of those advocating against net regulation.

USTelecom represents hundreds of companies, very few of which could be called giants. Many of our members are small independents. They are the companies that deliver the promise of digital communication to rural, and remote areas, and they can ill-afford the unintended consequences of restrictions on their business practices. With Internet access becoming more and more important for everything from employment and health care opportunities to entertainment and commerce, regulations that hamstring the ability of carriers to bridge the digital divide by delivering high-quality low-cost broadband to underserved populations is bad for the small carriers, bad for the communities they serve, and bad for our economy.

All of the companies USTelecom represents €”large, mid-sized and small €”are firmly committed to the vision of a free and competitive Internet outlined by the FCC’s 2005 policy statement (PDF) on preserving and promoting consumer Internet freedom:

1. Consumers are entitled to access the content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices to the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Those are the neutral networking principles the telecommunications industry has supported in the past and will continue to support in the future. They are the principles that protect consumers and ensure market forces like consumer demand €”not government decree €”continue to drive innovation across the Internet industry, from network providers to application designers to content producers.

However, many activist groups and Web companies have commandeered the term “net neutrality, €? twisting it from an admirable engineering principle that fosters innovation to a demand for heavy-handed regulation and network price controls. Fortunately, the Siren songs about network neutrality are falling on deaf ears, mostly because the hypothetical problems in broadband provision simply don’t comport with reality. The Internet has thrived, facilitating everything from improved educational opportunities, to better citizen participation, to expanded opportunities for employment; and it has done so precisely because government has refrained from saddling it with regulation

Network providers are set to invest $70 billion this year alone into broadband infrastructure. That’s hardly a sign that they’re gearing up to begin “erecting fences on the Web, €? as critics of the ISPs allege. It is, however, a sure-fire sign of their commitment to creating a top-of-the-line high-speed network that can deliver the growing volume of Internet traffic to a growing number of Internet users.
But nothing would pose a bigger obstacle to the reaching the goal of universal broadband deployment than outdated telephone-style regulation of the Internet.

Groups as diverse in purpose as the National Grange, the National Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (NHCC), and the American Conservative Union all submitted comments to the FCC recently to oppose Internet regulation The National Grange explained that “continued investments in high-speed Internet infrastructure are imperative to enable rural Americans to enjoy the same broadband opportunities as citizens in urban areas. €? Along a similar vein, the NHCC filing pointed out that “high quality, widely available and affordable broadband should be available to entrepreneurs and small business in order to promote free commerce [and] economic growth. €? US Telecom is proud to join those groups and the many others who support a hands-off approach to Internet policy.

Without any help from the government, consumers have done a tremendous job in guiding the Internet’s evolution. Meanwhile, governments at all levels have been €”and should continue to be €”responsible and vigilant stewards. But imposing government regulation to address a phantom problem is not responsible stewardship. Such a course threatens the progress we’ve made at making broadband universally accessible to all Americans, and it will critically undermine the ability of our technology sector €”from the biggest Web company to the smallest rural carrier €”to achieve the potential improvements to our quality of life that an interconnected, digital network can bring.