In case you haven’t had your fill of net neutrality yet, here is a new paper of mine, published today by The Heritage Foundation, surveying the issue. My conclusion:
Proposed network neutrality rules would impose comprehensive, unnecessary, and harmful mandates on broadband networks. Such unnecessary mandates–the most extensive regulation of the Internet ever considered by Congress–would stymie the efficient use of scarce Internet capacity, discourage investment, and even threaten the growth of competition among broadband networks.
Despite the grim scenarios painted by the supporters of regulation, there is little or no evidence of market abuse by network owners. This is for good reason: Today’s broadband market is competitive, and any network abusing its position would quickly lose customers. Moreover, if any abuse does occur, existing competition law is more than sufficient to address the problem.
Advocates of neutrality regulation argue that the future of the Internet is at issue in this debate. They are correct. This is why such regulation of the Internet should be rejected.
In other words, regulation would be a bad thing.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.