The folks at the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project came out with another installment of their “Home Broadband” survey yesterday. This one, Home Broadband 2010, finds that “adoption of broadband Internet access slowed dramatically over the last year.” “Most demographic groups experienced flat-to-modest broadband adoption growth over the last year,” it reports, although there was 22% growth in broadband adoption by African-Americans. But the takeaway from the survey that is getting the most attention is the finding that:
By a 53%-41% margin, Americans say they do not believe that the spread of affordable broadband should be a major government priority. Contrary to what some might suspect, non-internet users are less likely than current users to say the government should place a high priority on the spread of high-speed connections.
This has a number of Washington tech policy pundits scratching their heads since it seems to cut against the conventional wisdom. Cecilia Kang of The Washington Post penned a story about this today (“Support for Broadband Loses Speed as Nationwide Growth Slows“) and was kind enough to call me for comment about what might be going on here.
I suggested that there might be a number of reasons that respondents downplayed the importance of government actions to spur broadband diffusion, including that: (1) many folks are quite content with the Internet service they get today; (2) others might get their online fix at work or other places and not feel the need for it at home; and (3) some may not care two bits (excuse the pun) about broadband at all. More generally, I noted that, with all the other issues out there to consider, broadband policy just isn’t that important to most folks in the larger scheme of things. As I told Kang, “Let’s face it, when the average family of four is sitting around the dinner table, to the extent they talk about U.S. politics, broadband is not on the list of topics.” Continue reading →
History demonstrates the dangers of regulatory capture, and the costs to consumers of regulation from lost investment and innovation.
These dangers and costs far outweigh the purported benefits of regulation (in addressing a non-existent harm).
Broadband markets are competitive enough to prevent the kinds of abuses advocates of net neutrality regulation fret about.
Government could foster more broadband competition by deregulating spectrum and local wireline franchising.
I’ve been having a lively debate with the commenters on the piece, so feel free to join in! Unfortunately, we don’t seem to be getting much substantive engagement with our argument—just the usual mix of “These guys are just corporate whores!” and “Can’t you see the sky is falling?”
[I’m always amazed by the misuse of language in debates over media and communications policy. Some regulatory advocates, like Free Press and Public Knowledge, seem to contort the meaning of everyday words in such a grotesque way that they are barely recognizable. Luckily, via Wikileaks, Mike Wendy and I stumbled upon a secret copy of the “Free Press-Public Knowledge Stylebook for Public Debate” and now have a better idea of what they mean when they utter these terms. We thought we’d share…]
_______________________
“behemoth” – Use this word to refer to any corporation, regardless of actual size, and make them sound more nefarious than the much larger government that will regulate them.
“Big Brother” – See “behemoth,” and be careful not to reference Orwell too much lest people actually read “1984” and discover that Big Brother was actually the government, not industry.
“Censorship”– Refers to efforts by nefarious corporations to control our thoughts and actions since that’s obviously how they make most of their money. Some people say government might be the real threat to freedom of speech, but don’t you believe such silliness!
“Competition” – A centrally-planned system used to prop up free-riders who usually don’t have facilities of their own. (See “Open access.”) Of course, the best forms of competition arise from government ownership.
“the Constitution” – An odd document in that, for some reason, it contains a litany of limitations on the power of government to regulate evil corporations that the people wanted to see crushed. (See “the People.”) However, the addition of the First Amendment partially rectified that by giving us the foundation for industry regulation. (See “First Amendment.”) Continue reading →
But after going through the framework and comparing it more-or-less line for line with what the FCC proposed back in October, I found there were very few significant differences. Surprisingly, much of the outrage being unleashed against the framework relates to provisions and features that are identical to the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which of course many of those yelling the loudest ardently support.
The nice folks at the New York Times “Room for Debate” feature asked me and a group of bright lights to discuss the Verizon-Google agreement on network neutrality regulation, as it stood at various points in the day.
There are few things I find more annoying in the Net neutrality wars than the silly assertion by groups like Free Press and other regulatory radicals that “Net neutrality is the Internet’s First Amendment.” It’s utter rubbish as I have documented here manytimesbefore. But now Sen. Al Franken is running around sputtering such nonsense, as he did in this recent CNN.com editorial, claiming that “Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time.” The folks at CNN invited me to response and below you will find the piece PFF press director Mike Wendy and I submitted.
In his recent CNN.com opinion piece, “Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time,” Sen. Al Franken claims that “our free speech rights are under assault — not from the government but from corporations seeking to control the flow of information in America.”
He alludes to potential corporate blocking of online products and speech and says, “If that scares you as much as it scares me, then you need to care about net neutrality.”
Chicken Little, call your office!
Such sky-is-falling scare tactics are all too common in the heated debate over net neutrality regulation, but actual evidence of such nefarious corporate scheming is nowhere to be found. Perhaps that’s why Franken resorts to such tall tales.
Moreover, his reading of the First Amendment is at odds with the one most of us learned about in civics class (“Congress shall make no law…”). His would empower regulators by converting the First Amendment from a shield against government action into a sword that bureaucrats could wield against private industry. Continue reading →
At ten A.M. Pacific this morning, CNET News.com asked if I could write an article unraveling the legal implications of a rumored deal between Google and Verizon on net neutrality. I didn’t see how I could analyze a deal whose terms (and indeed, whose existence) are unknown, but I thought it was a good opportunity to make note of several positive developments in the net neutrality war this summer.
Just as I was finishing the piece a few hours later, another shocker came when the FCC announced it was concluding talks it had been holding since June with the major net neutrality stakeholders. It’s possible the leaked story about Google and Verizon, and the feverish response to it, whipped up by the straggling remnants of a coalition aimed at getting an extreme version of net neutrality into U.S. law by any means necessary, soured the agency on what appeared to be productive negotiations. Or maybe they’ve just gone as far as they can for now. Continue reading →
As Steve Titch discusses below, Google and Verizon, two of the leading antagonists in the long-running drama over FCC net neutrality regulation, may be about to call a truce. According to numerous media reports, the two firms have or soon will agree to a compromise framework for regulation, which would provide for a limited degree of regulation by the FCC.
The exact provisions of the compromise are unclear. Reportedly, however, the plan would ban Internet access providers such as Verizon from blocking content outright, while allowing them to offer prioritized service for a fee. The provisions would not apply to wireless Internet access, which would be kept mostly free of regulation.
While Google and Verizon have long been adversaries on this issue, it’s been no secret that the two have been working together to craft out common ground. The two in fact, filed joint comments in the FCC’s rulemaking on the issue earlier this year, and the CEOs of the two firms even jointly authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed on broadband policy.
The incentives for both are clear. With federal courts earlier this year rebuffing the FCC’s attempts to impose regulation, it was no doubt clear to Google that nothing could happen without a compromise. Moreover, the “big is bad” tenor of the debate no doubt gave Google – one of the largest firms in our galaxy – reason to rethink. For Verizon, a deal would provide some policy certainty, much-needed given the vast investments in broadband it is making. And since the firm has always disavowed any desire to block wireline content, the new rules would come at little apparent cost.
Today I appeared on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” to debate Net neutrality issues and the specific role of pricing in this debate. Specifically, the producers wanted to know whether websites should be allowed to pay a higher fee to allow consumers faster access to their sites or should it be equal for every website. The show was partially a response to the rumors that the may be some sort of deal pending between Verizon and Google about prioritized services. On the program, I was up against Craig Aaron of Free Press. During the discussion I made several points, many of which first appeared in my 2005 essay on “The Real Net Neutrality Debate: Pricing Flexibility Versus Pricing Regulation.” Here are the key points I tried to get across:
In a free-market economy, companies should be able to freely set prices for goods and services without fear of government price controls.
This isn’t about consumers paying more for basic Internet access or having their connections “slowed down”? This is about whether the government will allow some broadband services to be differentiated or specialized for unique needs, such as online gaming, live event telecasts, secure telepresence conferences, telemedicine, etc.
Differentiated and prioritized services and pricing are part of almost every industrial sector in a capitalistic economy. (ex: airlines, package shipping, hotels, amusement parks, grades of gasoline, etc.) Why should it be any different for broadband?
It’s always important to remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Something has to pay for Internet access. It doesn’t just fall like manna from heaven. Differentiated services may help in this regard by allowing carriers to price more intensive or specialized users and uses to ensure that carriers don’t have to hit everyone – including average household users – with the same bill for service. Why should the government make that illegal through Net neutrality regulation?
Heavy-handing tech mandates – especially Internet price controls – could have a profoundly deleterious impact on investment, innovation, and competition. After all, there can be no innovation or investment without a company first turning a profit. We don’t want to return to the era of rotary-dial regulated monopoly, in which our choices were few and our services were standardized and rudimentary. We should let our current experiment with facilities-based, head-to-head competition continue.
The buzz in telecom policy circles this morning is the word that Verizon and Google are close to an agreement that will allow the search giant to purchase from Verizon a faster tier for delivery of its bandwidth heavy services, notably YouTube, its video-sharing site.
If the two companies reach an agreement, it could be a death blow to the entire “non-discriminatory” idea behind network neutrality: that no service provider should be give favored treatment to any service or application. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has made it a mission to get the “non-discrimination” principle encoded into law, to the point of calling for reclassification of broadband ISPs as regulated telecommunications carriers.
If Verizon sets up tiered pricing for Google applications, the non-discrimination genie is out of the bottle for good. It would be a direct “I dare you” challenge to the FCC to block it. Armageddon indeed. Adding to the significance is that Google itself is party to the deal. Until today at least, Google has been the loudest company behind the call for a non-discrimination rule, even as one-time allies have fallen away (the latest being Amazon.com).
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.