Is Uber’s success an argument for or against regulating the internet? Depends on who you ask.
As of this week, prominent policy advocates on both sides of the debate have used Uber’s revolutionary business model as an argument for their position.
In many cities, taxis have been left struggling to compete against the forces of Uber and Lyft thanks to outdated government-imposed restrictions on how they conduct business.
USTelecom President Walter McCormick, during an appearance on C-SPAN this weekend, argued that subjecting the internet to the same type of “common carrier” regulation that taxis operate under will kill innovation. “Uber is able to offer consumers a wide variety of applications and innovations that taxicabs cannot because taxicabs have to seek authority from the taxicab commission over their rates, their terms and their conditions,” he said. “That’s what we’re concerned about.”
“The Internet has been as free as Uber, but now under Title II common carrier regulations, the FCC is asserting regulations over rates, over terms and over conditions of service.”
USTelecom has sued the FCC over its new rules to regulate the internet like a utility, writing that they are “arbitrary” and “capricious.”
But, as The Hill’s Julian Hattem points out, net neutrality proponents have made the opposite argument pertaining to the fast-growing business. Christopher Lewis of Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for net neutrality, told C-SPAN earlier this year that leaving internet service providers unregulated would be like allowing competing versions of Uber to cut off customers’ access to Uber or charge Uber to access their phones.
“It would be a shame if companies like Uber had to negotiate with large duopoly companies that control access to the Internet in order to bring this great service to the American people,” he said. “So I think it’s a perfect example of why net neutrality rules are really important.”
Net neutrality proponents believe that regulations are needed to prevent ISPs from blocking and throttling services they dislike.
Read the rest of The Hill’s piece here.
