I spent an evening recently slogging through the Federal Communication Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding net neutrality. The desired outcome seems reasonable to me: Preventing broadband providers from degrading or blocking consumers’ ability to send or receive information over the Internet. Far less convincing, however, is the FCC’s position that this is actually a problem.
In the NPRM’s 99 pages, only two incidents are cited. In the first, a relatively small telecommunications company, Madison River Communications, prevented Vonage, an Internet-based telephony competitor, from operating over its network. Perhaps the handiwork of an overzealous executive, this incident was remedied under the FCC’s existing regulations.
In the second instance, Comcast was cited for degrading the performance of the popular BitTorrent application. The FCC eventually lost its challenge to this action in court. Even so, that’s not exactly a widespread problem, a fact the FCC acknowledges. Nevertheless, the NPRM suggests these types of issues are likely to occur in the future, and that more effective regulations are needed to prevent broadband providers from harming their customers.
Under the current lightweight regulatory framework, the Internet revolution has produced astonishing results. According to the NPRM, annual e-commerce revenue now exceeds $260 billion annually. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in broadband-related capital projects. Mobile application development alone has created over 750,000 jobs. And 87 percent of Americans use the Internet (which only makes one wonder about the other 13 percent). More and more customers are chasing an ever-increasing number and quality of services online, and yet there were only two incidents the FCC believed were worth citing in support of the proposed regulations. With numbers like these, it’s very difficult to see how consumers are being harmed.
Undaunted by the lack of evidence, the NPRM insists (a bit breathlessly in places) that without additional regulations, the miracle of innovation and prosperity we’ve witnessed will end as broadband providers pursue their own selfish, short-term interests. The empirical outcomes (see numbers above), however, don’t support the FCC’s speculation.
Supporters of the FCC’s proposal have referenced cellular as an example of a regulated industry that has thrived. The growth numbers are unquestionably impressive, but whether or not the industry’s success is because of or despite the regulations is unknowable. I found it difficult to find an authoritative list of cellular regulations on the FCC’s website, but no difficulty finding recent regulatory proposals, which may speak to broadband providers’ greatest fear: Once the regulating begins, it never stops.
We’re living through a revolution akin in advancements to the Industrial Age, and I count myself as one of the many fortunate people who have benefited from being a participant. In any revolution, though, bad actors exist, and poor decisions are made. The evidence to date, however, overwhelmingly suggests that these are exceptions, that their impacts have been minimal, and that we should be reluctant to interfere with a revolution that has been remarkably self-governing and has benefited so many.
One of the hardest things for leaders is simply to do nothing — to let things unfold as they are. In this case, I think it is the best course of action for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his fellow commissioners to take.
Rich Murr is a technology executive living in Austin, Texas. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions for editorials, available at this link.
