Mar
22
2011

Play to win high-tech freedom

By Katie Kieffer

high-tech laptop

Image credit: “High Tech” by Emma Brabrook on Flickr via Creative Commons.

Your game-day challenge is preserving your high-tech freedom. Today, I will explain your online freedom’s biggest threat and then employ NFL pep talks that will inspire you to prevail.

On Dec. 21, 2010, the FCC essentially declared that the Internet and telephone communications are the same. You know, like how water and beer are both beverages so they clearly are the same?

The FCC took regulatory control over the Internet by passing net neutrality regulations through its “ancillary” authority (authority not directly granted by Congress, but a presumed extension of a different task Congress had assigned to it). Net neutrality allows the FCC to “reclassify” broadband as a “telecommunications service” rather than as an “information service” so that it can more easily regulate it.

The supposedly “independent agency” ushered in nothing more than a power-grab for the Obama Administration when the three Democrat FCC Commissioners outvoted the two Republican Commissioners.

Republican Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker told the Practicing Law Institute that the FCC’s vote was “against the will of the courts, which have told us that we lack authority to act. And Congress, which has asked us bluntly not to act…” CNN reports that Commissioner Robert McDowell concurred: “The FCC is not Congress. We cannot make laws.”

Internet works great free, why control it?

Who ranks “Internet access and security” as their top concern? According to Gallup, pretty much no one. Well, no one besides politicians and agency bureaucrats. After all, the Internet is the hottest vehicle to attract people (voters) and money (campaign funds).

"Internet" sign

Image credit: “INTERNET” by lecasio on Flickr via Creative Commons.

The President maintains that government control over the Internet prevents broadband providers from creating a super-fast service with selective content and pricing low-income people out of premium Internet.

A November 2010 Commerce Department survey revealed that the percentage of households with access to broadband has increased “across nearly all demographics.” The poor do have free Internet access at libraries, but, apparently, the president believes in a Constitutional “right” to the best Internet on one’s own computer.

Last week, the Newspaper Association of America said print advertising hit a 25-year low in 2010 and ad revenue is shifting to the Internet. Meanwhile, the financial success of Facebook and Groupon is sending investors online. J.P. Morgan Chase is creating a fund for Internet stocks. Solo investors are putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into high-tech accelerators.

Impact on businesses and consumers

My sense that big-hitters like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T feel intense pressure from the FCC to accept its terms, or go out of business. Verizon is taking the most aggressive response, filing a lawsuit challenging net neutrality regulations. Comcast and AT&T seem afraid to rock the boat too hard lest harsher regulations be issued.

A Comcast spokeswoman told me that Comcast is bound by net neutrality regulations for the next seven years, regardless if a court overturns them. Comcast agreed to these FCC terms in order to complete its January takeover of NBCUniversal.

Comcast will grow even larger if NBCUniversal accepts Blackstone’s recent offer to sell its 50 percent share of Universal Orlando. Anticipate a new Harry Potter attraction featuring “net neutrality” classes at Hogwarts.

AT&T’s recent Congressional testimony exposed its assessment that the FCC has out-stepped its legal bounds: “Since this debate began back in 2005, AT&T has consistently opposed any FCC regulation of Internet services or facilities. This is still our strong preference today. We feel the antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Act, and the discipline of highly competitive markets are more than adequate to police any potential abuses.”

Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg has said, “Proponents (of net neutrality) have a worldview that network providers and application providers, like Google, occupy different parts of the Internet: dumb pipes versus smart apps. This is a mistake pure and simple. It’s an analog idea for a digital world. … You can’t create a smart economy by dumbing down the critical infrastructure.” He also said that economic growth and development (think telemedicine) would struggle under the regulations.

Consumer costs will spike if corporations cannot act competitively and if they have to subsidize services to low-income users and rural areas. Quality will simultaneously go down if the free market no longer incentivizes corporations.

Give the government a yard now with net neutrality and it will throw for a touchdown. In January, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke released plans to create a government-run “identity ecosystem” or “national ID card for the Internet,” reports The Washington Times.

Net neutrality regulations are effective as early as midsummer, unless Congress or the courts intervene.

Stand up for free enterprise and innovation. Educate your friends. Voice your concerns to the FCC. Contact your elected officials.

Although the NFL is struggling to get its house in order, there’s no one quite as motivating as a passionate football coach. ‘Own this moment. Prevail.’

Book Katie to speak Join e-List Purchase a book

Comments...

  1. Sophocles says:

    Regardless of the effects, whatever they may be, resulting from the FCC’s regulatory action, the question is whether or not the FCC can legally engage in this action.

  2. lpwagner says:

    Hello,
    I question whether this blogger understands the implications of competing positions on Net Neutrality. Though, Obama may argue that Net Neutrality is for the sake of the poor, there are far more potent arguments in favor of Net Neutrality. Just as there are better arguments against Net Neutrality than some of those this author presents.

    However, there are reasonable objections to Net Neutrality. The adoption of the principle as a law would put burdens on ISPs, it would actually effect non-neutral access to service because of hardware differences, it will lead to a general slow down of the internet because of the limited bandwidth available, etc…

    This blogger quoted some big names with long sentences that are quite meaningless to the reader who is unaware of the debate. In my mind the most meaningful objections she gave were that internet costs will spike if ISPs have to subsidize poor users, which might be true. She also claims quality will go down if the free market no longer incentivizes corporations.

    The first objection, though true, seems to me a straw man. Despite Obama’s protests, Net Neutrality has little to do with forcing ISPs to subsidize poor users. The second objection is just plain false. Most ISPs stand in relation to their subscirbers as a monopoly. That is, in most areas in the US, there is only one ISP. So, what free market pressures the author thinks these ISPs will face is uncertain to this reader.

    There are other mesaures that can be adopted to ensure what Net Neutrality is supposed to effect. This reader personally supports the position that more competition needs to be introduced in most, if not all, ISP markets. This reader thinks that without more competition ISPs should best be seen as natural monopolies, and should be regulated as such.
    Thanks.
    l.w.

Choose your avatar

Please choose an avatar by clicking above. If an avatar is not selected, the bottom-right default icon will be chosen.

Custom avatar

* Use Arrow Keys to Navigate Comment Box *
** Your email address will not be published **

Thanks for visiting KatieKieffer.com! Please know that your comments are your sole opinion and they are not endorsed by Katie or KatieKieffer.com even if they are posted. Please remember you are a visitor on this site and your commenting and posting privileges may be revoked if you fail to comply with the Terms of Use.