ie8 fix
Click Here

Republicans protest net neutrality rules, fearing a chilling effect on broadband investment (or was it profits?)

By | October 6, 2009, 7:32am PDT

Summary: The U.S. is 28th worldwide in broadband speeds, more than four times slower than South Korea. Yet Republican House members are protesting the FCC’s net neutrality rules, saying the regulations will slow investment. As if it could get any slower.

After a a false start, Republican opposition to the FCC’s net neutrality rules has really amped up with two attack letters from Republican camps.

First there’s a letter from Rep. Cliff Stearn, ranking Republican on the House subcommittee on communications and the Internet. Stearns doesn’t accept the surface view of net neutrality as “reasonable and harmless,” but looks deeper to discover that:

These mandates would harm consumers, reduce competition, and discourage new investment and innovation at a time of tremendous technological growth.

Steans wants the FCC to engage is a full survey of the broadband lansdscape to prove that the market is somehow in need of regulation.

The FCC bears the responsibility to prove a market failure, especially since its 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007 decisions on cable modem service, digital subscriber line service, broadband over power line service, and wireless broadband service were predicated on the notion that the broadband market nationwide is competitive and that regulation is unwarranted.

If after this analysis you conclude that intervention is necessary, the intervention should be tailored to your analysis and should be the minimum required to prevent the practices you have identified as appropriate targets of regulation.

Previously Republican leaders Rep. John Boehner and Eric Cantor sent a letter to President Obama demanding the completion of the broadband plan, surveying the marketplace, and even the conclusion that no net neutrality regs are needed.

But let’s look at these claims. Has the strategy of unfettered private investment in the Internet really worked so well? According to the Communications Workers of America, the U.S. ranks 28th in download speeds, fully four times slower that South Korea’s 20.4 megabits per second. Japan’s second at 15.8 mbps.

“The US has not made significant improvement in the speeds at which residents connect to the Internet,” the report said. “Our nation continues to fall far behind other countries. People in Japan can upload a high-definition video in 12 minutes, compared to a grueling 2.5 hours at the US average upload speed,” the report said.

And hey, guess what? Those Asian countries have very active government support for and investment in Internet infrastructure. Sure wouldn’t want any government interference with the great job our telecom industry is doing here in the U.S.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Richard Koman

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=3731

Biography

Richard Koman

Richard Koman is an attorney admitted to practice in California. As a technology writer since the mid-1980s, Richard Koman has documented the role of computing in the transformation of the graphic arts, the growth of the Web and the birth of the peer-to-peer phenomenon. He worked as a book and web editor for O'Reilly Media throughout the 1990s, editing several influential websites and numerous best-sellers. As a lawyer, as well as a tech writer, he brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
32
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

True, see 1969 vs 2010 Camaro
agrunner 13th Oct 2009
True. That's like comparing horsepower and MPG numbers of a 1969 and a 2010 Camaro. Of course the modern one is going to be better in both cases. Thank you inovation.
0 Votes
+ -
sad
0 Votes
+ -
Rumor has it that Gulf nations are ready to give Bernanke and Obama a finger and dump the trash dollar they have been printing out of thin air. Despite the official denial of such plan, it's obvious to everyone no one likes a depreciating Dollar the democrook government has brought upon the entire world. Gold / Silver price are exploding at the news.

If democrooks keep loading the nation up w/ deficit spending w/o any basic concerns about the health of US Dollar, we can kiss this nation goodbye and say hello to Weimar Republic and later on "Hi Hitler" perhaps.
0 Votes
+ -
Keep your damn politics out of it
Dorkyman 6th Oct 2009
Can't we just discuss technology issues without injecting our political views? There are valid arguments on both sides; let's focus on them.
0 Votes
+ -
...
Did you see the word "House" (as in "Congress") in this story? What does Congress do? Politics. The letters are political moves to advance a policy (ie, politics) direction. It is a *political* debate.

So to say 'keep politics out of it' is to say, just report the one side without formulating an opinion.

I don't think so.

Let's have a *political* discussion about this. But that doesn't mean (I wish!) namecalling or mindless repetition of philosophical beliefs. How about a discussion based on what would make the best policy decision.

The Repubs say, keep your hands off private industry telecoms. I say NN regs are needed to advance the kind of network we want. The Repubs say govt interference will chill network investment. I say govt's hands-off approach has left us in the broadband dust, behind Asia and Europe.

Assuming the goal is broadband leadership (make our networks as fast as Japan and Korea's), how do we get there? Discuss (with facts, ideally.)
0 Votes
+ -
I meant to reply to keep politics out
someitguy79 6th Oct 2009
NT
We must follow Regan's principle of deregulation and low taxes and everything will improve.
The prices will go down and speed will rise.
wow you folks have WAY more faith in corporations than I do, all corporations worry about is profits (and rightly so, thats why their shareholders have invested in them), and the only time they care about customers is when its digging into those profits, but they arent going to do anything more for their customers than they have too. If they can get by making huge profits on old infrastructure thats what they will continue to do.
0 Votes
+ -
Wow, you have WAY more faith...
JohnMcGrew@... 7th Oct 2009
...in government than I do. At least I know
what the corporations are after; profit. I am
far less comfortable with what the government is
after; control.

And what kind of intellectual disconnect does
one have to maintain in order to believe that
the government can micro-manage
telecommunications any better than they've
micromanaged the mortgage, energy, auto, banking
and health care industries?
0 Votes
+ -
Don't trust either one
sboverie 7th Oct 2009
It is probably better to not trust corporations over governments and vice versa. What is needed is a more involvement from the people. Government does not seem to understand business and corporations are too focused on short term results.

We should look at other countries and see what they do that is successful and determine if those approaches would work here. Or, we can just keep doing the two party shuffle and go no where.
0 Votes
+ -
So do tell me...
JohnMcGrew@... 7th Oct 2009
...what country has been overall more successful
than the US?
0 Votes
+ -
2 Meanings
sboverie 7th Oct 2009
I meant we should look to what other countries do that are successful in terms of internet speed and access.

In other terms, we are not able to keep up with what we used to be able to do as a nation. We are falling behind in literacy rates, our health care system is great if you have the means but for average citizen is less than is available in other countries.

Politics aside, we are in a decline. I am not pointing fingers just stating an observation.
...that will stop it? Because that appears to be
the approach.
0 Votes
+ -
Non Sequitor
sboverie 7th Oct 2009
Feel free to make up stuff and accuse me for saying it. The first step in solving a problem is to admit there is a problem. I was advocating people to be more involved and not trust either the government or corporations to keep their interests in mind. The decline is the apathy that people have when they stop caring about their interests.
But we've been replacing "the marketplace" with
micromanagement by government. So in terms of
"Net Neutrality", we will get rules written by
congresspeople owned by Google, or congresspeople
owned by AT&T. Either way, both "the marketplace"
, and by extension, we the consumers, will suffer
the consequences.
0 Votes
+ -
Government is so dysfunctional
SAStarling Updated - 12th Oct 2009
I was recently furloughed for a week, and when I received my check from the Dept. of Labor, they mistakenly used my married name (which I legally changed back to my maiden name 3 years ago), thus holding up my receipt of the check. The problem I see? They had to use my SS# to deduct taxes, and for the past 3 years I have filed with my maiden name, so why could they not get something so simple?

What a bunch of buffoons.
Back then, the railroads could (and did) offer better deals to their related companies. Everyone else paid full fare.

That was put a stop to.

This too will happen here. My fear is, it will be after the damage has been done (to small startups and innovative companies). The cable co's will have had 5+ years of cashing in and helping their related companies.

I don't blame them for trying. I do blame the politician for helping them - and me for voting for them, believing they had my interest in mind.
I live and learn.

In a lot of these democrat vs republican I can see both sides and see merits in some of the arguments. In this issue...there is just no way any of republican args hold up to any scrutiny. I'd be embarrassed to even make them.
0 Votes
+ -
nope!
Linux Geek 6th Oct 2009
It's just free market at work!
It worked great when people like Regan led us.
0 Votes
+ -
Who is Regan?
sboverie 7th Oct 2009
Or do you mean President Reagan? His approach was not as successful as you think if you can remember 1988.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, no profits == no investments, guaranteed
ConradPoitras@... 6th Oct 2009
nt
The private companies all have SHORT term profits in mind, that is the issue. If they had LONG term profits in mind, they would build out the network to make more bandwidth instead of selectively slowing down data streams to keep the network small and save money in the SHORT term.

Obviously, we need NN rules and we also need mandatory minimum speed regulations. 10Mb/s by 2011, 20 by 2013, 40 by 2015, 80 by 2017, 160 by 2019... you know basically Moore's Law in Regulation form.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Manditory Minimum speeds
branchman67 7th Oct 2009
Great idea. Any idea on how much that would cost, and if it would actually make the telecoms more profitable? And before you say that doesn't matter, they're not a charity organization. If you want better investment, then incentivize the market so the telecoms invest. Don't force them to spend money with no assurances they will get any of it back. They don't exist just to give the internet away, they exist to provide you with a service (access to the internet) in exchange for a fair sum of money.
0 Votes
+ -
Summit
johnfenjackson@... 6th Oct 2009
"Steans wants the FCC to engage is a full survey of the broadband lansdscape to prove that the market is somehow in need of regulation."
I can save him some bother, time and money. The landscape is:

1. Monopolistic or cartel-like lock-in practices by all major hardware and software global players.

2. Revenue from technology efficiencies retained by all global media companies, rather than passed to consumers.

3. Refusal of ISP's to cooperate in enforcing copyright in order to protect revenue streams from their most profitable customers.

4. Legal profession continuing to leech money from all sides without adding any value whatsoever.

5. Global copyright infringement - nearing double figures even in the most affluent countries.

6. Ingratiating technology blogs (eg ZDNET) siding with copyright infringers to promote page hits: an effective viral marketing effort for piracy.

7. Dozing watchdogs failing to protect consumers from blatant profiteering.

8. Greedy, ineffective politicians lining their own nests rather than effecting social and business progress.

I wonder, if I punched Steans in the face, would he consider a survey of the landscape necessary to convince himself he'd been assaulted?

"But let?s look at these claims. Has the strategy of unfettered private investment in the Internet really worked so well?"
Wonderfully for corporations, leeches, politicians and freeloaders. Terrible for the typical consumer, creative people and the planet.

I think another global summit is in order ... as one of your co-bloggers commented (in relation to newspapers) all that's happened is the handing out of food coupons. We need a full restructuring and planting programme.
There has been plenty of profit in the communications industry. Where the profit is going is the right question. Someone answer that.
Thank God I don't follow one thing these guys say. Or I
would be broke and have invested with Bernie Madoff.
These are royal loosers and should be admitted to the
mental health ward soon to spare us from their idiocy.
Pretty weak blog there Richard. There are plenty of
legitimate arguments to be made either way on this issue,
but parroting a union press release is just plain weak
and nothing more than leftist propaganda. But thanks for
playing.
Y'know, while we're focusing on the speed of internet access, it's worth pointing out that as a country, we're a tiny bit bigger and slightly less dense population wise than South Korea and Japan. Do we plan on insuring that a rancher in Montana has the EXACT same access speed as a person in NYC or LA or Boston, etc.? If you get the government involved, they are going to make blanket rulings that enforce blanket standards that will be impossible for telecoms to keep up with. Stop assuming that government involvment will automatically fix all these problems. And also, who's to assume that this Congress, or this administration knows exactly how to regulate the telecoms? Just because we consider this President more 'tech savvy' than previous presidents, doesn't mean he's going to have all the right answers. Plus, he doesn't make the legislation, that's your Congressmen and the various bureaucracies like the FCC. How many IT people do you think will be heavily involved in those policy decisions? I wouldn't count on many. I'm all for better telecommunications, but I'm against this assumption that the government will know best how to regulate this arena.
0 Votes
+ -
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Now that was an insight!
psquare11 12th Oct 2009
New York speeds and Seoul speeds are going to reflect the technology used in their respective national infrastructures. Clearly, Seoul has benefited from the advantages of a more advanced infrastructure built from scratch in recent years. The U.S. has a much more difficult problem -- replacing and migrating existing aging N.Y. infrastructure is vastly more complicated and expensive than doing a fresh install from the ground up.
Try mixing in a little common sense with your politics Koman.
0 Votes
+ -
True, see 1969 vs 2010 Camaro
agrunner 13th Oct 2009
True. That's like comparing horsepower and MPG numbers of a 1969 and a 2010 Camaro. Of course the modern one is going to be better in both cases. Thank you inovation.
0 Votes
+ -
(deleted)
JohnMcGrew@... Updated - 7th Oct 2009
(deleted)

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix