Marketplace Proves Net Neutrality Regulations Unnecessary

by Jason Goldman

As reported in this NY Times article Comcast and BitTorrent announced yesterday that the two companies are working together to address issues associated with network management, specifically, challenges posed by the transmission of video and other bandwidth-heavy content over broadband.

This initiative proves that the marketplace is working and that net neutrality regulations are unnecessary. The ability to engage in e-commerce is critical for U.S. businesses, and the broadband market must be driven, not by government fiat, but by advances in technology, competition among the many wireline and wireless broadband providers, and consumer choice.

Federal policies must recognize that the intense competition among cable operators, phone companies, wireless carriers, and others for broadband customers requires providers to respond quickly to market developments. There is no market failure that justifies government intrusion into this dynamic market. Net neutrality regulations are not necessary and will deter new investment in competitive broadband network infrastructure, slow the deployment of innovative technologies, leave consumers with fewer choices and higher prices, and harm the ability of the United States to compete globally.

Comments

[Christian McCarty]

Regardless of the tree at which I may bark, the telecoms could have built new infrastructure, too...

Why haven't they?

The whole point that you apparently missed here is that the fact that Comcast and other telecoms have recently been caught engaging in deceptive practices proves they cannot be trusted to be the "gatekeepers" of the Internet.

Of course it is in the best business interest of BitTorrent to seek an agreement with Comcast and it is in the best public relations interest of Comcast to do the same...

Woof, woof...

[Ben]

Actually, the reason our Asian friends have surpassed us in Internet technology is because they've been building the infrastructure new, while our infrastructure tends to piggyback off of older technologies like telephone wires and cable. Any monopoly the telecoms enjoy has come strictly from government sponsorship. You're barking up the wrong tree, McCarty.

[Christian McCarty]

I don't know what US city you're living in where there is "intense competition" among cable and Internet providers, but in all the cities I've been in, if you want broadband Internet access you have five widely divergent choices (and, really, only 2 choices if you want the fastest connection).

1. Cable modem - the fastest, most common consumer type of connection, of which Comcast pretty much has a monopoly.
2. DSL modem - not nearly as fast as the cable modems and pretty much limited to the local phone company (or, maybe some private companies that lease the phone company lines)
3. Satellite - pretty much only DirecPC (Hughes) has this service. It's not very fast and you have to have southern exposure to use it. A few other companies lease space on the Hughes satellite.
4. Wireless broadband - getting better, but not nearly as fast or reliable as the Cable or DSL alternatives. Mostly available from cell phone providers.
5. Business-class T1, T3, etc. - Generally not available to consumers and quite a bit more expensive.

While our Asian friends have continued to surpass us with their Internet technology, here in the US a few big companies have consolidated their stranglehold on Internet access in order to maximize profits at the expense of innovation and network upgrades...

Unfortunately, the big corporations in this country are only concerned with short-term profits...