TMCnet News
EDITORIAL: Solution in search of a problem [The Augusta Chronicle, Ga. :: ](Augusta Chronicle (GA) Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) Sept. 13--Few things in recent history have flourished as much as the Internet. The reason it has worked so well in America during the past two decades is that it has remained largely free from the innovation-stifling grip of government regulators. That point seems to be lost on many Americans blindly calling for the Federal Communications Commission to more closely regulate how broadband providers deliver Internet content to consumers under proposed rules for "net neutrality" -- the principle that Internet providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally. The public comment period ends Monday. So far, the FCC has been inundated with form-generated responses, from mostly left-leaning activist groups, urging regulators to enforce the principle of "net neutrality," in which no one type of content -- be it cat videos or home-security monitoring services -- gets priority over the other. As much as 60 percent of the feedback has been this most-shallow form of response -- known as "clicktivism." That indicates how woefully informed and gullible consumers are on the issue. First and foremost is the stupefying notion that more government intervention somehow will make the freest and most democratic market on Earth better. Ill-informed consumers, who appear driven by a hatred of the big phone and cable companies who deliver data to their homes, are practically banging on the federal government's doors to demand the FCC regulate Internet service providers under 20th-century public utility regulations. Second is the idea that the proposed rules -- which would open the door for providers to cut deals with content companies such as Google and Amazon to get faster service to customers -- would allow providers to punitively slow down or block anyone who doesn't pay for better bandwidth. However, rules already are in place that prevent service providers, such as Comcast and AT&T, from degrading base services -- in other words, if they offer "fast lane" service, they can't make the "slow" lane slower. Then there is the fallacious idea all web content is "equal." It's not. Even if you try to argue that streaming pornography is as important as a telemedicine company providing a remote-video diagnosis, how can you argue against the health company's desire to pay extra for "fast lane" service to ensure its customers have tip-top connectivity to its life-saving service? This tiered-Internet concept, known as "paid prioritization," already is standard practice in other industries. If consumers think it's wrong for Netflix -- which accounts for a whopping one-third of all Internet traffic -- to pay ISPs extra for huge chunks of bandwidth, then why aren't we demanding first-class airline seats be sold at coach prices, or that overnight packages get the same rate as junk mail? The bottom line is that the FCC's authority over the Internet needs to go no further than what is in Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposed rules. Internet service providers do not need to be lumped into "Title II" regulations designed for monopoly-era phone companies. The push for net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. The free market is more than capable of punishing companies that mistreat customers. The fact that there have been only a handful of alleged "violations" of neutrality is proof the current hands-off approach is working. And if shenanigans occur, existing antitrust regulators, such as the Federal Trade Commission, are more than capable of stepping in. The Internet is neither "broke" nor in need of "fixing" by anyone -- especially the federal government. America simply does not need a "Federal Internet Commission." ___ (c)2014 The Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Ga.) Visit The Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Ga.) at chronicle.augusta.com Distributed by MCT Information Services |