ATR/CEI update on Internet access


The FCC is currently in the process of developing a National Broadband strategy. Being that this is under the Obama administration, this strategy is unlikely to be a sensible one. Early word suggests that the administration plans to take the Internet in this country and consolidate it into a single, centralized, government-run entity. ‘Competition’ will be allowed, but only under strict government controls and over government wires. Just like in China.

There’s no coincidence there, either. Obama’s good buddy and source of advice Google is well-acquainted with being a tool of totalitarianism. I’m all for the profit motive in general, but Google lets it trump basic human rights when it does whatever the fascist dictatorship in China tells it to. Google loves it because the reduced competition acts as a subsidy for favored firms such as itself, and now it wants the same to happen in our country through its ‘Net Neutrality’ plan, which the Obama FCC just might start to promote.

Americans for Tax Reform and the Competitive Enterprise Institute held a conference call today to detail their opposition to such efforts.

Your reporter was able to listen in on that this morning, and while I disagree with some of their advice, I think they have a clear idea of what’s going on, and what should be done about it.

Fundamentally, the left is pushing a particular lie: that ‘broadband’ Internet access in America is ‘lagging’ through ‘market failure.’ Especially in rural areas, the left claims that only through totalitarian government can the Internet be properly managed. All decisions made with respect to the physical capital of the Internet must go through the State, as must all policies regulating what runs over those wires and fibers. That is the Google ‘net neutrality’ principle that Obama’s FCC is leaning toward.

However the facts used to draw their far-left conclusions simply aren’t there. Pew Research did a survey on ‘broadband’, and found that of those who don’t have it, 33% didn’t want it, and 20% found it too difficult or confusing to have an opinion. That’s right, a majority of the people Obama wants your tax dollars to subsidize, don’t even want the subsidy.

Will that change? Quite possibly. But when it does, guess what? Those new market demands will make it feasble for companies like Verizon and AT&T to deploy new LTE techology to bring the latest in high-speed Internet access to those homes and businesses. But not before the people want it, should it be done. That’s just common sense.

In less rural areas, the leading problem is purely government. As I’ve written in the past, government-mandated franchise agreements are the leading impediment to price-lowering and service-improving competition in the US Internet market. Local goverments huddle together with cable and phone providers, scratch each others backs in special agreements, and shut out the local residents from getting any other choices. However this is a matter for the states to fix, not the FCC. This is federalism at its worst, but it is federalism. It’s not Washington’s place to dictate to the states just because we think they’re wrong.

So Americans interested in a free market and a free Internet should contact the FCC about its Request for Inquiry on ‘broadband’ Internet, which ends June 8. In other countries, and in other markets, when Government places burdensome restrictions on an industry, that industry often withers and dies. The Government then steps in to replace that market with something new and completely socialist. Let’s not let it happen to the Internet.


Category: , , , , , ,

RSS feed

4 Comments Leave a comment

LTE isn't going to arrive soon...

vettepilot (Diary) Friday, June 5th at 2:09PM EST (link)

At least not to the areas that are currently without broadband internet. The carriers’ rollouts of LTE/WCDMA have less to do with providing high-speed cellular internet, and significantly more to do with voice density, than their commercials would have you believe. CDMA-based technologies allow the operators to pack more voice users into a single cell than GSM/TDMA networks. But for areas where voice congestion isn’t a concern the operator has little incentive to migrate their network, other than streamlining operations and maintenance.

That being said, with the re-consolidation of the telecommunications industry and the bundling of services, that operating model may change. It is significantly easier for a network operator to run a single fiber line to a rural area and build 4 towers off of that one line to serve 300 customers than it is to run a cable or DSL line to every single one of their houses. And since the operator will generally have to do one or the other anyway, they may be more likely to go with the first option. This is actually the model that has been used in developing nations to cheaply and efficiently get communications services to remote areas, and it played a very important part in the explosive growth of the cellular industry in the last 6-8 years.

If this broadband plan goes anywhere, it will have the opposite effect of actually stunting technological growth in rural areas. Network operators aren’t going to bother rolling out costly network upgrades to these areas if the government is going provide fixed-line service anyway. And if you think it’s a pain to wait for Comcast/Verizon/etc to come out and install your high-speed now, just think about how bad it will be when it’s a government contractor……

 

I disagree that the federal government has no role to play

The_Gadfly (Diary) Friday, June 5th at 5:16PM EST (link)

in the franchise monopoly problem, but agree there’s no way The Big 0 will try to drive federal policy in the direction needed. I think the Feds could properly play a key roll in passing a law which outlaws such arrangements as an impediment to interstate commerce. Instead I expect The Big 0 to dictate that the patchwork of state monopolies be replaced by a federal one.

 

Corporate Influences

DonPMitchell (Diary) Saturday, June 6th at 12:28AM EST (link)

Obama has been criticized for allowing too much influence from one company, namely Google. Just in general, that is a bad idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/02/obama_google/

Google pushes the idea of central server-side control of programs and data. As a fiscon, I think they have a right to be as big and successful as they can be, and I’m advocating that we try to bash them down like Clinton did to Microsoft. But we should always support the competing notion of decentralized computing and data. People should always be able to buy a computer that they can program (a PC or Mac) and not be stuck with only closed hardware like Playstations and Kindles and “network computers”.

Goldwater: In your heart, you know he’s right

Yes I've had several posts on that as well (nt)

Neil Stevens (Diary) Sunday, June 7th at 12:20AM EST (link)

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder