Julia Johnson, Chair of the Video Access Alliance and a force in Florida government for years now, recently testified at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce before their subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet in support of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006 (introduced as H.R. 5252). This bill is shaping up to be a huge congressional battle with the so-called “public interest” groups on the left lining up against the bill. In my brief review, the strongest argument in support of the bill was by Sonia Arrison:
The Internet, and the technologies that developed around it, has thrived precisely because of minimal government regulation. The idea that bureaucratic control of the old telcos spurred the growth of the thriving communications infrastructure we see today is palpably ridiculous.
New technologies driving the current economy were created in a world outside of the one where red tape was squeezing the air out of the telecom companies. While government was spinning its wheels trying to "create" competition between telecom companies, capital investment was fleeing the telecom sector and moving to more promising, less regulated places, like voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.
That’s a very strong point. Earlier in the piece she dismissed a claim made by Gigi Sohn that "without regulation, the vital Internet we know today would never have developed." Arrison wasn’t falling for it:
That's a laughable reinterpretation of history akin to Al Gore's insinuation that he created the Internet, and a twist of the facts worthy of George Orwell's "1984."
Removing the cloak to make plain what this battle is really all about, Arrison makes this point:
Under the guise of a principle called network neutrality--the idea that network owners should remain neutral with respect to the content they carry – pro-regulation forces are trying to increase their control over the information superhighway. Joining those who want greater government control of the Net are some content companies, like Google and Yahoo, which are currently engaged in a business struggle with companies such as Verizon and AT&T, which want to charge more for greater use of their broadband networks.
Google + Yahoo vs. AT&T + Verizon; now this is starting to make some sense. Arrison has a very persuasive point, though, and she closes with a flourish:
Companies should be allowed to choose the business model that works best in a market economy. History shows that a heavy regulatory regime such as the forced-access mandates under the 1996 Telecom Act was a disaster and put Americans at a disadvantage by slowing the deployment of high-speed Internet services. Those damaging regulations have been addressed through a combination of Federal Communications Commission actions, court decisions and technological changes, and the time is now to start treating telecommunications firms like any other technology company, not the other way around.
If Silicon Valley's technology companies take a deep breath and clearly consider their options, they will see that negotiating in the marketplace is eminently more preferable than submitting to government micromanagement. Some peoples' fantasies aside, it would be a serious strategic error to invite the bureaucratic regime into technology negotiations.
I’m convinced. Johnson’s firm listed these documents, I assume, in support of her position:
Internet Innovation Alliance
Complete Minority Ed Board Packet
[3.4 MB PDF]Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (March 2006)
Measuring the Divide: African Americans' Access to the Online Universe
[3.3 MB PDF]Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (February 2006)
African Americans and Broadband Communications
[156.0 KB PDF]Telephia (January 2006)
Cell Phone Usage Highest Among African-American And Hispanic Consumers, According To Telephia
[43.6 KB PDF]Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 13 (January 2006)
"In Delay There Is No Penalty": The Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay
[181.3 KB PDF]Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 13 (January 2006)
State-By-State Breakdown of the Consumer Welfare Cost of Franchise Reform Delay
[138.0 KB PDF]Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 21 (July 2005)
Competition After Unbundling: Entry, Industry Structure and Convergence
[325.8 KB PDF]Phoenix Center Policy Bulletin No. 21 (September 2005)
The Impact of Video Service Regulation on the Construction of Broadband Networks to Low-Income Households
[391.8 KB PDF]A New Future for Telecommunications Policy (November 2005)
Learning from Past Mistakes
[300.0 KB PDF]The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute (October 2005)
Trends and Impact of Broadband in the Latino Community
[684.5 KB PDF]GAO (March 2004)
Subscriber Rates and Competition in the Cable Television Industry
[270.1 KB PDF]
Reports seem to indicate there will be serious opposition in the United States Senate and the COPE Act of 2006 as presently constituted will likely be modified. Let the battle commence and may the least regulatory position prevail.
Comments