Larry Lessig takes issue with reported statements by Howard Waltzman, the majority chief telecom counsel of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and, reportedly, an opponent of “net neutrality” rules.
Citing the Washington Internet Daily, Lessig quotes Waltzman as saying that net neutrality regulation would turn “broadband pipes into railroads and regulating them under common carriage” and that “[t]he reason the Internet has thrived is because it’s existed in an unregulated environment. Regulating…under common carriage would be a complete step backward for the Internet.”
Noting that, in terms of broadband penetration, the U.S. is “somewhere between 12th and 19th in the world, depending upon whose scale you use” and that in France 20 Mbps service is available for $36/mo., Lessig says:
How did France get it so good? By following the rules the US passed in 1996, but that telecoms never really followed (and cable companies didn’t have to follow): “strict unbundling.” That’s the same in Japan — fierce competition induced by “heavy handed” regulation producing a faster, cheaper Internet. Now of course, no one is pushing “open access” anymore. Net neutrality is a thin and light substitute for the strategy that has worked in France and Japan. But it is regulation, no doubt.
So while it is true that we have had both: (a) common carrier like regulation applied to the Internet, and (b) basically no effective regulation applied to the Internet[,] and it is true that we have had both: (c) fast, fierce competition to provide Internet service and (d) just about the worst broadband service of the developed world[,] it is not true that we had (c) when we had (b). We had (c) when we had (a), and we have (d) now that we have (b).
Broadband is infrastructure — like highways, if not railroads. If you rely upon “markets” alone to provide infrastructure, you’ll get less of it, and at a higher price. (See, e.g., the United States, today.)
Mitch Shapiro at 11:29 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
