Congress urged to pull back from web regulation

Scott Cleland, chairman of net neutrality forum NETcompetition.org, believes moves to extend internet regulation in the US will stifle future web video innovation and hence urged the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to promote free-market policies. Cleland believes that the future demands on internet capacity from applications including online video and gaming will require a robust, higher-capacity internet that will only develop if the government allows the free market to continue to spur investment and innovation.

"The internet is the greatest deregulation success of all time. As a result of free-market competition, broadband speeds, capacities and functionalities have increased dramatically and broadband companies have incentives to invest heavily to enable internet video. Pre-emptive and unwarranted restrictive regulation, like 'net neutrality', would destroy current market investment incentives to keep the internet dynamic, fast and productive. Members of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee should remember that the free market has made the internet what it is today and that internet policy should promote investment rather than discourage it," said Cleland.

News source: vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Pirate Bay: User data stolen but not unsecured

Next Story

Microsoft's fix for Automatic Updates lockup not working

19 Comments

I don't think 'net neutrality' is a restrictive regulation.
'Net Neutrality' will prevent ISP from packet - shaping traffic and restricting consumer use of the bandwidth for VPN etc.

Looks like this is a measure sponsored by ISPs under the guise of 'Net Competion'

Primexx said,
Net Neutrality will do exactly that: free the internet from restrictive regulations/policies.

That's what I thought.

The internet is in its current state because the federal government kept out of it in full compliance with the United States Constitution (regulation of the internet is a state affair, according to the tenth amendment). If the federal government violates the Constitution to regulate the internet through the form of net neutrality, the result will be damaging to the internet, as ISPs will no longer find infrastructure investments (such as Verizon Fios) as worthwhile as they do now if they cannot assure that their own services can operate without error. Furthermore, people and businesses have a constitutional right to do whatever the heck they want with their property, their own networks included in that. If the federal government dictates what a group can do with its property, it ceases to be theirs in essence becoming the property of the federal government and there will be a precedent that will allow further seizures, even formalized ones where it ceases to be someone's with the federal government's regulations, but the federal government's altogether and former owners must it in to its new owner, the federal government.

This might sound 1984ish, but it already happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Shining Arcanine said,
The internet is in its current state because the federal government kept out of it in full compliance with the United States Constitution (regulation of the internet is a state affair, according to the tenth amendment). If the federal government violates the Constitution to regulate the internet through the form of net neutrality, the result will be damaging to the internet, as ISPs will no longer find infrastructure investments (such as Verizon Fios) as worthwhile as they do now if they cannot assure that their own services can operate without error. Furthermore, people and businesses have a constitutional right to do whatever the heck they want with their property, their own networks included in that. If the federal government dictates what a group can do with its property, it ceases to be theirs in essence becoming the property of the federal government and there will be a precedent that will allow further seizures, even formalized ones where it ceases to be someone's with the federal government's regulations, but the federal government's altogether and former owners must it in to its new owner, the federal government.

This might sound 1984ish, but it already happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

But Net Neutrality has been the standard since the internet was created. So far the internet has been a success with this policy in place.

SimpleRules said,
An unregulated market is not a free one.

ive been thinking... what if some of the isps do their bandwidth throttling , and people get sick of it, and out comes a new isp which doesnt throttle the bandwidth and everyone signs onto it, and the bandwidth-throttling isps start losing customers and money to this new isp...

or does it simply not work like that?

carmatic said,

ive been thinking... what if some of the isps do their bandwidth throttling , and people get sick of it, and out comes a new isp which doesnt throttle the bandwidth and everyone signs onto it, and the bandwidth-throttling isps start losing customers and money to this new isp...

or does it simply not work like that?

It SHOULD work like that. But this is the perfect example of how massive corporations can keep other companies out. After all, most only have the choice of two or three different Internet/TV providers. Sometimes only one! If the market is not competitive enough, these companies can keep others out.

This spin doctor (read: liar) Cleland and his owners would have everyone believe that Net Neutrality would prevent companies and individuals from purchasing the bandwidth they need; that it is some kind of Socialist Conspiracy that would somehow take bandwidth away from paying customers and give it away to freeloaders.

In point of fact, most companies can currently purchase whatever bandwidth they need. However, this may not always be the case. So if bandwidth gets tight, the opponents of Net Neutrality, the so-called "Net Competition" advocates, want ISPs to be allowed to effectively take away bandwidth that you've paid for and sell it to the highest bidder: them! Net Neutrality would prevent that by forcing ISPs to be neutral: you get the bandwidth you've paid for, no matter who you are!

Some say net-neutrality is good, some say free market is good. All kinds of opinions are out there.

The thing is, the US can not afford to lose its edge in internet technology. It has already screwed up its car industry because of stupid oil policies in the past. So whatever policy they are planning to make in the Congress, it better be a good one.

Yeah, I hate how they give me full speed, no matter what site or protocol I'm using.

Please shape me ISP, I don't need no stinking access to Google!

1. There's regulations imposed by the state that tell companies what to do.

2. There's regulations imposed by companies that tell customers what to do (i. e. no servers, bandwidth caps, etc.)

Network neutrality is a type 1 regulation; it tends to limit their own ability for making type 2 regulations, so they hate it.

IMO they fear network neutrality because it prevents them from using technical measures that make it easier to oversell their network.

If you promise everyone huge amounts of bandwidth, but throttle back many bandwidth-intensive tasks, you can run more users on the same amount of capacity.

I want network neutrality in the uk... no more traffic shaping and selling "up to 8 Mb" services! We should know what we're getting when we pay for it.

fpd said,
I want network neutrality in the uk... no more traffic shaping and selling "up to 8 Mb" services! We should know what we're getting when we pay for it.

well im just beginning to get used to it, or maybe i have already for a long time... my housemates keep on using file sharing and stuff and Tiscali put us on the slow bandwidth thing, and theyre perfectly allowed to because it says so in the contract

We do have network neutrality in the UK. It's law AFAIK.

ISP<->User throttling has nothing to do with net neutrality it's about overselling and how to make sure the network operates at a reasonable level for all users.


While I want un-shaped traffic, it's a necessary evil - I just hope more ISPs actually implement smart shaping not just download x amount and have your speed halved.

pre-emptive and unwarranted restrictive regulation, like 'net neutrality', would destroy current market investment incentives

incentives? like the incentive to slow down your internet connection?

Commenting is disabled on this article.