QUOTE
By Mike McCurry
Special to CNN
Friday, June 9, 2006; Posted: 6:38 p.m. EDT (22:38 GMT)
Editor's note: Mike McCurry is a partner at Public Strategies Washington Inc. where he provides strategic communications counsel. He is a co-chairman of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telecommunication-related businesses. McCurry served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton from 1995 until 1998.
(CNN) -- The debate over Internet content regulations ultimately comes down to one issue: Who'll pay for the billion-dollar upgrades required for tomorrow's Internet?
Under their self-proclaimed banner of "neutrality," Google, eBay and other big online companies are lobbying for what amounts to a federal exemption from paying. Unfortunately, their thinly disguised effort at self-interest would dramatically shift the financial burden of paying for these upgrades onto the backs of ordinary consumers.
On Thursday night, by a bipartisan vote of 269 to 152, Congress agreed and rejected Internet regulations.
Let's put this issue in a larger context: The Internet is on the verge of one of the most dramatic breakthroughs in its history. Pretty soon, more and more Internet users will be streaming data-rich video into their homes, using the Web for online games, practicing telemedicine and having voice conversations.
But standing in the way of these benefits is the need for substantial network upgrades. Face it, the current Internet is creaky and will quickly get congested without improvements.
The Internet providers need to recoup their investments and one way is to charge a premium for managing bandwidth content differently. The need for this is self-evident: Data from a video or phone conversation has to be prioritized differently than data from a standard Web site access.
But regulations pushed by Amazon, Google, eBay and the other companies would essentially prohibit data transfer arrangements between high-speed access providers and big content companies. The inevitable results: Companies pay less for the Internet's build-out, consumers pay more and progress slows on providing affordable broadband.
It's also worth asking whether eBay or Amazon would support efforts to increase federal regulation of their businesses, say, Amazon's exclusive arrangement to sell toys through Toys R Us? Once the Feds start regulating some areas of the Net, it's inevitable that they'll push into other areas.
The Communications Workers of America -- representing 700,000 working men and women who are on the front lines (literally) of America's telecom industry -- recently told Congress that if it approves content regulation, then "investment in the physical infrastructure necessary to provide high-speed Internet will slow down, the U.S. will fall even further behind the rest of the world [in broadband deployment], and our rural and low-income populations will wait even longer to enter the digital age."
Several conservative organizations have also spoken out on similar problems. And as a recent Forrester Research analysis concluded, if these regulations become law, "Legal costs will shoot through the roof -- draining the pockets of everyone involved." That may be great news for lawyers, but not for ordinary consumers who'll be forced to pick up the tab.
Finally, even beyond the "who pays" argument, there are other reasons to reject Internet regulations. For example, as the pro-regulation crowd refuses to acknowledge, current federal laws provide consumers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with significant protection from online discrimination. These include laws governing anti-trust, competition and commercial interference. And legislation that passed the House on Thursday night -- sponsored by Republican Rep. Joe Barton (Texas) and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush (Illinois) -- would increase the FCC's authority to police online discrimination.
Regulating Internet neutrality may a great idea in Amazon's corporate boardroom. But for ordinary consumers, it's a sure ticket to higher prices and fewer choices.
Special to CNN
Friday, June 9, 2006; Posted: 6:38 p.m. EDT (22:38 GMT)
Editor's note: Mike McCurry is a partner at Public Strategies Washington Inc. where he provides strategic communications counsel. He is a co-chairman of Hands off the Internet, a coalition of telecommunication-related businesses. McCurry served as press secretary to President Bill Clinton from 1995 until 1998.
(CNN) -- The debate over Internet content regulations ultimately comes down to one issue: Who'll pay for the billion-dollar upgrades required for tomorrow's Internet?
Under their self-proclaimed banner of "neutrality," Google, eBay and other big online companies are lobbying for what amounts to a federal exemption from paying. Unfortunately, their thinly disguised effort at self-interest would dramatically shift the financial burden of paying for these upgrades onto the backs of ordinary consumers.
On Thursday night, by a bipartisan vote of 269 to 152, Congress agreed and rejected Internet regulations.
Let's put this issue in a larger context: The Internet is on the verge of one of the most dramatic breakthroughs in its history. Pretty soon, more and more Internet users will be streaming data-rich video into their homes, using the Web for online games, practicing telemedicine and having voice conversations.
But standing in the way of these benefits is the need for substantial network upgrades. Face it, the current Internet is creaky and will quickly get congested without improvements.
The Internet providers need to recoup their investments and one way is to charge a premium for managing bandwidth content differently. The need for this is self-evident: Data from a video or phone conversation has to be prioritized differently than data from a standard Web site access.
But regulations pushed by Amazon, Google, eBay and the other companies would essentially prohibit data transfer arrangements between high-speed access providers and big content companies. The inevitable results: Companies pay less for the Internet's build-out, consumers pay more and progress slows on providing affordable broadband.
It's also worth asking whether eBay or Amazon would support efforts to increase federal regulation of their businesses, say, Amazon's exclusive arrangement to sell toys through Toys R Us? Once the Feds start regulating some areas of the Net, it's inevitable that they'll push into other areas.
The Communications Workers of America -- representing 700,000 working men and women who are on the front lines (literally) of America's telecom industry -- recently told Congress that if it approves content regulation, then "investment in the physical infrastructure necessary to provide high-speed Internet will slow down, the U.S. will fall even further behind the rest of the world [in broadband deployment], and our rural and low-income populations will wait even longer to enter the digital age."
Several conservative organizations have also spoken out on similar problems. And as a recent Forrester Research analysis concluded, if these regulations become law, "Legal costs will shoot through the roof -- draining the pockets of everyone involved." That may be great news for lawyers, but not for ordinary consumers who'll be forced to pick up the tab.
Finally, even beyond the "who pays" argument, there are other reasons to reject Internet regulations. For example, as the pro-regulation crowd refuses to acknowledge, current federal laws provide consumers and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with significant protection from online discrimination. These include laws governing anti-trust, competition and commercial interference. And legislation that passed the House on Thursday night -- sponsored by Republican Rep. Joe Barton (Texas) and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush (Illinois) -- would increase the FCC's authority to police online discrimination.
Regulating Internet neutrality may a great idea in Amazon's corporate boardroom. But for ordinary consumers, it's a sure ticket to higher prices and fewer choices.
