Network Management - Full Brief
As the leading broadband provider in the U.S., the cable industry has long embraced an open Internet that allows consumers to use and enjoy lawful content and services of their choosing, and operators have invested hundreds of billions in private capital investment to make this vision a reality for millions of American consumers. Cable supports voluntary efforts that improve disclosure about broadband Internet service and will continue to provide consumers with adequate information about their broadband service and how providers take steps to improve the overall Internet experience.
Policymakers will continue to explore ways to bring more choice, competition and transparency to the broadband Internet environment and cable welcomes an open, data-driven and fact based process. But absent any evidence of real consumer harm, cable believes that the current policies, laws and market incentives provide an environment which encourages more investment, innovation and competition, and policymakers should be very cautious to impose complicated new rules that could threaten the very dynamism of the Internet.
Proponents of Internet Regulation support rules that would have the government regulate the prices, terms and conditions of broadband services. Indeed, many Internet Regulation proposals seek to specify which business models are permissible, and which ones are not. They would impose by government fiat outcomes that benefit established Internet companies like Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! to the detriment of network operators (including cable) and new Internet service providers.
The cable industry supports Congress’s longstanding policy of leaving the Internet unregulated. This “hands-off” regulatory approach to broadband – in place since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 – has been a success and has encouraged private investment in new services and infrastructure (well over $140 billion by the cable industry alone since 1996). By contrast, network neutrality laws would stifle investment and lead to a proliferation of lawsuits.
Those who call for regulation of the Internet in the name of “network neutrality” are offering a solution in search of a problem since there is no evidence of a market failure justifying the imposition of common carrier-like regulation on broadband services. “One size fits all” Internet Regulation would replace the workings of the marketplace with government regulation, and choose today what business models are, and are not, permissible. By contrast, in the current market-driven environment, companies have the freedom to experiment with multiple business models, producing more choices and competition in content and providers for consumers, and more innovation than ever before.
The current marketplace is working well to bring consumers the services and features they want at prices they can afford. Policymakers should be very reluctant to replace that flexible, market-driven success story with a system of intrusive regulation. At a time when there is widespread agreement that our national policies should maximize broadband for all, policymakers should not enact a policy of Internet Regulation that would stifle innovation in broadband networks and act as a tax on broadband, slowing its growth and reach to all Americans.