Study: Net Neutrality Won’t Increase Jobs
by Capitol ConfidentialNet neutrality supporters have long argued that institution of “open internet” rules is critical for job retention and creation. However, according to some opponents of the proposed policy, a study released on Friday by Entropy Economics undercuts that assertion—just as much discussion in the political world is re-centering on the topic of job creation and as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continues to move closer to a decision on controversial, proposed net neutrality rules.
The study, entitled “What Would Net Neutrality Mean for U.S. Jobs?” analyzes comments submitted by companies within the Internet industry to the FCC as of January 15, 2010. It excludes those submitted by trade associations, individuals, and academics, and breaks commenters down into two categories: Supporters and Skeptics. It also attempts to exclude “non-U.S. employees of foreign-based Skeptics” but includes “any foreign employees of Supporters.”
The results are bound to unsettle net neutrality advocates: Even with the filtering out that Entropy conducted, Skeptics—many of whom have expressed concern about the negative ramifications of net neutrality on their businesses— employ nearly ten times the number of employees that Supporters do. More specifically, Skeptics directly employ 1,440,021 workers, whereas Supporters directly employ just 148,936 workers.
More worryingly for net neutrality advocates, even when Entropy weeded out larger telecom and cable TV companies (defined by Entropy as AT&T, Bright House, Cablevision, Charter, Cincinnati Bell Wireless, Comcast, Covad, Cox, Cricket, Leap, MetroPCS, Qwest, Sprint-Nextel, T-Mobile, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon), Skeptics were shown to employ many more workers than Supporters. Says the study, “The remaining Skeptical companies, including many networking and wireless technology companies, still employed almost four times as many workers as all the Supportive companies, 570,316 versus 148,936.”
Entropy notes that its analysis “is, of course, not dispositive” and that “the efficacy of Net Neutrality regulation is not determined solely by who submits FCC comments nor only by its impact on near-term job creation.” However, the firm also notes that “This analysis does show that many U.S. companies employing large numbers of American workers oppose a major increase in regulation of perhaps the nation’s most important high-growth industry.”
Entropy further notes that Skeptics play a major role with regard to investing in the US economy. Per the study, “In 2008, U.S. info-tech capital investment totaled $455 billion, or 43% of all U.S. non-structure investment. The communications service providers alone invest $65 billion or more annually.” Furthermore, “Among companies filing FCC comments, the Net Neutrality Skeptics invested $189 billion over the last three years, compared to $18 billion for the Net Neutrality Supporters.”
The study concludes that “there is little chance Net Neutrality regulations could improve the near-term jobs picture. There is, on the other hand, a substantial possibility for harm” because “Net Neutrality could substantially reduce the willingness of service providers to invest in new wired and wireless networks.” In turn, the study notes that “Any capital expenditure reductions would directly affect tens of thousands of workers who build and maintain these networks.”
The prospect for immediate reductions in capital investment is one of the concerns regarding net neutrality that telecoms policy experts say underlies opposition to it that has emanated from groups like the Communications Workers of America union.
Entropy’s study comes amid a major jobs push being led by President Obama, a strong supporter of net neutrality, and congressional Democrats. In October, 72 House Democrats sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski that was interpreted in many quarters as voicing coded, but clear opposition to net neutrality.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
26 Comments
"Study: Net Neutrality Won’t Increase Jobs"
Really…? What about all those lucrative "Green Economy" jobs that would be created to stifle dissent?
For the love of all things holy…The Government does NOT create jobs…!!!
Here's one way to increase jobs, but this administration will never do it, because it makes too much sense. Give all taxpaying Americans a tax holiday for at least 6 months, but not more than a year. Let us use our money to jump start the economy.
You clowns in D.C. have done enough damage. It's time for the professionals to take charge.
What government program has ever increased jobs in areas other than those targeted by the programs?
Example: Increase a tax a small business which then has to lay off five workers to pay the new taxes. The taxes are spent to employ 1 person filling pot holes in a road in a certain congressman's district. So 1 job was "created."
Why is it that anyone who opposes Obama's notions is dubbed 'skeptic? To be consistent with this terminolgy they should label the 'supporters' 'believers'. There has not been a single initiative that has come out of the cabal in the whitehouse that does not have an ulterior motive and that ulterior motive always boils down to: helping Unions or re-electing dems. After eading this and many other "net Neutrality" articles it is still totally un-clear what 'net-neutrality actually means or what it is intended to achieve.
Stay strong, just 260 days to go!!!
One area of 'green jobs' is in the window caulking business. Soon all the engineers and scientists from NASA who are being put out of work by Obama can be re-trained to be caulking engineers. At least those who do not go find work in Iran, India or China's space administrations.
Every program the administration trots out will be touted as creating jobs. To say this administration has no clue is to put it mildly; VERY mildly at that. A rational person would observe that the administration's real motives are something other than what they say. I don't think Obummer and the hope a dope crowd will be able to change their spots. Let us remain ever vigilant.
To break and then 'fix' what isn't broken is the way of the power mad. Was everything broken before they 'fixed' it?
I disagree.
It created the temporary "jobs" required to study whether it would create any jobs.
Just like all government programs and initiatives, it REQUIRES a panel of "experts" to study it's feasability.
LOL…What sarcasim…?
FYI…Not saying that you, or anyone else for that matte doesn't know, but you can use simple HTML code in these posts to help articulate your meaning.
To add emphaisis to a word put this before your word, then the same after it except with a / in front of the em. I would type it all out, but it would consider it code…lol The same for BOLD, except you just use a lower case b instead.
I still want government as far away from the net as possible
if i understand it correctly, "Net Neutrality" is basically applying the Fairness Doctrine to the internet. i'd appreciate it if anybody could clarify this further, thanks.
Govt. + Laws, Acts, Bills, Etc = Less Jobs in private sector
Plain and simple; Net Neutrality is all about control, just like Obama-care. They (Leftist Progressives) do not care what government control gets implemented, it’s all about being in control of delivery and technology. If “they” can implement government control over distribution infrastructure and underlying new technologies, then they have the means to tax every aspect, and act as “big Brother” over all aspects. We need to understand that the Internet is the new-age and end-all of all communication for individuals and business. Give them our Internet, and we give them everything. That is scary!!
So…what does the Entrophy study point to?
It is not at all the same thing. The fairness doctrine refers to political ideology and requires "balanced" coverage (i.e. equal amounts of time to liberal and conservative pundits/hosts).
Net neutrality states that an ISP can not deliberately slow down traffic to any given site (for example youtube) while speeding up traffic to another site that it is promoting.
In fact, without net neutrality, an ISP could conceivably slow down all traffic to conservative sites while prioritizing traffic to sites like dailykos etc. (not very likely, but still possible without net neutrality).
Very curious as to what the people here think about net neutrality as it's an odd proposition. I imagine that since this is a conservative leaning site and most people here seem to advocate 'small government' you would be in favor of net neutrality, ie, unabated Internet access if you are paying for a connection. This is an interesting proposition though because in order to secure this, open access, it may be necessary to pass legislation preventing ISP's from restricting traffic, thus keeping the Internet as an open platform. Would you see this as a 'big government action' or an example of the Government needing to step in to preserve an existing open infrastructure so it is not soiled by corporate interests.
To speak to the job creation angle of this artcile, in my opinion it is ridiculous as the issue at hand here is the free exchange of information, not jobs, so it's interesting to see the argument framed that way.
Correct. As I've pointed out many times on these forums, Net Neutrality has been redefined by the Obama Administration in a very Orwellianish manner, so as to mean the exact opposite of it's original meaning. Net neutrality is not equivalent to the Fairness Doctrine–except in Obamanation.
You don't understand the debate at all. Net Neutrality, which Obama supports, stands for unregulated Internet access. All your Service Provider does is give you service, and can't regulate which sites load faster than others, and cannot restrict where you visit.
Not an Obama apologist, just a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality.
In practice, passing legislation which would compel ISPs to not restrict traffic may be an unavoidable necessity. In theory, such legislation should not be needed.
The problem is that many parts of the country have only one or two options for high speed 'net service. Such local monopoly conditions are generally created by ISPs "convincing" local officials and bureaucrats of the "needless expense" of duplicative infrastructure if ISPs were to be given a franchise for a given area. In a more perfect world, we would have multiple ISPs from which to choose. Hence, if in a given area, I as a consumer have the option of choosing an ISP which does not restrict traffic, I would sign up for that one, even if it might cost me a few dollars more per month. Eventually market forces would force them all to open up their platforms.
In a sense, the same thing has happened before; back when AOL was in its heyday, it allowed very limited access to the "real" internet, preferring instead to keep its customers in a walled garden of only AOL-blessed sites. Eventually, it was forced to open up access, rather than lose customers to competitors. Of course they ultimately lost those customers anyway, since AOL was ultimately nothing more than a bunch of local phone numbers that users could call to get access to AOL and the broader internet.
If the federal government would just stay the heck out of the way, the net would inevitably be forced into a "neutral" stance. Market forces are wonderful things–but sadly, allowing the market's invisible hand to operate freely deprives the government of any power. We can't have that…
thank you. apparently it's more of a tech issue, but could be politicized? man, there's a lot to keep up on these days….
To a certain extent you're right… However, the argument for government intervention can be made because the telecommunications companies do not operate in a perfect or even close to perfect market.
Because of the monopoloy or (best-case) duopoly in most cities, market forces may not be able to force broadband providers to abandon preferential traffic policies.
In that case, there could be a legitimate argument for government intervention, forcing network neutrality.
The problem we saw after the similarly sold (it'll boost the economy) tax cuts from the Bush era was that the money put into pockets STAYED there, as scared shoppers shop less… even when they have the money in their wallets. Uncertainty is the bigger enemy. Additionally, with unemployment where it is, a tax holiday on zero earnings results in zero extra dollars…
Just chiming in that this is a tech issue that has serious implications with regards to the flow and access of information for ALL concerned sides. The key here is not whether Dems, Reps or Indys craft this legislation as much as it's about the major corporations that control internet access NOT crafting it.
SteelWheel,
While I agree with you in general, You forget that those who were king in the beginning of the net, in the old AOL days, we the people existed. Everyone, was open and free with their help for newbes, and patient as well. AOL was the greatest thing since the wheel. Funny thing though, AOL thought they ran AOL, but, a few dedicated hackers, programmers, and comp-sci majors took it over, and wrote little programs for the little people, who by the way, were getting charged as high as $8.95 per hour of on air time. They claimed it was because of (business day) activity, but, we now know it was just greed. Well, the first time I got a bill for $648.78 for (on air) time, for 1 month. I went online and asked around and low and behold, I was sent a little program called aol4free. In the end, the net will not go down without a fight. There's too many good people who love it, and can do things to stop these people who want to control it, and I think they will.
The internet does not "make" anything.The US better get back to making factories that make something, then we can worry about "marketing" the product.The internet is only a salesmans marketing tool.Creating jobs is not reliant on the internat at all….no matter how many propaganda ads the government puts on-line.
Agreed, NaCity, please do not turn this into an "Obama" thing as the movement existed before him and will survive him.