A study released Tuesday by the American Consumer Institute contains some bad news for proponents of net neutrality. Whereas advocates of “open internet” rules often argue that the institution of the policy is necessary to preserve innovation and would benefit consumers, the study finds that “new Internet regulations, including those now under consideration by the FCC, would restrict technology advances, innovation and job growth.”

The study further notes that “broadband network providers are a leading source of both innovation and new investment in Internet infrastructures.” Innovation and investment are often seen by tech policy observers as integral efforts that will help ensure that a broader base of consumers benefits from high-quality broadband service.

Study co-author Larry F. Darby explicitly tied proposed net neutrality regulations to a likely diminution in “motive” that would, under present circumstances, propel Internet companies to innovate and invest. Said Darby, “All indications are that these well intended regulations would dampen both incentives and opportunities for firms in the Internet ecosystem to continue to invest and to embed new technologies in core networks on which downstream applications and content providers depend.”

(more…)

Net 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…)

With the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set to make a decision on proposed net neutrality rules later this year, the fight between supporters of the controversial policy and its opponents continues to heat up.

Yesterday, a group of minority and women’s organizations reportedly called on the FCC to give serious consideration to the impact that net neutrality could have on what has been termed the “digital divide”—the widening of which, opponents argue, constitutes a potential unintended consequence of the policy, and one which has become a primary focal point of net neutrality critics’ concern.  In a letter and a proposal to the FCC, the groups—which include minority organizations that have previously spoken out regarding the net neutrality issue such as the Asian American Justice Center—have asked for a field hearing and workshop addressing the topic.

(more…)

In the ongoing fight over proposed rules that would institute net neutrality, a major proponent of the policy is taking fresh heat from critics.  Google, arguably the world’s biggest name in tech, a major source of campaign donations to President Barack Obama, and one of the most prominent advocates of an “open internet,” is taking heat for alleged hypocrisy and rent seeking.

The criticism comes as the company continues to advocate for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to impose net neutrality rules that would target internet service providers (ISPs) while opposing so-called “search neutrality” that would impact both the company and its revenues in a manner that observers of the debate say could be particularly adverse to Google.

Last week, in a post on the official Google blog, the company’s senior vice president for product management, Jonathan Rosenberg, wrote that while Google’s “goal is to keep the Internet open,” it opposes the concept of “openness” where it would apply to its own search and ad products.

(more…)

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent; that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.

(more…)