Set free the next wave of internet innovation
While much of world continues to be consumed with the intrigue around last year’s elections, Washington executive agencies and regulators are moving forward with the business of government. Despite the popular notion that government rarely gets it right, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is working towards a decision that should spur a new wave of internet investment and innovation by creating more clarity around an open internet without the heavy burdens brought on by Title II regulation.
As we have discussed in the past on TechPolicyDaily.com, the Title II framework was designed in the 1930s to make sure that the one phone system that existed at the time honored its commitment to deliver their phone service to every consumer at affordable rates. The heavy-handed regulation may have made sense in those early years, but policymakers have wisely declined for decades to apply this old telecommunications regulation to the internet for fear it might choke the new technology before it got started. Instead, the FCC adopted “light-touch” regulation, an approach that allowed internet innovators to test their ideas in the marketplace while letting the agency watch out for conduct that could unfairly damage competition in the space or disrupted consumers’ online experience.
That freedom to innovate without heavy regulatory burdens paved the way for today’s internet cornucopia of information, entertainment, and social interaction. It also facilitated the aggressive move into wireless communications and mobile device growth. It’s why most Americans can text, talk, and get online pretty much whenever they want and wherever they are using an app or their basic wireless voice service. It allowed smart and adventurous entrepreneurs and engineers do what they do best — innovate and create products and services consumers like and want more of.
However, as former FCC Chief Technologist Dave Farber (widely known as the “grandfather of the internet”) observed in a recent podcast, Tile II regulation is also disruptive to innovation. Farber noted that Title II created an environment in which smart companies shift investment dollars from engineering and product development to lobbyists and lawyers. Instead of engineers working to make technology more efficient and secure, it means companies focus on huddling with regulators to seek a thumbs up (or thumbs down) before implementing new ideas. Even that exercise operates on the premise that we know in advance what the researchers will come up with before it is invented. This is the wrong lens to view how innovation works. Experience shows that many of the best ideas in every field come from unanticipated findings and developments — it is the unexpected ideas about new ways of connecting the digital dots that allow for technological leaps forward, not just small steps in the lab.
Title II is a tough environment for regulators too, because it requires them to see into the future — fortune-telling is hard work. It’s difficult to identify a bad practice before it happens, but that’s exactly what the Title II advocates seem to want. Breakthroughs typically create competitive advantages, but that doesn’t mean they’re unfair. It’s almost impossible to determine in advance how exactly a new idea or service will affect competition. Such a draconian approach is neither wise nor necessary.
If the FCC ultimately adopts a pending proposal to eliminate Title II regulation of the internet, innovators will be able to capitalize on the potential of the next generation of internet technologies. Right now, however, the power of innovation is up against a Title II roadblock. That decision, which empowered the Commission to pre-emptively block internet innovations and services, deters creativity and investment by creating more concern over what ideas will pass muster with regulators than investing in innovation on an open internet platform.
Realizing that consumers can be empowered without heavy regulation and that an “open internet” can be a healthy environment for investment and innovation (without the heavy hand of Title II) is crucial to this debate. Understanding that the elimination of Title II regulation allows for more efficient guidance on a case by case basis of real, not imagined, trouble is key. This would allow for a return to a focus on former FCC Chairman Michael Powell’s “Four Freedoms” that address much of what consumers say are their concerns: Freedom to access lawful content, freedom to use applications, freedom to connect any legal device to the internet, and freedom to obtain service plan information.
By returning to the “Four Freedoms” approach, the FCC can provide an important boost to those creating the next generation of internet technologies. This move would help maximize technology’s ability to power economic growth, enhance productivity, and improve the range of services that facilitate the flow of information between homes, businesses, schools, utilities and public services, health care providers, and even our cars.
While the FCC has been successfully on guard for years, almost no neutrality violations have occurred. The handful that have come up were quickly reversed, thanks to push back from the regulators and the power of public exposure. The power of social media also makes it unlikely that any internet service provider could violate open internet principles without a viral wave of public shaming. Mess with internet access and you can be sure that John Oliver, Trevor Noah, and millions of people on their social feeds will shine a spotlight too bright to ignore even before regulators can intervene.
Ditching Title II is flashing a green light for technology advancement — it is time to press down on the accelerator for our next leap in internet innovation.
Plus:
Bricking it: “Offline” Amazon takes on New York and the bookselling world
Πηγή: techpolicydaily.com
