Consumers for Cable Choice (C4CC) today called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to move cautiously in responding to calls to impose new restrictions on the Internet.
March 1, 2007 (Press Release) --
WASHINGTON D.C. (March 1, 2007) – Consumers for Cable Choice (C4CC) today called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to move cautiously in responding to calls to impose new restrictions on the Internet.
“There is no demonstrated need for additional federal regulation in this area, “ said Robert K. Johnson, C4CC president. “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is already properly governing the marketplace, and the consequences of premature action will almost certainly have a negative impact on consumers. We ask the FTC to follow a policy of watchful restraint under which the broadband market can develop without additional limitations beyond those in place.”
Johnson filed comments in accordance with requests for public input from the FTC’s Broadband Connectivity Workshop held last month.
“C4CC recognizes and applauds FTC’s inquiry into broadband connectivity and the impact of Net Neutrality regulation on the marketplace,” Johnson said “We simply want the FTC – and all those with authority in this arena – to keep consumer needs in mind as they consider policy changes.”
Highlights of C4CC’s comments to the FTC:
·The FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement is an available and viable deterrent against unjustly discriminatory conduct. Proponents of additional proscriptive regulation gloss over the existence of the FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement, which stems from industry “Connectivity Principles.” This Statement serves as an effective deterrent to unjustly discriminatory behavior in the broadband access marketplace, as evidenced by the dearth of untoward conduct since the Statement’s issuance
·Even if the current regulatory policy was inadequate (which it is not), any additional Net Neutrality regulation will have untoward consequences. The gist of the Net Neutrality argument is that all Internet access should be treated in a manner devoid of preference. Although there is a certain superficial appeal to this notion, it belies the complexity of the network and the need for effective traffic management. In fact, such a policy would harm consumers by making the Internet less efficient. Broadband networks must be managed in an intelligent manner to operate efficiently and maximize benefits for consumers. Indeed, consumers want a network that is managed in a way that “discriminates” between traffic types. For example, vital public services should be given priority speed and availability. Overarching prohibitions may have the effect of limiting the vitality of the network for consumers.
·The consequence of additional Net Neutrality regulation may be to chill financial markets and consequently diminish consumer welfare. The irony of additional Net Neutrality regulation is that it is directed at a ubiquitous broadband network that is literally “under construction.” Much of the national broadband infrastructure is still on the drawing board. This is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog.
“There is no demonstrated need for additional federal regulation in this area, “ said Robert K. Johnson, C4CC president. “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is already properly governing the marketplace, and the consequences of premature action will almost certainly have a negative impact on consumers. We ask the FTC to follow a policy of watchful restraint under which the broadband market can develop without additional limitations beyond those in place.”
Johnson filed comments in accordance with requests for public input from the FTC’s Broadband Connectivity Workshop held last month.
“C4CC recognizes and applauds FTC’s inquiry into broadband connectivity and the impact of Net Neutrality regulation on the marketplace,” Johnson said “We simply want the FTC – and all those with authority in this arena – to keep consumer needs in mind as they consider policy changes.”
Highlights of C4CC’s comments to the FTC:
·The FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement is an available and viable deterrent against unjustly discriminatory conduct. Proponents of additional proscriptive regulation gloss over the existence of the FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement, which stems from industry “Connectivity Principles.” This Statement serves as an effective deterrent to unjustly discriminatory behavior in the broadband access marketplace, as evidenced by the dearth of untoward conduct since the Statement’s issuance
·Even if the current regulatory policy was inadequate (which it is not), any additional Net Neutrality regulation will have untoward consequences. The gist of the Net Neutrality argument is that all Internet access should be treated in a manner devoid of preference. Although there is a certain superficial appeal to this notion, it belies the complexity of the network and the need for effective traffic management. In fact, such a policy would harm consumers by making the Internet less efficient. Broadband networks must be managed in an intelligent manner to operate efficiently and maximize benefits for consumers. Indeed, consumers want a network that is managed in a way that “discriminates” between traffic types. For example, vital public services should be given priority speed and availability. Overarching prohibitions may have the effect of limiting the vitality of the network for consumers.
·The consequence of additional Net Neutrality regulation may be to chill financial markets and consequently diminish consumer welfare. The irony of additional Net Neutrality regulation is that it is directed at a ubiquitous broadband network that is literally “under construction.” Much of the national broadband infrastructure is still on the drawing board. This is truly a case of the tail wagging the dog.
Email
Print
SPAM
