Over the past few years, the Internet has grown to become the most remarkable and transformative communication medium of all time. Access to the Internet has expanded, speeds have increased, products and services have become more advanced, and applications for the Internet have become basic tools in every aspect of our society.
Remarkably, after years of consumer and market forces driving this robust development, the Federal Communications Commission now wants to place the Internet under restrictive government regulations for the first time, inhibiting the growth and innovation that have so vividly characterized this sector of our communication industry. By reclassifying the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, the Internet will fall under the same regulations, written in the 1930s, that were applied to the old land-line telephone monopoly of a bygone era. This would be an unwise and unnecessary step backward, applying the heavy hand of government to our most dynamic and successful industry.
This is the situation today: Internet providers compete vigorously in the marketplace to bring the best services to our customers. To remain competitive and bring more and better services to consumers, providers are funneling money and infrastructure into the networks that support the Internet. Between 2007 and 2009, we at AT&T Tennessee invested more than $1 billion in the wired and wireless networks of our state, to the great benefit of consumers.
Such investment has been made possible by a marketplace that operates with only a light touch of regulation, letting investment and innovation drive Internet evolution. Indeed, the FCC’s very own National Broadband Plan estimates it will take $350 billion of additional private investment to provide broadband access to all Americans.
This private investment will do more than simply make broadband accessible in more places, it will create and preserve thousands of jobs, boost economic efficiency and keep us competitive in the world.
But the FCC is seeking new and unprecedented authority to apply a set of first-time regulations to the Internet, known as “net neutrality,” which is best described as a government solution in search of a nonexistent problem.
As the Internet exists today, providers reserve the right to manage their networks to provide the best possible service to the most possible customers. Net neutrality rules would remove network management from providers’ hands and put it in the hands of the government.
Under these proposed rules, providers such as AT&T could no longer prioritize the speed at which users receive or send Internet data. This means someone streaming music or video is given the same priority as someone trying to dial 911 on their VoIP telephone service or a hospital receiving vital medical
records. Under these proposed rules, providers such as AT&T could no longer employ certain network management measures to safeguard consumer data, potentially degrading the overall security that characterizes a strong network.
Is there any question that such a government takeover of the Internet will cause quality to
go down and prices to go up? We at AT&T don’t think the government should have the final say over how we operate our network to protect and manage the needs of our customers.
The FCC’s approach is confusing and contradictory. There is no monopoly on providing access to the Internet, yet the FCC wants to place the Internet under monopoly-era regulations. The FCC has a goal of expanding broadband Internet access to all Americans, relying heavily on private investment, yet it is now trying to place barriers on the private investment that developed the Internet into what it is today.
With a robust and expanding Internet, the real question should be, “What is broken and what are they trying to fix?” Or, more to the point: “If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.”
Title II regulations are unnecessary. A modern and dynamic communications network like the Internet should never be subjected to laws that were written 85 years ago for the purpose of governing a completely different technology operated by a monopoly. Government takeover has extremely adverse affects. It places barriers to competition, stifling the flow of investment and innovation.
If the Internet is placed under these new government regulations, the pace at which innovation has occurred would slow, as would the enhancement and growth of existing networks. Areas not able to access the Internet at broadband speeds will have to wait longer to be connected, and those that are connected will have to wait longer for connections to get faster. When investment plans are shelved, the industry suffers overall, with an impact felt across Tennessee’s economy, causing stagnation in communications networks and a loss of employment opportunities of all sorts.
Broadband service is critical to our economic growth, and Internet providers need to invest directly in the communities they serve to improve their service and attract new customers, creating plentiful jobs in the process.
According to “The Economic Impact of Stimulating Broadband Nationally,” a report by Connected Nation, Tennessee could see a $2.45 billion total positive economic impact annually by accelerating broadband availability. This figure includes $1.68 billion of direct income growth from about 49,000 jobs created or retained across the broadband industry.
AT&T supports the National Broadband Plan and its goal of making broadband Internet access available to all Americans. We are poised to invest substantially in Tennessee to make our array of broadband services — from our innovative U-verse offerings to the nation’s fastest 3G wireless network — available to all Tennesseans, urban and rural.
In this economy, we cannot afford to jeopardize investment and job creation in Tennessee. The FCC should abandon its pursuit of a government-controlled Internet.
Gregg Morton is president of AT&T Tennessee.