It’s clear: Internet consumers want more access, choice

On Tuesday, October 21, I had the honor of participating in the Texas Forum on Internet Regulation hosted by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai at the Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service.  Commissioner Pai’s convening of this forum demonstrates his recognition of the Internet’s importance to Texas’ and the nation’s economic health.

Comments from the panel, from the audience and from the community listening via live stream and following on Twitter proved what I hear every day from tech entrepreneurs and executives: We all want more choices and greater access to high-speed broadband networks that deliver more content, faster, wherever we are.  Whether you are a teacher from Rice University advocating for the creative content created by her students or the citizen who wants more options for fast online service, everyone is aligned in wanting “more, better, faster.”

{mosads}And we are getting there thanks to light-touch regulatory policies that have created an environment of constantly improving Internet connections. In Austin, Texas, companies like Google, AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Grande are all rushing to be the first to provide 1 Gig speed to consumers across the city. A flood of investment – more than $75 billion annually – has propelled this growth, allowing broadband to become faster and more accessible with every passing year. The Internet now supports nearly 11 million jobs around the country. For the growth of the Internet to continue, we need to continue to invest in this infrastructure so it can continue to improve.

But many of these improvements could be threatened by proposed FCC regulations in coming months. The new misguided guidelines – called Title II – would move Internet policy in a radically different direction, imposing strict limitations and rules that would place the Internet under restrictions that have typically been saved for public utilities – hardly a model of innovation.

Public utility regulations are simply a bad fit for the Internet. These rules were first written in the 1930s to check the power of far-reaching telephone monopolies, businesses that bear no resemblance to the dynamic Internet-related commercial activity we see today.

There is much confusion around the issue of Open Internet, Net Neutrality and regulatory policies such as Title II. We all want an Internet where access increases and innovations flourish. However, many activists who share this view have called for Title II and unfortunately believe that this regulation prevents discrimination and paid prioritization. But what they don’t realize is that these practices are already banned under explicit agreement by Internet providers to their customers.

Additional rules like Title II would do little to remedy these concerns and instead would entail taking major steps backward 80 years and ignoring what has made the Internet so successful.  In fact, paid prioritization might actually be allowed under Title II.  

The truth is that any corner of Texas cannot afford any rules that would diminish high-speed Internet. The right way forward is to stay the course on the regulatory approach that has given birth to a robust and flourishing Internet – not a radical new path that would jeopardize our future. 

McCullough is executive director of Texans for Economic Progress (TEP), a statewide non-profit advocacy group driven by a core belief that greater access to technology is critical to job creation, innovation and prosperity for the State of Texas.