The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Brand X decision concerning Internet access will hamper the American economy as it impedes broadband access, inhibits competition and insults the very grassroots nature of the Internet.
While the Court may be correct in the strictest sense of existing law, I'd like to ask you to correct the situation by refining telecommunications laws to create a more open, level playing field for all Internet service providers to benefit American consumers.
The Court essentially said cable companies were somehow different from telephone companies, even though they provide very similar services. Both types of companies make data available to customers, though they use slightly different means (telephone cables versus coaxial cables, though both are moving to fiber). Telephone companies provide voice communications but are also able to provide Internet access and are hoping to soon be able to provide entertainment, like television and movies. Cable companies traditionally provide television and movies but recently have moved into providing Internet access and very recently into voice communications. Yet somehow the Court said cable companies can restrict who uses their wires while telephone companies have to offer to rent their lines to other companies. Given that both types of companies have similar investments in their infrastructure, it is hard to understand how these companies could be treated differently. The Court essentially gave advantage to cable companies.
Creating a monopoly benefits no one but the monopoly. One fix would be to allow telephone companies to restrict who uses their lines, too, but that would merely make two near-monopolies to the detriment of the consumer and the economy. The divestiture of the Bell system made clear that a monopoly in communications is not a good idea, so there is no reason to recreate that bad situation. A better solution would be to level the playing field and require that cable companies make their wires available for rent to other companies. This will assure the cable companies get compensation for their investment but will also create an exciting environment where a variety of providers of different services can reach consumers with innovative products and enhanced customer service. As an independent Internet service provider (IISP), I want to continue to be one of those innovators.
There are some 7,000 IISPs in the country employing 75,000 people who serve 7 million customers in large cities and small towns. I and my employees pay taxes in our communities and the money that we earn stays in those communities, making them more vibrant, viable economic centers than they otherwise would be. To restrict my access to loyal customers is a disservice to those people but also to the very ideals of small business and entrepreneurialism that make this country great.
Companies like mine do not have the huge resources of a cable company, but we are still able to develop innovative products and services for our clients. We may not have the research capacity of our larger rivals, but we have the ability to quickly deploy new techniques, nimbly adjust them to the marketplace, and personally understand how our customers use these tools. We also provide personal support and education that rapidly expands the use of the Internet and the economic benefits that follow. Many of those we support are other small businesses who would never get the same service from a large, impersonal provider, further hindering small business development.
Communities like to have control over their environments, so it makes sense that many independent providers should exist to create a competitive atmosphere in which consumers can have choices based on whatever factors they deem important. With the real possibility that a closed cable system could actually exclude content that doesn't fit in its business model, preventing robust competition could be harmful to society itself as well as business. Furthermore, because corporations controlling access would certainly have an interest in controlling commercial content, they would likely erase the very disintermediation of ecommerce that has given the Internet the power it has to remake the landscape. Information wants to be free.
President Bush has said he wants broadband access to extend throughout the country by 2007. Large corporations have the means to make this happen, but they will deploy their services, as they have so far, to the high-end markets first, leaving those in poor or remote areas to languish on the wrong side of the Digital Divide. IISPs, on the other hand, are lean and hungry and will quickly fill in, as they already have, in underserved markets. If IISPs are excluded from using cable lines and even DSL, those underserved markets will remain unconnected with little prospect of change to help them gain economic power, even though recent history has shown that broadband access is of greatest bootstrapping value to those with the fewest resources. The heartland of America will be among the last places to receive broadband under a market dominated by a few corporate providers.
(There is promise in wireless technologies and municipal networks, but the encumbent providers are threatening these innovative solutions already all over the country. Legislation should allow these other options to flourish and flower, as long as they offer the same open access cable companies should.)
Security is another issue of importance. While it would seem coordinating a few big players would make homeland protection easier, history has shown that small inventors have devised the cleverest systems to keep communications safe, which is why government security experts have often relied on these technologists for developing new protocols. At the same time, IISPs are closer to their clients, so they will be quicker to notice unusual activity that would get lost in the systems of a large corporation. Furthermore, if a few large providers are compromised, large numbers of customers would be affected and endangered, whereas spreading the client base widely likewise spreads the surveillance to the streets and limits the user risk and bad-guy opportunity.
In short, there are many reasons -- economic, social, safety, etc. -- to keep Internet access opportunities as varied as possible and as close to the customer as possible. That's not to say there should be no big players, but they should not be the only players so people are the local level can maintain control over their lives and security. Communication is the foundation of a strong democracy, so it should be kept in the hands of the people, not the powerful.
Contact information:
http://www.ii4a.org,
email: isps@ii4a.org or phone
813-496-2122