1 of 1

Agree

Write now Article Tools

The entire concept of Net Neutrality is a noble one, a vision of equal and fair access to all, but, like all government interference in free markets, it will inherently limit innovation in technology development.

We've seen the opposite issue recently when Comcast and a handful of other ISPs throttled back access to certain services when they felt their bandwidth was being overused. And Comcast was wrong to do so.

But, not for the reasons commonly presented by Net Neutrality advocates.

Their error, however, was not that they limited access but that they failed to do so openly and honestly. When ask what the guidelines and rules were for reduced access, Comcast refused to reveal the terms. Users were not informed when signing a contract that their access could be restricted and when they requested the criteria for reduced access the information was not given to them.

Innovation in technology comes from trial and error. Companies provide varying services to attempt to attract customers and revenue. While one company may offer complete and unrestricted access at a given price, another might offer limited access at a lower price. Some companies might give benefit to providers who pay a fee, and reduce costs to their subscribers by doing so, while others may refuse such bribes and give equal access to all, but at a higher price to their subscribers.

Some customers might wish to have fast access to news sites for a very low cost, perhaps even free if access fees can cover everything. Other customers may wish to have unlimited access to anything they desire and be willing to pay the price for such access.

This is how markets work to promote innovation. Choices are offered and customers select from a myriad of offerings.

The mistake made by Comcast, and a handful of others in today's market, is the failure to clearly disclose the terms they were offering. It wasn't a problem that they restricted access to some users on shared connections. It was a problem that the users they restricted weren't informed that they could be restricted. And those users had no way to determine means of avoiding such restrictions.

The most aggressive action appropriate for legislation by our government in the Internet market is a requirement for full disclosure and honesty in advertising. If a company suggests unlimited access in their advertising they should not be allowed to hide limits in the fine print of their contracts. If limits are in place, those limits should be fully and clearly disclosed.

Allowing networking companies the freedom to experiment with the products they provide, while requiring full disclosure of the terms in place, will allow for the greatest levels of innovation. What is needed in rapidly advancing technological markets is not greater restrictions but more freedom to allow creative ideas to be chosen.

Learn more about this author, Keith Hamburger.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about "Net neutrality" would act to reverse the longstanding increase in broadband access in America?
We want to hear your view. Write now!