I issued the following statement today in response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) on net neutrality:

“We are pleased that Chairman Genachowski and the Commission acknowledge that ‘wireless is different,’ and that as part of the NPRM, the Commission will investigate ‘how, when, and to what extent’ the rules should apply to the mobile wireless broadband platform. 

“We agree wireless is different, and believe that whatever the case may be for applying rules to other platforms, applying these rules to mobile wireless broadband services during a period of dynamic innovation and change in the wireless ecosystem could have significant unintended consequences. Consumers benefit when innovation can occur BOTH at the edge and in the network. Rules that could impact the ecosystem from continuing to evolve, such as the ability of wireless carriers, device makers, and applications developers to optimize their devices, applications, and networks to work together will stifle innovation and harm consumers.
 
“Further, the imposition of net neutrality rules will degrade the value of unencumbered licenses purchased in the most recent auctions and threaten the integrity of the auction process. The FCC considered ‘openness’ requirements in the 700 MHz auction and chose to apply those requirements to a single block of spectrum. To extend that requirement, and more, now would raise serious legal issues and threaten the integrity of future auctions.
 
“We appreciate the extended comment period established by the Commission and its commitment to improving its understanding of the complex process of managing networks. Our member companies work every day to provide customers with a positive mobile broadband experience. We look forward to working with the Chairman and the Commission to ensure that Commission policies do not unintentionally harm the mobile wireless ecosystem and wireless consumers.”

This afternoon I issued the following statement in response to the net neutrality paper from Free Press:

"It is troubling that we are debating a filing on investment and job creation from an organization such as Free Press. The industry I represent directly or indirectly employs more than 2.4 million Americans and contributed over $140 billion in direct economic benefit to the U.S. economy over the last three years. An illustration of the gaps in the Free Press filing is that counter to their own conclusions, they based their ‘analysis’ on rhetoric and avoided specific factual evidence of what Net Neutrality would mean to wireless. In the 700 MHz auction, the larger, regulated ‘open access’ license sold for half the smaller non-regulated license. These, and many other shortcomings, are littered throughout the filing. I am confident that the FCC, through its fact-based analysis, will draw the same conclusion."

In response to a letter from 24 CEOs and founders from some of the leading Internet and technology companies to the FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, I issued the following statement:

"This morning, 24 CEOs and founders from some of the leading Internet and technology companies sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski on net neutrality. 
 
"In their letter, they said, 'Entrepreneurs, technologists, and venture capitalists have previously been able to develop new online products and services with the guarantee of neutral, nondiscriminatory access by users, which has fueled an unprecedented era of economic growth and creativity. Existing businesses have been able to leverage the power of the Internet to develop innovative product lines, reach new consumers, and create new ways of doing business.'
 
"I do not believe we could have said it any better than the way that they did when they closed their letter by saying, ’America’s leadership in the technology space has been due, in large part, to the open Internet.’ 
 
"The wireless industry could not agree more. The FCC should preserve the existing wireless Internet that has fostered tremendous innovations, provided broadband for more people, and enabled new businesses. We should all be mindful of the dangers of unintended consequences coming from new rules implemented for the wireless Internet. The fact is that wireless is different than wireline and there's no need to change what these CEOs acknowledged is working well." 

I issued the following statement today in response to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s address on new guidelines for the Internet:

“While we are waiting to read the contents of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we welcome the Chairman's interest in wireless and his commitment to pose a series of detailed questions on how the Internet openness principles should apply to mobile broadband. 
 
“As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment, and growth for the U.S. economy. 
 
“As a justification for the adoption of rules, the Chairman suggested that one reason for concern ‘has to do with limited competition among service providers.’ This is at the core of our concerns. Unlike the other platforms that would be subject to the rules, the wireless industry is extremely competitive, extremely innovative, and extremely personal. How do the rules apply to the single-purpose Amazon Kindle? How does it apply to Google’s efforts to cache content to provide a better consumer experience? How about the efforts from Apple and Android, Blackberry and Nokia, Firefly and others to differentiate the products and services they develop for consumers? Should all product and service offerings be the same? 
 
“Regarding spectrum investment, the Commission need only look at the results of the 700 MHz auction to understand the impact on investment. The C Block rules, which included an open requirement, had only two bidders, and sold for significantly less. The other licenses, which sold for significantly more, were sold with the promise that the spectrum would not be subject to the open rules. Now the Commission is considering changing the rules after the auction -- impacting companies’ confidence in the auction process -- just as carriers are facing a brewing spectrum crisis.”

For more information on Net Neutrality/Internet Regulation, please click here. 

The FCC is interested in learning more about the wireless industry's competitiveness, innovation, and billing practices. CTIA President & CEO Steve Largent discusses the association's eagerness to share the great wireless story with the Commission, and emphasizes the need for additional spectrum to satisfy the growing consumer demand for wireless data services. To learn more watch this segment from our September installment of our Wonder of Wireless webcast, and take a few moments to see what else we have to offer in our September WOW.

In the 1980s, Justine Bateman appeared on the TV sitcom “Family Ties,” perhaps best known for the character Michael J. Fox portrayed, the young free market adherent Alex Keaton.  We know from her appearance on “Family Ties” that Ms. Bateman can read her lines, and that skill was on display again today at the Senate Commerce Committee’s hearing on “The Future of the Internet.”  But beyond reading her lines well, what did the former “Mallory Keaton” have to say?  Well, a good deal that would have driven her brother Alex nuts.

In her testimony, Ms. Bateman implied that broadband providers are attempting to constrict access to the Internet.  She offered no evidence to support this assertion, and since broadband providers are in the business of trying to earn a return on their investments, the market would discipline any provider that did so.  As Adam Smith noted in The Wealth of Nations, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Next, Ms. Bateman sites the Book of Genesis to allege that broadband providers are somehow conspiring.  With all due respect to Ms. Bateman, I don’t recall an extensive discussion of corporate interests in the Good Book.  What I do recall is a pretty well-developed discussion of how human beings are created in the image of God and endowed with both rationality and responsibility. Because we have rationality and free will, we can choose between various competing products and services, including in the broadband marketplace.   

Alex Keaton would have gotten both of these points, and it’s too bad Ms. Bateman doesn’t.  Skilled reading of one's lines is nice, but her presentation would have been a whole lot more compelling if she had spent more of the ‘80s listening to her "brother."

I want to share a letter I sent earlier today to Mrs. Roberta Combs, the president of the Christian Coalition of America. A representative from Mrs. Combs' organization is scheduled to appear Tuesday at the House Judiciary Antitrust Task Force hearing on "'Net Neutrality" and Free Speech.

While the Christian Coalition supports net neutrality/Internet regulation, I think it's critical to consider all of the possible and likely ramifications of government mandates in this area. In that respect, the letter speaks for itself.

I am sincerely hoping that groups such as the Christian Coalition of America recognize the outstanding work the wireless industry is doing to provide parents with useful tools to control  Internet access on their families' wireless devices, as well as the steps carriers take to protect their customers from unwanted and unsolicited material such as pornography and spam, and acknowledge the negative practical implications of ill-advised net neutrality mandates.