By Ken Garen, CPA
The Internet up until now has been free commerce in its purest form. In its infancy, the Internet sprouted from a research project initiated by DARPA (http://www.darpa.mil) – the research and development office for the U.S. Department of Defense. DARPA funds unique and innovative research through the private sector, academic and other non-profit organizations as well as government labs.
Using computer technology, DARPA investigated ways to facilitate communication and the exchange of information around the world. This research, in its earliest form, was the lifeblood of the rudimentary Internet as we know it today. In its beginning, this technology was placed into the government and university [education] sectors. The purpose of this technology was to enable researchers to access and send information through server connections all over the world.
With the advent of browser technology which was spearheaded by Netscape (http://isp.netscape.com/), this Internet evolved in to the World Wide Web (and the www. prefix on most internet addresses). Subsequently, there was a great deal of competitors entering the browser space resulting in significant improvements to browsing capabilities most recently by FireFox and Google, which evolved into commercial ventures taking shape.
We have now evolved to a world where consumers, to a great extent, have more power than the businesses in a commercial transaction because consumers can see what the pricing is for that same product or service from providers all over the world. Pre-Internet, consumers would visit a local retailer to examine products, services and pricing, with no way of being able to determine what the best price [in the world] was on that item. With the Internet, one can find a best price and ask the local merchant to match the price, and frequently they will. Ironically, this can lead to really weird scenarios such as when a U.S.-based consumer is able to buy their pet’s anti-flea medication from a company in Australia, because the Australian provider has, by far, the best prices.
Up to this point in time, the Internet in the free world has not been restricted in any meaningful way by government rules and regulations. This hands-off approach has allowed the Internet to evolve in a free-market way permitting people in businesses the opportunity to research, buy and sell goods and services to their best advantage.
However, On December 21st, 2010, the Federal Communications Commission officially adopted controversial new Net neutrality rules, "fixing" a problem that was not there. The battle is far from over, as the FCC's authority to create and enforce these regulations may still be in question. With this uncertainty looming, infrastructure providers may be less likely to invest in innovation, due to not knowing what regulatory impact these rules could impose.
If the FCC’s actions are successful, this will impact businesses and infrastructure providers, whereas they will not be allowed to freely innovate (and letting the free market decide on the winners and losers) as they see fit, thus stopping innovation. Ultimately, we might never know what we missed, because it never will have happened. For example, an area of immediate impact would be the delivery of television and radio via the Internet because of "must carry" requirements bandwidth could disappear and more infrastructure would not be built because additional money could not be charged to make a fair return on the investment.
The other significant area of concern is that the United Nations has expressed desire to get involved in the naming conventions at a minimum, of how names are decided (and who controls the name and where the renewal fees go) including the extensions of .com or .org, and country extensions. Majority of countries on the committee are totalitarian dictatorships that want to control the information that flows over the Internet, such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc and India who wants to control information. If they are able to have their way, then companies such as BlackBerry will have much more difficulty keeping business communications private. Because the governments that want secrecy are demanding a back door into the email communications so they can, under the pretext of anti-terror activities, they can monitor whatever they want, however they want. The individual has no certainty of privacy.
The FCC has intervened in an area that the Courts have said were not under the FCC's jurisdiction. You do not have to remain quiet on this issue. Contact the FCC and make your voices heard that these regulations should not stand. Voice your concern to Julius Genachowski the FCC Chairman who supported this controversial regulation, at Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov, and to the two commissioners who voted in favor of this Michael Copps at Michael.Copps@fcc.gov and Mignon Clyburn at Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov.
###