Guest Column: Net Neutrality’s Negative Impact on the Future of the Internet
December 15, 2009
by: Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)

Government WasteWatch, Winter 2009

An important point is being missed by those in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who continue to advocate for Net Neutrality regulations.  By allowing the government to assign value to content on the Internet, we are forfeiting our free market principles and allowing government bureaucrats to run our networks.  I equate Net Neutrality regulations with the Fairness Doctrine because, in essence, the government would be prioritizing content and deciding what goes first, second, third or not at all down the information superhighway.
 
Those who promote short-sighted efforts to implement Net Neutrality are hampering the very people who make our economic engine churn.  It is for this reason I have introduced H.R. 3924, which would prohibit the FCC from imposing Net Neutrality regulations.  As the FCC continues to look at ways to address the very important issue of controlling our congested networks, it is important that this does not occur in a vacuum.  We must be careful not to impose regulatory restrictions like Net Neutrality which would limit the ability of the private sector and the marketplace to combat illegal activity online.  It is imperative that we combat piracy while simultaneously working to ease congestion and improve the quality of the Internet experience for all online users.
 
Ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband is crucial, but the Internet is not, and should not be, neutral with respect to unlawful activity online.  The FCC has proposed two new Network Neutrality principles, in addition to the four they implemented back in August of 2005.  The most troubling of these provisions is the one that would require Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat content in a non-discriminatory fashion. 
 
My congressional district in central and west Tennessee is home to some of our country’s most creative and exciting entrepreneurs and intellectual property creators.  These are the folks who stand to be most hurt by Net Neutrality and an over-regulation by the government of content on the Internet.
 
The Internet will not flourish in a lawless environment where the rights and protections of others are not respected, and where there are no rules of the road.  I firmly believe that the best way to protect the Internet from unlawful activity is to allow ISPs to control the content that runs over the networks they have created.  This will benefit consumers as new digital offerings flourish, and safeguard creative industries which employ millions and contribute billions to the U.S. economy.
 
It has been estimated by the International Intellectual Property Alliance that the total copyright industry output adds up to more than 40 percent of our nation’s economic growth, or more aptly put, 11 percent of U.S. GDP.  Furthermore, nearly 12 million hard-working Americans are employed in copyright industries.
 
We as a society have been so spoiled by rapid advancements in technology that we expect our networks to operate at tremendously high speeds.  However, online piracy and other illegal activity have become impediments to this, causing significant congestion and disrupting the Internet experience for the consumer.
 
We must get the Internet rules of the road right - our economic future depends on this.  Increased government intervention, without a compelling rationale, will be counterproductive.  Marketplace flexibility is imperative to allow ISPs to work with online property owners to find solutions that benefit consumers, creators and ISPs.  Net Neutrality regulation would only stifle future investment in broadband networks and limit the ability of creators to protect their rights online.  We are all in favor of a robust, content-rich environment.  Everyone benefits from a broadband experience that is protected from illegal activity and ISPs should be provided the tools to correct themselves through market-based solutions, not increased government intervention.