Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
Should City Hall Go Bankrupt?
5.30.2012 12:00:00 PM
A CalWatchdog Series on Municipal Bankruptcy 
More

Capitol Update with U.S. Rep Darrell Issa (CA-49)
6.14.2012 12:00:00 PM
Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
More

Jonah Goldberg Luncheon and Book Signing
6.22.2012 12:00:00 PM

The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of IdeasMore

Recent Events
Benjamin Rush Society Debate: UCSD
5.17.2012 3:00:00 PM
UCSD Benjamin Rush Society More

Public Pension Tsunami: Closer to the Shore?
5.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Public Pension Panel More

Benjamin Rush Society Debate: Harvard Medical School, May 3, 2012
5.3.2012 5:45:00 PM

Harvard Bejamin Rush Society Debate

 More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print What ‘net neutrality’ really means to consumers
Washington Examiner (DC)
By: Daniel R. Ballon, Ph.D
3.26.2008

Washington Examiner, (DC), March 26, 2008


WASHINGTON- In the past, when government has attempted to regulate networks, the result has been less choice, less innovation and more corruption. In the telecommunications industry, such regulations were so damaging that a second wave of regulations was devised to undo the damage caused by the first.

Despite this historical precedent, neutrality proponents paint regulation of the wireless industry as pro-competition, pro-innovation and pro-consumer. To justify imposing this broad regime of government control, they must argue that the wireless industry is "broken."

Wireless with Strings Attached refutes this claim, and reveals how neutrality threatens to destroy a thriving and competitive market:

  • According to government statistics, 98 percent of customers can choose among three or more wireless providers, and no provider controls more than a 30 percent market share.

  • As a result of this competition, the cost charged per minute of mobile service has plummeted 85 percent over the last decade.

  • If wireless providers can be treated as public utilities, then any competitive business could fall under government control for any reason, at any time. This would result in higher prices, less competition and less innovation.

  • Proposed regulations are driven by companies seeking favorable outcomes from government that they cannot achieve in the market.



These outcomes will not benefit consumers. Wireless net neutrality would subvert market forces and usurp the freedom of consumers to choose the best technology, resulting in a consolidated industry built on fundamentally inferior technology.

More than 80 years of government mismanagement of the nation’s airwaves has created a system where regulators could impose a neutrality regime without any mandate from the American people or their elected representatives. The government continues to exercise complete control over the use and allocation of the airwaves, despite overwhelming evidence that treating spectrum like property is beneficial for both government and consumers.

Read the full study at here.

Related Link
Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources