Home » Advocacy » Policy Topics » Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality  

CTIA Position:
CTIA-The Wireless Association® believes policymakers should take a cautioned, reasoned approach when discussing net neutrality. The unique aspects that wireless broadband brings to the U.S. broadband market and the value of mobile broadband services to American consumers should not be understated. Wireless offers many of the same services and capabilities as other forms of broadband, such as cable and wireline, but it is inherently different in that it has distinctive network management needs that should be recognized.

It’s also important to note that in the five years that this issue has been discussed, there is not one example in the wireless market of any harm to consumers that would be addressed in the net neutrality rules. Many consumers don’t realize it, but their wireless use is prioritized. Their voice calls take precedence over their data usage, their interactive data usage is prioritized over their standard data usage and 911 calls supersede all of it. This prioritization makes sense, because it ensures customers have a quality voice and data experience. Consumers don’t want voice calls to have gaps, nor do they want problems connecting to 911 because someone around them is watching a TV show on their mobile device.

No prescriptive regulation is necessary to facilitate the continued evolution and innovation of broadband services, especially with respect to the wireless sector. President Bill Clinton’s FCC Chairman William Kennard understood that having a light regulatory touch would allow this industry to thrive and be the success it is today. In a 2006 New York Times op-ed, he said, “Policymakers should rise above the Net-neutrality debate and focus on what America truly requires from the Internet: getting affordable broadband access to those who need it.”

Congress said it best in Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, when it established as the policy of the United States, the “[preservation of] the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation...” The continued innovation of and value provided by the industry today are proof that such an approach has been extremely effective.

CTIA believes that this constantly-evolving, financially-healthy, consumer-driven industry is exactly the place where the government should analyze what would happen without government intervention, before it moves down the path of regulation.

With today’s challenging economic conditions, it is unfathomable why anyone would want to change an industry that is working so well for our country. America’s wireless industry leads the world in competition, value, innovation and overall satisfaction, and makes substantial contributions to the U.S. economy each year. Competition is not only good for consumers and the economy, it’s key to delivering high-quality wireless broadband services to all Americans.

In the absence of regulatory intervention, the wireless industry continues to evolve rapidly and deliver services that were unimaginable just a short time ago. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that consumer use of wireless broadband is the fastest growing broadband service. For many Americans, it is the only available Internet service. It is clear that innovation, not regulation, is the prime factor fueling the value Americans are receiving from wireless broadband.

Key Points:

• Wireless networks are inherently different. Both regulators and policymakers have acknowledged the many differences between wired and wireless networks. Due to the science and physics of spectrum use, there is only so much capacity that is available. This differs dramatically from other broadband services. One strand of fiber optic cable has more capacity than the entire electromagnetic spectrum. So even if we were able to get the entire spectrum available in the U.S., we still wouldn’t have the same capacity as a single strand of fiber. This reality necessitates unique engineering demands and techniques. It is also important to remember that wireless operates in a dynamic environment. Our customers are nearly always on the move, which is one reason Americans continue to use and rely on their wireless devices. Providers need the ability to constantly adapt, evolve and respond to the changing wireless environment through reasonable network management to ensure all users enjoy the best possible wireless broadband experience.
• Wireless carriers vigorously compete against each other on network quality and capacity. With more than 91% of Americans able to choose from four or more facilities-based wireless providers (i.e. national or regional carriers), competition thrives as companies strive to win and satisfy customers. Eliminating wireless broadband providers’ ability to respond in real time with innovative management tools will reduce or eliminate this important competitive aspect of wireless broadband resulting in less innovation and choice for consumers.
• Regulation has unintended consequences and will impact all parts of the interdependent wireless ecosystem. Similar to the FCC’s decision to impose “open access” obligations on the 700 MHz C Block license, the imposition of net neutrality on wireless will inject uncertainly into the market. Because wireless has evolved to encompass an ecosystem of carriers, device manufacturers, application developers and others, this can ultimately harm consumers by limiting choice in the marketplace and hampering innovation. The FCC has acknowledged that this is a complex ecosystem, which is why policymakers should be wary of the unintended consequences of altering the interaction between the many elements of this ecosystem.
• Congress and the Wireless Industry Say FCC’s “Third Way” is the Wrong Way. The FCC is choosing to ignore the almost 300 Members of Congress – Democrats, Republicans, Senators and Representatives – from all over the country who has told the FCC that their approach to the reclassification of the Internet (or moving the Internet to Title II) is wrong. This is more than the number who voted for the healthcare bill or the stimulus package. CTIA agrees with these Congressional Members who have said the FCC’s heavy-handedness would create investment uncertainty in these precarious economic conditions and should be avoided. The FCC’s “Third Way” would apply monopoly-era rules to a competitive industry that is providing consumers what they want – openness, innovation and low-cost. Title II regulation is still heavy regulation and a threat to the competitive nature of our industry. This is especially true given the FCC’s own concession that the proposed regulation offers no guarantees about forbearance and could have potentially broad applications over broadband Internet.

Last Updated: November 2010