Five Faulty Premises in Telecom Policy Debates

 

by

 

Justin (Gus) Hurwitz *

 

[Below is the Introduction and Conclusion to this latest Free State Foundation Perspectives. A PDF version of the complete Perspectives is here.]

 

 

In the telecom space, heated debate and controversy are the norm. But the past several months' debates have been particularly heated, with the fever's pitch only likely to increase in 2014. This year's agenda already includes the D.C. Circuit's ruling on the Open Internet order, further work on the IP Transition, Congressional consideration of a new Communications Act, ongoing implementation of the Connect America Fund, continuing planning for the eventual incentive auctions, possible mergers involving TWC and T-Mobile (and, at minimum, ongoing rumors), and, invariably, more debate about how to increase Internet speeds in the U.S. and how those speeds compare to those in the rest of the world.

 

This list of policy issues is already exhausting to think about, and is certain to grow as the year progresses. It's also exciting - this is a fascinating and challenging time to be working in the telecom policy space. It is also an area that takes a lot of dedication and energy to work in. One of the reasons that it takes so much energy is because faulty premises are repeatedly used to make flawed arguments - but while built on shaky ground, they must be knocked over anew each time they are used. I discuss five of the most pernicious of these recurring faulty premises below.

 

The five faulty premises are: that everyone needs low-cost access to high speed broadband service; that high-speed broadband is necessary for education, health, government, and other social services; that wireless can't compete with cable; that an open Internet is necessary for innovation and benefits consumers; and that the grass is greener in other countries.

 

Before turning to these faulty premises, two points should be made at the outset. This first is that the structure of this article - "Five Faulty Premises" - bears resemblance to Public Knowledge's "Five Fundamentals" framework for the PSTN. This isn't a response to or criticism of that framework. If anything, this is a riff on, or homage to, its work, which has been an important contribution to discussions in this field over the past year.

 

The second point is a reminder of something that should be a guiding principle during the next several years' telecom debates: the consumer must come first. This is a theme that will run, sometimes implicitly, through my critiques of each of the five faulty premises. It is too often the case that policies are advanced, even well-intentioned and seemingly consumer-friendly policies, that do not fully appreciate the complexity of the market, and that, therefore, fail to place the interest of all consumers ahead of the interests of specific, often narrow, groups of consumers or of other private parties.

 

* * *

 

Telecom policy debates are always contentious. In recent years, as the Internet has come to the fore, the landscape has splintered between several different platforms and the relationship between content and distribution has become more dynamic as these debates have grown in complexity and intensity. This is a trend that will only continue into 2014 (and likely beyond).

 

Telecom policy is also, unquestionably, important. These debates are necessary to the wellbeing and prosperity of our country. As we think about what policies to adopt, our eyes must always be on the proper bottom line: how policy choices affect consumers. Good ideas in telecom policy can benefit consumers nationwide; bad ideas can be terribly costly. Perhaps most important, ideas that can be beneficial to some consumers can be terribly costly to many other consumers.

 

One of the most problematic aspects of telecom policy debates is that bad ideas don't die. Advocates, often representing narrow interests, continually use good-sounding but fundamentally flawed arguments. Unfortunately, every time they are made, they need to be rebuffed. They turn a policy debate into a war of attrition. They shift attention in the debate from what is good for consumers to what is good for the interests they represent - and the residual consumers, those with median interests and who are most likely harmed by policy decisions, are left without a voice in these debates.

 

In this article, I have looked at five of the most pernicious of these recurring faulty premises: that everyone needs low-cost access to high speed broadband service; that high-speed broadband is necessary for education, health, government, and other social services; that wireless can't compete with cable; that an open Internet is necessary for innovation and benefits consumers; and that the grass is greener in other countries. Some of these ideas may contain nuggets of truth - but those nuggets do not support the broad policy prescriptions that have been built upon them.

 

Where these nuggets are found, they usually reflect some of the basic social commitments that we really do need our telecommunications regime to support. But they attempt to build overly broad policy prescriptions around these basic commitments, losing track of the forest for the leaves. The challenge of telecom policy is building an affordable network that simultaneously supports these social commitments without being hamstrung by an impossibly expensive and innovation-hampering regulatory edifice.

 

Hopefully, identifying these faulty premises here will help us move beyond them in the debates to occur over the next year. This is an exciting time in telecom policy. It is also a challenging time, given the fundamental shifts in technology and the industry that have occurred since the 1996 Telecom Act. If we can move beyond the superficial aspects of these debates, overcome these faulty premises, and keep our eyes focused on what benefits consumers and on ensuring that basic social commitments - the things that we all need, not that some of us merely want everyone to have - are met, then we are poised to make great progress in the coming year.

 

*  Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, a member of the Free State Foundation's Board of Academic Advisors, is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Nebraska College of Law. The Free State Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan free market-oriented think tank located in Rockville, Maryland.