Obama's Internet Approach Is a Proven Loser Worldwide

Today's Internet is an amazing outlet for free speech and innovation and a major source of prosperity. With a lightweight regulatory policy the Internet has produced countless benefits for America and the rest of the world; it's doing well. Which is why President Obama's surprising public message delivered just before the holidays, urging the FCC to "implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," is more than the usual interjection of politics into a rule-making process that is supposed to be fact-based and apolitical but rarely is. It also fails to grasp the nature of the real problems that do exist in the Internet ecosystem in the U.S.

As the new Congress convenes, legislators should know that the legal form of broadband Internet regulation is a fractious issue because each side has its own facts. A pair of advertising surveys that have been used - by those who firmly believe that U. S. Internet service is "pathetically slow and overpriced" - to throw the book at service providers (such as AT&T and Comcast), may not reflect fundamental realities as much as they reveal lax "truth in advertising" norms in other countries.

For example, the FCC has verified that America's broadband providers generally exceed their Internet speed promises while the European Union, using the same measurement system, finds a 25 percent gap between what has been promised and what is delivered in their region. The nations that make the most grandiose claims - Japan and Korea - don't even release public information on truthful Internet speeds.

Prices depend on service tiers. Despite heavier Internet use in America, the study commissioned by the E. U. finds that broadband prices are generally lower in the U. S. than in Europe and in G7 countries for speed tiers below 12 to 15 Mbps. This matters because the FCC notes that consumers are unlikely to notice web pages loading faster at broadband speeds above 10 Mbps.

In addition, with Japan as the exception, Americans have greater access to higher speed broadband plans than their primary international competitors. Americans are willing to pay more for these faster plans because we use them so heavily.

The facts show a clear need to dedicate more resources to wireless networks, but the case for major policy revision can't be made.

Mobile networks in the U.S. are more advanced and pervasive than those in other nations as a result of the country being the first to adopt leading-edge LTE technology (the most advanced system for high speed wireless data). More Americans use smartphones relative to the total population than people do in any other country.

Mobile data usage is also heavier than everywhere in the world except Japan, where Tokyo-bound workers are able to watch videos thanks to exceptionally good coverage aboard commuter trains; though overall smartphone ownership in Japan is half the U. S. level.

Data usage over wired networks is also heavier in the U. S. than in all other nations except Korea, but this usage gap is shrinking.

While Japan has faster and cheaper wired broadband networks than the U.S., a single company - NTT-East/West - supplies 70 percent of Japan's highest speed connections as a result of friendly regulations that make it difficult for other ISPs to compete with the dominant player.

Open access - one of the "strongest possible rules" that allows smaller Internet Service Providers to lease wires from dominant players at below-market prices - is actually restricted to slower copper telephone wires in Japan and most other nations; higher-speed cable and fiber optic networks are generally exempt from strong regulation in the rest of the developed world, just as they are in the U. S.

There are definitely challenges in the U.S., including a need to improve America's mobile networks. They are so heavily used that they're often slammed and fall behind many others in terms of per-user performance. Americans don't pay extra to use LTE technology as consumers do in most nations. The U.S. also has a smaller pool of civilian mobile spectrum thanks to excessive assignments to government agencies that the President refuses to correct.

America also shares one key problem with Canada: the need to bring advanced broadband to rural areas before the urban/rural digital divide grows more acute. The solution will most likely come from the same wireless networks that power our smartphones, alongside specialized rate plans for rural users that are currently being tested.

None of America's Internet shortcomings are solved by the course of action the President has laid out, which may explain its lukewarm reception outside the Washington, DC partisan bubble. Furthermore, an unfortunate side effect of the FCC's net neutrality proceeding is the further delay of the spectrum auctions that would lower costs and increase the performance of our vibrant wireless networks.

Going all-in for a new style of broadband regulation right now fundamentally reverses national priorities, especially when the proposed utility model is a proven loser worldwide. We appreciate the President's desire to lend a helping hand, but it's more urgent to put wireless policy on the right track. We don't need a new regulatory policy for the Internet when the old one has worked so well.