|
Op-Ed: Republicans abandon winning argument
in mobile technology software debate
[The Center Square] Patrick Hedger
After
decidedly winning one of the more contentious public policy battles in
recent memory in the “net neutrality” debate, conservatives are on the
verge of ceding virtually all of their credibility on the winning
arguments, paving a way for a massive expansion of regulatory powers
across multiple sectors of society. |
|
 Just over four years ago, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) repealed Title II regulations – more commonly known as “net neutrality” –
on internet service providers (ISPs). Opponents of the move declared the
internet as we knew it was over, even going so far as to say that webpages would
load “one word at a time.”
Instead, however, investment in the internet rose by billions
of dollars and internet speeds increased by roughly 40% year-over-year. Left
with a light regulatory touch, the private sector flourished and delivered
superior services to the American people.
Conservatives pushed back against the overreach of net neutrality on a platform
of speech and property rights as well as foundational economic principles that
reject central planning. They argued that not only do ISPs have the right to run
their networks as they see fit, but they are best situated to manage networks in
a way that best serves customers versus a top-down, command-and-control,
bureaucratic approach from Washington.
This principled platform proved right in terms of investment and innovation. It
has enabled the record deployment of fiber cables, creating a pathway for the
rollout of newer, faster technologies in the future. It also helped keep the
economy going strong. While many European networks with their own variations of
net neutrality regulations struggled to keep up with increased demand caused by
global lockdowns, the American internet rose to the challenge.
Unfortunately, many Republicans seem to have thrown this principled platform to
the wind. For example, a recent bill, the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) –
introduced by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; and
Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. – once again would put the heavy hand of government into
the affairs of the private sector. This time, however, it would not be
telecommunications networks impacted, but smart devices and app stores. However,
the same destructive principles apply. The heavier the regulatory burden, the
fewer resources companies will be willing and able to devote to investment and
innovation.
OAMA would force companies such as Apple or Google to allow
greater access to third-party software developers onto their devices. In much
the same way that Title II regulations denied ISPs the needed flexibility to
manage disparate internet traffic on their networks, OAMA would hamper the
ability of smart device makers to keep potentially harmful apps or software off
of the devices of customers.
[to top of second column] |
The legislation is also aimed at allowing app
developers access to device ecosystems while limiting the ability
for device and operating system producers to recoup the costs of
developing and maintaining those ecosystems. This rings undeniably
familiar to arguments advanced by tech giants who dominate web
traffic against ISPs during the net neutrality debate. In both
cases, there is an attempt to free-ride and force costs directly on
to consumers through public policy mandates. The only difference now
is that Republicans have flipped their position from the net
neutrality debate.
From antitrust to Section 230, the abandonment of the winning
principles on net neutrality is evident throughout the tech policy
debate. There are dozens of pieces of legislation introduced or
cosponsored by Republican members of Congress aimed at turning tech
companies and smart devices effectively into common carriers,
forcing them to host any and all content and allow potential
competitors access to the networks they’ve invested precious capital
to build and maintain.
Apart from the rank hypocrisy, the other problem is that the average
American is far less constrained when it comes to choosing their
device or online platform versus their ISP. There are real economic,
geographic and policy constraints on Americans when it comes to
choosing their ISPs. Republicans rightfully argued that the solution
to these problems should encourage greater ISP investment,
deployment, and thus competition while looking to clear away any and
all regulatory barriers; the opposite of what the net neutrality
regime did.
In the tech sector, Americans don’t face these
similar constraints. If they want a more open ecosystem, Google’s
Android provides one compared with Apple’s iOS. Once online, they
aren’t confined in any similar terms to which platform services they
use compared with their mobile service and home broadband providers.
They can usually switch with a click.
To the extent Republicans believe competition online and in devices
is insufficient, they should look to their principles on net
neutrality for answers. If not, they’ll quickly find themselves
unable to mount a case against a new push for net neutrality and
will thus successfully suffocate the entire internet-based economy,
from ISPs to platforms, in a bureaucratic morass without respect for
fundamental rights and economic principles.
Patrick Hedger is the vice president of policy for
the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. |
