Net Neutrality/Internet Regulation  

CTIA Position:
CTIA-The Wireless Association® believes policymakers should take a cautioned, reasoned approach to any discussion on Internet regulation, as we believe that no prescriptive regulation in this area is necessary to facilitate the continued evolution and innovation of broadband services – especially with respect to the wireless sector. 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 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. While offering many of the same services and capabilities, wireless is a different form of broadband than cable and wireline, and in the absence of regulatory intervention, it is evolving rapidly and delivering services unimagined just a short time ago. Accordingly, it should be no surprise that consumer use of wireless broadband is the fastest growing broadband service, especially for the many Americans who have no other broadband service.

The wireless industry in America 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.

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.

Key Points:

• An Antitrust Approach, Rather than Neutrality Regulation, is the Best Way to Evaluate the Wireless Marketplace. Policymakers should use an antitrust approach to evaluate the wireless marketplace rather than imposing preclusive regulations. Antitrust analysis is well suited to analyze whether a wireless network neutrality rule is socially beneficial. Implementing network neutrality rules would be akin to using a per se antitrust rule instead of the rule of reason analysis the Courts and expert antitrust agencies typically have applied to vertical relationships. By relying on the competitive market, existing regulatory remedies, and more than 100 years of antitrust law and precedent, the government already is equipped with ample measures by which it can evaluate company practices and determine whether market failure has occurred in the wireless sector.
• Wireless Broadband Networks are Fundamentally Different Than Other Broadband Networks. Wireless networks have a hard capacity restriction in the last mile between the cell site radio and the wireless device in the customer’s hand. Carriers are limited to the relatively narrow slivers of bandwidth allocated for consumer (also referred to as CMRS) services. This means wireless network operators must tightly coordinate the integration of customer equipment within their networks, to a much greater degree than is typical on wired networks. To maximize the carrying capacity on the consumer spectrum, carriers must migrate to more efficient protocols and equipment in an orderly way as soon as they become commercially viable. Many proposals for network neutrality would not allow carriers to differentiate among different types of traffic, users or applications. Policymakers should not attempt to shoehorn the modern, innovative wireless broadband industry into regulation crafted and applied for use on wireline technologies. Wireless networks are fundamentally different from wireline in the last mile and regulation must make allowances for these differences.
• Network Management, Including Prioritization, are Essential to Meet Congressional & Regulatory Mandates, Societal Goals, & Maintain Quality of Service. 
  Wireless service providers use network management and prioritization in order to meet Congressional and Regulatory mandates, such as CALEA, Wireless Priority Service and E-911. In addition, network management is essential to maintain quality of service for wireless consumers. Wireless broadband providers need to manage high-volume users to preserve quality wireless broadband Internet access for all users.
• Neutrality Regulation Would Discourage Investment. 
  Wall Street analysts have testified before Congress that regulating the Internet under the guise of "net neutrality" will drive away investment from the sector. As policymakers focus on developing a National Broadband Plan and leveraging our communications capabilities to revive our economy, it is important to remember the vital role that the wireless industry is playing in building that communications infrastructure, increasing productivity, and creating jobs. Today, virtually every business in the U.S. relies on networked communications services, and increasingly these businesses rely on mobile communications. Wireless services provided $100 billion in “value added” contributions to the U.S. GDP in 2007, and over the last 10 years, the industry has invested more than $200 billion in capital expenditures to improve infrastructure, with about $20 billion of that coming in the last year alone. The success of the mobile wireless industry—as a direct contributor to the U.S. economy and as an indirect input into businesses of all sizes—represents one of the crowning accomplishments of U.S. policy, and continued investment is crucial. It doesn’t make sense to impose neutrality regulation that could drive away investment, as well as significantly constrain economic growth, societal improvement, and quality of life for U.S. wireless consumers.