The CTIA: The Wireless Association?s stance on net neutrality is plumb wrong. Opposition to the Federal Communications Commission?s proposed net neutrality rules is the one sure way to endanger the egalitarian underpinnings of the Internet.

As mentioned by this writer in an article last year (see story), it would be a total shame if those who control access to the Internet don?t treat Web traffic equally, especially given that, at some point in the next decade, more consumers nationwide will go online through their smartphone than via their computer. This is an issue that very much affects the mobile ecosystem. It is no time for timidity or silence.

It seems obvious that the FCC sees the need for ensuring equal access to all companies using the Internet for marketing, content or commerce. It should seem obvious to marketers, producers and sellers of content, products and services as well.

Sometimes it takes a law to guarantee free speech, which is what net neutrality is at its core.

With more traffic accessing the Internet over mobile, the day won?t be far when consumers in this Mobile Decade will associate the online channel more with mobile than with the computer. And at that point, the balance of power will shift from cable-company Internet access providers to carriers ? unless there?s M&A activity between the two.

Both the carriers and cable companies voice the same argument: they worry over the increased demands on their bandwidth from data-hungry applications, services, files and sites. They worry over the effect of sites such as Google?s YouTube or streaming media including movies and video forwards clogging the pipes.

Indeed, that worry is genuine.

Carriers may buckle under the strain of increased Web traffic over their networks. AT&T is known to have struggled to cope with Web traffic over the holidays, primarily due to its iPhone customers.

But that issue can be solved with better technology and the ability of the market to absorb appropriate pricing for services rendered.

However, in no circumstances should carriers be allowed to determine who drives on the Internet highway and at what speed ? the rules must apply to all, equally and without prejudice.

CTIA?s primary objections
To be fair, let?s give the CTIA equal time to press its claims. Here is the statement it issued Jan. 14:

?Later today, CTIA will file comments in response to the FCC?s proposed net neutrality rules. Quite simply, we believe that these rules are inappropriate for wireless broadband networks and unnecessary to ensure that wireless consumers continue to enjoy the open Internet. All elements of the wireless ecosystem are flourishing. As Americans continue to adopt mobile broadband at a rapid pace, our members are investing billions of dollars every year to deliver wireless Internet across the country. This is a model that is working for consumers and regulation is not needed.?

Per the CTIA, its filing will highlight these five reasons why net neutrality is unnecessary for wireless:

? Net neutrality rules would lead to unintended consequences. A lot is going right in the U.S. wireless market ? low prices, competition, and tremendous innovation ? all driven by tens of billions of dollars each year in investment. All elements of the wireless ecosystem are flourishing to the benefit of consumers.  Adding regulatory uncertainty and the unintended consequences that will flow from these proposed rules will cause harm and ultimately will not benefit consumers.

? There is no factual basis for application of net neutrality to wireless. The Commission cannot point to a market failure that would justify its proposed rules. Only theoretical harms that have been claimed for years ? harms that have never materialized.

? The FCC?s approach would be in stark contrast to international approaches to Internet openness. In the more concentrated and more heavily regulated European markets, regulators have decided to forgo the type of prescriptive regulation proposed by the FCC in favor of promoting competition to ensure consumer welfare.

? Wireless networks are technologically different than other broadband technologies. Reliance on spectrum and the technical aspects of mobility pose unique challenges to wireless broadband providers.  Capacity constraints (one strand of fiber optic cable has more capacity than the entire electromagnetic spectrum, of which wireless is one of many users), the close interaction between wireless devices and the wireless network, and licensed nature of wireless devices make the Commission?s rules incompatible with wireless broadband.

? The FCC should take a page from antitrust analysis ? monitoring the market and correcting failures ? rather than regulating non-existent harms. A recent paper by the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the broad goals of bringing consumers the best possible service and choice of broadband providers are best served by promoting competition. Several years of economic analysis of net neutrality reach the same conclusion ? careful monitoring of the market and correction of actual failures will better promote competition and consumer welfare than net neutrality rules.

Land of laws and laws of the land
For the carriers to declare that legislation is unnecessary, well, take a look at what an unbridled financial services industry did to the U.S. economy.

This publication is not in favor of government regulation, make no mistake of that. But there are times when the state needs to step in to ensure that consumers and legitimate marketers are not at the mercy of large conglomerates which can derail marketing, commerce or content at a whim. Fairness at the starting gate is a must.

Four large carriers control the fate of mobile marketing and the wireless Internet in the United States ? Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. These carriers have innovated and invested tens of billions of dollars in their networks.

Given their monopolistic hold over the 233 million or so mobile subscribers nationwide, these carriers must consider themselves stewards of the new economy driven primarily by wireless technology.

Any abuse of that power will lead to the accelerated development of other wireless technology that enables marketers to connect with consumers and vice versa without the need to go through a carrier. Look at the extreme success of Amazon?s Kindle wireless reader device, albeit on wireless bandwidth leased from a carrier.
 
Expect Apple and Microsoft to produce similar mobile handhelds that, sooner or later, will enable not only commerce and content, but also communication. Google?s Nexus One phone is already evidence of the new reality ? a laissez-faire mobile device.

The Mobile Decade ? as coined by yours truly ? doesn?t imply the Mobile Phone Decade, but one where consumers and marketers seek each other out without fetter, fear or fiber.

Companies such as Google, Yahoo, Apple and Microsoft, as well as retailers such as Amazon, Netflix and others should band together to push for continued and equal access to the Internet, be it wired or wireless.

If that takes a law to enshrine equal access to the wired and wireless Web, so be it. The framers of the Constitution forgot something in the original document, went back in and fixed it. That?s how free speech became the first amendment.  

Please click here to download the CTIA filing before the Federal Communications Commission