In Google We Trust

[Commentary] As Congress gears up for a potentially significant revision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, it's worth pausing to consider what is the same, and what is different, from a decade ago. The hype about the 1996 law was that it would usher in the age of the "information superhighway." It was sold on the premise that competition would replace regulation -- as cable, long-distance and local telephone companies each got into the others' businesses. Moreover, the 1996 Telecommunications Act essentially ignored the World Wide Web. Overlooking the Internet meant the law gave little guidance on broadband and Internet phones. But on the positive side, neglect allowed digital applications to develop and flourish in a laissez-faire climate. Today, the battle lines are different. The long-promised digital convergence arrived once the Internet triumphed as the chosen information superhighway. Phone calls, television programs and Internet content are flowing over the same broadband pipes, and telecom and the cable giants are pumping up investments and competing aggressively. Bundles of voice, video and data together make up cable's "triple play" -- and some telecom carriers are seeking a "home run" with the addition of wireless service. Congress should be on notice that just as paying for "long-distance" service died as a category in less than 10 years, conventional "telephone service" is likely to fall even faster. But if consumers won't pay for long-distance or for local phones, surely they'll still buy broadband, the necessary ingredient to use a free Internet phone, right? Not if Google's yet-to-be-announced strategy of free WiFi, or wireless Internet service, proves successful. The lesson for Congress is that in drafting Telecom Act 2.0, it should stop trying to craft inter-industry compromises, and do more to ensure it doesn't get in the way the next time technology and business models change.
[SOURCE: Wired In Washington, AUTHOR: Drew Clark]