The New York Times posted a story about a police office who participated in online chats about raping and cannibalizing women, including his wife. The story is horrific because it reminds you what depraved thoughts we as humans may have toward one another and that these thoughts are being expressed online everyday.

Fortunately the women discussed in these chat rooms were not harmed so the prosecution may have a hard time showing that thinking and talking about it was a crime. There was plenty of malice but no bodily injury or harm.

My question is, what would be the difference between a horror movie writer like Stephen King or Rob Zombie sitting in on an online chat discussing different more macabre ways to scare their audiences? Would the notion that the discussion is being held merely for artistic purposes be enough to distinguish the two conversations?

If not, then this police officer might get off. If so, then the Internet might be subjected to a different level of scrutiny.

Blair Levin and Reed Hundt collaborated on an op-ed piece for MercuryNews.com laying out some tax and regulatory policy initiatives that they hope can spur additional investments in networks that deliver not only communications, but can also be used for efficient use of our energy grid.

What caught my specific attention was an observation by Messrs. Levin and Hundt:

“The knowledge platform-the Internet and everything that rides on it – should be expanded so that the United States leads the world in delivering education, health care, public safety, and all government services from the cloud to broadband connected devices.”

I wonder if, in the argument for policies that would spur broadband adoption, we are failing to start the discussion at the very beginning of the adoption process. I wonder if we are forgetting to apply a basic supply and demand model to the discussion.

Broadband adoption begins with the supplier of content. The content producer, whether a retail service, media company, academic institution, etc., constantly seeks techniques and technology that make delivery of content less expensive. This was the case in the 1990s when Vice-President Al Gore was given the task of incorporating the Internet into the federal government’s communications system. This was the model within which Amazon was created.

On the other end of the knowledge commerce conduit is the end user or consumer of the content. Broadband is important on this end not primarily because it puts information in the consumer’s hands (the consumer has been getting information from other sources and mediums in the past), but it justifies or completes the content providers cost model.

In the middle is the carrier, the value of whose network increases with the addition of more end users, yes, but more importantly with the addition of more content providers. Consumers have to have a reason to join the network, and the value of joining is directly related to the type, amount, and quality of information circulating on the Internet.

The Federal Communications Commission’s adoption policy has been focusing on subsidizing the build-out of networks via universal service funds, expecting not only to provide a mechanism for getting broadband into underserved, unserved, or high-cost rural areas, but indirectly reducing the costs of subscribing to broadband access services. While this approach may have contributed to increased subscriber penetration for plain old telephone service, broadband is a different beast.

The best policy for broadband would be a free market, non-interventionist approach allowing all three major market participants to enter agreements for the creation, delivery, and consumption of knowledge and information passing over the net. If politics forces government intervention to create a market (an unfortunate scenario), then government should act merely as a clearinghouse for exchanging information on the pros and cons of broadband adoption, both by content providers and content consumers.

This is where the emphasis of policy should be placed. Any other intervention, including a universal service mechanism of any kind would only distort market signals and lead to inefficient pricing, the type of pricing that would not fully account for the demand for broadband in the first place.

Larry Downes has a piece on CNET.com where takes issue with a preference by California’s regulators to regulate Internet-based telephony. I invite you to read the article here. Mr. Downes reminds the readers how notoriously slow regulators are when it comes to removing roadblocks to the introduction of new services such as call waiting back in the 1980s.

Regulators are notoriously slow to recognizing the advent of new technology. Imagine if regulators regulated wireless? The 500,000 apps we enjoy today would be near nonexistent.

I would prefer state regulators get more in front of the spectrum issue. Although spectrum access is a federal matter, state PUCs can throw some weight and expertise around by persuading localities to support zoning requests for antennas and towers. They can also explain to the public that a spectrum crunch is pending and that an important resource for accessing state services may be severely impacted. This would be the better use of state regulator time than trying to regulate the Internet.

Yesterday Broadband for America released a study supporting continued regulatory hands off approach to the Internet. Here are some of the reports take-aways:

• Being unregulated has helped the Internet grow and expand in the face of “demand that is not just explosive in volume but unpredictable in type. Supply has unfailingly met demand, at ever-lower prices.”
• Regulated telecommunications services have been hurt by delay and rigidity. “The Internet’s responsiveness and adaptability stands in stark contrast to the rigidity created by the regulatory compensation regimes that have stifled conventional telephony. […] What makes the Internet so effective is not just its own simplicity and adaptability, but the absence of externally imposed rigidity.”
• Regulation will get in the way of innovation. “Any attempt to impose economic regulation on the Internet is likely to slow not only its own evolution but the innovation at the edge that depends on the Internet’s core.”
• “Were the Internet subjected to economic regulation, investors would expect slower growth and less responsiveness not only in the market for infrastructure, but in the edge markets for services, applications and devices that rely on it. Funding the Internet’s infrastructure would become more difficult.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady wrote an opinion piece on the impact Wi-Fi access could have on the Cuban government. In her piece she interviews Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and gets his views on how the Internet can encourage discussion and hopefully dissension among Cuba’s inhabitants.

Social media helped to remove a regime in Egypt. It could, given the ability of people to organize via social media, do the same in Cuba.

Looking forward to the Facebook post that finally says, “No mas Castro y adios.”