It has been...
Without a "net neutrality" problem. Strangely however, with every passing “no-problem” day, the pro-regulation crowd becomes ever more shrill and ever more insistent that if government doesn’t regulate, it will be “the end of the Internet as we know it”!
Take Action and Stop the Takeover
The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with proposed "Open Internet" rules, which would give federal regulators vast new powers, and ultimately lead to government control of the Internet.
Join The Internet Freedom Coalition
The Internet has become a powerful communications and economic force because it has been free from government interference. To make sure the power and promise of the Internet continues, we need to keep it free of government interference.
Notable Quotes
Visit this page to view notable quotes regarding this issue from a variety of industry experts as well as well known news outlets and authorities.
Click the link below to get started, and please share this resource with friends and family.
FCC Commissioner Genachowski Again Offers Very Little in Defense of his Internet Land Grab
By Seton Motley
BigGovernment.com
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski continues his persistent push to dramatically increase his Commission’s regulatory authority over the Internet.
He remains just as persistent in refusing to offer a substantive legal authority for doing it.
This could be because there really isn’t one. And it’s not just me saying it. It’s also a unanimous D.C. Circuit Court (in the Comcast-BitTorrent case), 282 members of Congress – including 74 House Democrats, and even seventeen minority groups who almost NEVER line up against any Democrat anywhere.
Rep. Dingell tells FCC to drop move for broadband regulations
By Cecilia Kang
Post Tech – The Washington Post
Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), former head of the Commerce & Energy Committee, said Wednesday that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should drop his push to re-regulate broadband lines.
Dingell wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Wednesday that he felt the controversial effort was being done in haste. He came up with that conclusion after receiving a “paucity” of answers from Genachowski on the move.
“Unfortunately, the Commission could not respond to my questions in sufficient detail,” said Dingell in a statement. “This substantiates my fear that the commission is proceeding along a precarious path that will lead to bad policy and result in protracted litigation.”
Conservative ethics group claims new evidence against White House for ties to Google
By Sara Jerome
The Hill’s Hillicon Valley
A conservative group claims it has obtained new evidence that White House deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin had improper contact with Google, his former employer.
The White House has said McLaughlin’s e-mails with Google employees had no effect on policy decisions, but The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) on Thursday said it has obtained new evidence that complicates that assertion.
The group said it obtained e-mails from McLaughlin that have not previously been made public through a Freedom of Information Act request. The NLPC charges that the e-mails show “a more serious investigation of potential ethics breaches is warranted.”
Harmony Institute and Free Press Seek to Create Net Neutrality Propaganda
By Adam Thierer
BigGovernment.com
Interesting article in the New York Times today about how the radical media activist group Free Press is now working with an organization called The Harmony Institute toward the goal of “Adding Punch to Influence Public Opinion.” The way they want to “add punch” is through entertainment propaganda. TheTimes article notes that Harmony’s mission is “aimed at getting filmmakers and others to use the insights and techniques of behavioral psychology in delivering social and political messages through their work.” And now they want to use such “behavioral psychology” and “political messaging” (read: propaganda) techniques in pursuit of Net neutrality regulation.
More on that agenda in a second. First, I just have to note the irony of Harmony’s founder John S. Johnson citing “The Day After Tomorrow” as a model for the sort of thing he wants to accomplish. According to the Times interview with him, he says the movie’s “global warming message [and] rip-roaring story, appeared to alter attitudes among young and undereducated audiences who would never see a preachy documentary.” I love this because “The Day After Tomorrow” was such a shameless piece of globe warming doomsday propaganda that it must have even made the people at Greenpeace blush in embarrassment. After all, here is a movie that claims global warming will result in an instantaneous global freeze (how’s that work again?) and leave kids scurrying for the safety of New York City libraries until a quick thaw comes a couple of weeks later. (Seriously, have you seen that movie? That’s the plot!) So apparently we can expect some pretty sensational, fear-mongering info-tainment from Harmony and Free Press.
But here’s what’s better: Do you know who produced “The Day After Tomorrow”? Oh, that’s right… Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation financed and distributed that movie!! The man that Free Press casts as the nefarious media overlord set to take over all media and program our brains gave us the greatest piece of radical environmental propaganda of modern times. Now, which does that prove: (A) Rupert Murdoch is hell-bent on programming our minds to embrace a sweeping global warming regulatory agenda, or (B) Rupert Murdoch is out to entertain people and make money? If you answered B, congratulations for being a sensible person. If you answered A, then click here now to start giving money to the Free Press!
OK, so let’s get back to Free Press and what they are up to with the Harmony Institute (which I originally thought was an online dating site). Free Press apparently hired Harmony to research public attitudes about Net neutrality and how to influence them. Harmony’s Johnson tells the Times they got interested in the Net neutrality because Free Press and the Pacific Foundation paid them handsomely to do so. And it appears Free Press got their money’s worth.
Title II: The Great Divide
By John Eggerton
Broadcasting & Cable
Net Neutrality Combatants Confer With FCC In Private, Spar In Public
Washington — Representatives from both sides of the network- neutrality debate continue to meet in private with Edward Lazarus, chief of staff to Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski, but publicly they’re still diametrically opposed as to how the agency should clarify its broadband authority.
According to documents filed with the FCC, those pushing for network-neutrality rules — Google, Skype, the Open Internet Coalition, cable operators and telephone companies — are still talking about a legislative “fix” to the problem raised when a U.S. appeals court called into question the agency’s authority to regulate broadband in the Comcast-BitTorrent case.
Free Press: Shame on you!
By Jorge Bauermeister
Latino Internet Justice
I just read of a document published by FreePress and the Harmony Institute regarding their plan to sell Net Neutrality to minorities (“telenovela” style). I’m giving you a quick peek about the issue in this post, and I promise to have a longer one tomorrow. But here are the highlights.
“Currently the public likes the way the Internet works. Internet users and businesses generally have a positive relation- ship with their ISP and believe they can access what they want, when they want it.
Thus, “prevention” focused words should be at the core of a communications campaign. Messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly to “prevent” or “minimize” the potential for a centrally controlled Internet. Given that survey respondents did not respond well to government intervention and policymaking, framing legislative activity as a “public responsibility” may persuade more people to contact their legislators.”
How do you like that? No wonder they have been using apocalyptic messages all along. They have equated the net neutrality debate to the Gulf Oil Spill, to Wall Street’s meltdown, and most recently they even called it a Civil Rights Issue. SHAME ON THEM!
Amazom.com Switches Sides on Net Neutrality
By Steven Titch
Out of Control Policy Blog
In a startling guest column on CNET yesterday, Paul Misener, vice president for global public policy at Amazon.com, for all practical purposes reversed his company’s stand on network neutrality, particularly the controversial non-discrimination rule, which would prohibit ISPs from creating and charging providers of large-scale content, applications and commerce for faster broadband connections and tiered quality of service.
In his column, Misener concedes what many free market bloggers and friends have argued for years: that the net neutrality rules are a solution in search of a problem, and that large providers like Amazon already invest in techniques that ensure quality delivery of content and apps, albeit at the edge, not within the network cloud. Misener writes:
First, there have been almost no Net neutrality violations. Opponents of Net neutrality rules say this record demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary–that Net neutrality is “a solution in search of a problem.” But actually, the threats of legislation (since 2007) and FCC regulation (since 2009) have kept the network operators on their best behavior.
FCC’s Report on Broadband Internet “is Not Reasonable and Timely”
By Kelly William Cobb
Americans for Tax Reform Blog
Today, 95% of all Americans have access to at least 4 Mbps broadband Internet – something unheard of a decade ago. 59% of Americans use a laptop or mobile phone with a wireless connection to get online. Well over three-quarters of Americans have access to 3G wireless Internet, with a choice of multiple providers. And amidst this development, the price to access the Internet has dropped by 23 percent since 2004, while overall consumer prices went up.
Yet, this week the Federal Communications Commission issued its Sixth Annual Broadband Deployment Report (PDF), concluding all of this success “is not reasonable and timely.” By what measurement? Since 2005, telecommunications and IT companies have invested $576 billion into building out infrastructure, which now accounts for almost half of non-infrastructure investment. Since 2003, Internet service providers have dropped $27 billion per year into expanding and improving networks. I’d say that’s a reasonable amount of investment.
Sen. DeMint Offers Bill to Halt FCC’s Internet Regulation Scheme
By Kelly William Cobb
Americans for Tax Reform Blog
Amidst the Federal Communications Commission’s overzealous drive to regulate the Internet, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) today introduced a bill that would curb the ability for the FCC to apply regulations at whim. The Freedom for Consumer Choice Act (or FCC Act) requires the FCC to provide clear evidence of a market failure before any regulations on the Internet could be enacted. It also requires the Commission to review the potential costs of its actions (which we’ve partially highlighted here, here, and here) and to revisit regulations every five years to ensure they are still relevant.
Sen. DeMint’s legislation rightly questions the FCC’s Internet regulation scheme, while simultaneously calling the Commission out for failing to justify the need for such regulations. It already has the support of Sens. Hatch (R-Utah), Ensign (R-Nev.), Thune (R-S.D.), Coburn (R-Okla.), Cornyn (R-Texas), and Sessions (R-Ala.). From ATR’s letter of support to the U.S. Senate:
Today, over 95 percent of Americans have access to high-speed broadband by the FCC’s own admission. The Internet is universally regarded as free, open, and flourishing. It has become a vital backbone in the American economy, outpacing the overall economy nearly four to one. The telecommunications and IT industries are a source of hundreds of billions in U.S. investment – nearly half of all non-structural investment – and have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet, the FCC’s onerous regulatory ambitions will severely imperil this and future innovation, investment, and job growth.
To date, a vast bipartisan majority in Congress have expressed concern that the FCC’s regulatory proposal will be detrimental to broadband expansion and adoption. U.S. courts have ruled that the Internet should remain unregulated and that the FCC is attempting to “shatter” the bounds of its authority. Minority groups, family groups, labor unions, and limited government activists alike are part of the public’s overwhelming chorus of opposition to the Commission’s plan.
To see the entire letter, click here.
Minorities Stand Up Against Internet Regulation
By Robert Woodsum
Americans for Tax Reform Blog
On Monday, a group of minority organizations issued a letter to Congress urging members to oppose the Federal Communication Commission’s need to reclassify broadband Internet and assume regulatory powers. The letter comes with a legal defense, challenging the FCC’s authority to enact such rulemaking. They also believe that reclassification will hinder any efforts to expand broadband across the country. These organizations, which include 100 Black Men of America Inc., Hispanic Telecommunication and Technology Partnership, Japanese American Citizens League, and the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, join the growing bipartisan Congressional opposition of this ploy by the FCC.
“In light of the FCC’s recent adoption of a Notice of Inquiry on broadband classification, we, the undersigned civil rights and other organizations, have concerns about the unintended implications that such efforts could have on the state of broadband deployment and adoption across the country. Rather, we urge you and your colleagues in Congress to step in and clarify the scope and direction of the FCC’s authority, thereby restoring certainty and clarity to the broadband environment.”
IFC Supplemental Reply Comments: FCC Lacks Authority, Justification for Reclassifying Internet as Title II Service
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Preserving the Open Internet GN Docket No. 09-191
Broadband Industry Practices WC Docket No. 07-52
Supplemental Reply Comments of the Internet Freedom Coalition
Just two days prior to the Commission’s deadline for reply comments regarding the above Notice of Proposed Rulemakings, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Comcast v. FCC that the Commission has no authority to enact Net Neutrality rules. The deadline for comments was extended, particularly to facilitate discussion of other methods of promulgating Net Neutrality regulations.
Beginning with comments on the National Broadband Plan filed by Public Knowledge in January, a small number of organizations have since proposed classifying the Internet as a Title II common carrier service as a way of asserting the Commission’s authority to enact Net Neutrality regulations. The Internet Freedom Coalition respectfully submits these reply comments in strong opposition to any effort to reclassify the Internet as a Title II service.
IFC Reply Comments to FCC: Refuting Free Press’ Arguments for Regulating the Internet
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Preserving the Open Internet GN Docket No. 09-191
Broadband Industry Practices WC Docket No. 07-52
Reply Comments of the Internet Freedom Coalition
The following comments are submitted by the undersigned members of the Internet Freedom Coalition. They are submitted in reply to comments filed by proponents of Network Neutrality regulations, and are attributable only to the signatories.
Internet Freedom Coalition Comments to the FCC, Opposing Network Neutrality Regulations
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191
Broadband Industry Practices WC Docket No. 07–52; FCC 09–93
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Comments of the Internet Freedom Coalition
Introduction
The Internet Freedom Coalition is an ad hoc coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the continued growth and improvement of the Internet, who believe regulations and taxes are harmful to those ends. The Internet Freedom Coalition believes that a free and open Internet is beneficial, but argues that regulatory intervention in the well-functioning marketplace that has thus far produced a vast, free and open network would unnecessarily limit the current and future supply of bandwidth, and would harm both producers and consumers. These comments are attributable only to the individual signatories.
