News Heading

The Forgotten Consumer

September 19, 2014

by Scott Cleland
The Daily Caller

Is the Internet consumer in charge or the product sold to others? Is net neutrality about protecting consumers or Silicon Valley?

We’ll learn the answers to these critical questions in the coming months when the FCC votes on a redo of its “Open Internet” order implementing net neutrality.

Silicon Valley vocally opposes “fast lanes” on the Internet — please let that rhetorical nonsense sink-in for a moment.

The industry that long complained America was behind in broadband speeds, and urges that America needs ultra-fast gigabit speeds to everyone, now opposes Internet “fast lanes.” Read More…

Should Governments Control the Internet?

September 19, 2014

by Paul Rosenzweig, Brett D. Schaefer and James L. Gattuso
The Haritage Foundation

The Internet is now critical to the U.S. economy. A recent Hudson Institute analysis estimated that the information, communications, and technology sector accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total growth of the U.S. economy from 2002 to 2007 – in other words, the sector was responsible for more than $340 billion of the $4.6 trillion increase in real gross output of the U.S. economy over that period. Small wonder, then, that Congress has taken a keen interest in the Commerce Department’s March 14 announcement that it intends to end its current supervisory role over ICANN — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — and facilitate the transition to a new, private-sector led, bottom-up system under which ICANN will operate. Most importantly, the U.S. will no longer oversee the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is responsible for the global coordination of the domain-name system — the system that, for example, ties “http://www.realclearpolicy.com” to this site. Read More…

Knives out for net neutrality fight

September 19, 2014

by Julian Hattem
The Hill

Lawmakers are sharpening their knives for a fight over new regulations on Internet service companies.

Public reaction to the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules for net neutrality — the notion that Comcast, Cox or other Internet service providers should be barred from blocking or slowing access to some websites — has been louder than anything the agency has experienced in the past.

But the battle has only just begun. Read More…

Use antitrust laws, not regulations to protect the Internet

September 19, 2014

by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va)
The Hill

The Internet’s rapid expansion to nearly every American home provides an engine of economic growth and a platform for a robust exchange of commerce and ideas. This unprecedented growth occurred in a competitive environment unburdened by new regulation. Leaders behind the Internet trailblazed uncharted territory with the freedom necessary to experiment and to grow.

As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and co-chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I am committed to promoting an open Internet marketplace where ideas, innovation and competition flourish, an Internet where consumers and their choices are protected, where businesses compete with one another fairly and where a system of checks and balances is rigorously applied to keep the Internet free. Read More…

Netflix Secretly Holds Subscribers Hostage to Gain Favorable FCC Internet Regulations

September 17, 2014

by Fred Campbell
Center for Boundless Innovation

A stunning revelation is buried in a lengthy Netflix filing at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Netflix used its subscribers as pawns in a Machiavellian game of regulatory chess designed to win favorable Internet regulations.

The filing reveals that Netflix knowingly slowed down its video streaming service with the intention of blaming Internet service providers (ISPs). Specifically, Netflix used its relationships with Internet ‘backbone’ providers (e.g., Level 3, Cogent) to deliberately congest their peering links with ISPs, and at the same time, started publishing ‘ISP speed rankings’ to make it appear that ISPs were causing the congestion. It appears that Netflix cynically held its subscribers hostage to reduced service quality in order to pressure the FCC into adopting favorable Internet regulations that would permanently lower Netflix’s costs of doing business. Read More…

The Forgotten Consumer

September 19, 2014

by Scott Cleland
The Daily Caller

Is the Internet consumer in charge or the product sold to others? Is net neutrality about protecting consumers or Silicon Valley?

We’ll learn the answers to these critical questions in the coming months when the FCC votes on a redo of its “Open Internet” order implementing net neutrality.

Silicon Valley vocally opposes “fast lanes” on the Internet — please let that rhetorical nonsense sink-in for a moment.

The industry that long complained America was behind in broadband speeds, and urges that America needs ultra-fast gigabit speeds to everyone, now opposes Internet “fast lanes.” Read More…

Should Governments Control the Internet?

September 19, 2014

by Paul Rosenzweig, Brett D. Schaefer and James L. Gattuso
The Haritage Foundation

The Internet is now critical to the U.S. economy. A recent Hudson Institute analysis estimated that the information, communications, and technology sector accounted for nearly 10 percent of the total growth of the U.S. economy from 2002 to 2007 – in other words, the sector was responsible for more than $340 billion of the $4.6 trillion increase in real gross output of the U.S. economy over that period. Small wonder, then, that Congress has taken a keen interest in the Commerce Department’s March 14 announcement that it intends to end its current supervisory role over ICANN — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — and facilitate the transition to a new, private-sector led, bottom-up system under which ICANN will operate. Most importantly, the U.S. will no longer oversee the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is responsible for the global coordination of the domain-name system — the system that, for example, ties “http://www.realclearpolicy.com” to this site. Read More…

Knives out for net neutrality fight

September 19, 2014

by Julian Hattem
The Hill

Lawmakers are sharpening their knives for a fight over new regulations on Internet service companies.

Public reaction to the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules for net neutrality — the notion that Comcast, Cox or other Internet service providers should be barred from blocking or slowing access to some websites — has been louder than anything the agency has experienced in the past.

But the battle has only just begun. Read More…

Broadband Roundup: Advocacy Groups Weigh in Pro-and-Con on Net Neutrality

September 19, 2014

by Austin Allen
Broadband Breakfast

WASHINGTON, September 17, 2014 – A variety of developments on the battle regarding network neutrality:

FreePress Tells FCC Title II Ensures Net Neutrality Protections

The advocacy group Free Press blasted Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s efforts to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the means to enough to ensure network neutrality rules. The group said that Title II reclassification of broadband as a common carrier under the Communications Act is the right approach to both restore legal clarity and encourage investment, it stated in a press release. Read More…

End the Costly Integration Ban – Part II

September 17, 2014

by Randolph J. May
Free State Foundation

For almost eight years, I have been urging, along with other Free State Foundation scholars, an end to the costly so-called “integration ban.”This outdated, costly FCC regulation bans cable operators from integrating the security and programming navigation functions in set-top boxes.

The supposed rationale for the integration ban, which was implemented in 2007, was to promote the availability of an independent retail market in set-top boxes. But, as I explained in my July 25 blog, “End the Costly Integration Ban,” from the very beginning, “in light of the competition among multichannel video providers that already then existed, it was clear that the costs imposed by the mandated separation of security and program navigation functions outweighed the consumer benefits.” The blog explains, at considerable length, and with links to several of FSF’s works on the subject, why it is time — indeed, way past time — to end the integration ban. Read More…

Free State Foundation Comments

September 17, 2014

by Free State Foundation

On the issue of            )           AT&T and Direct TV merger

COMMENTS OF
THE FREE STATE FOUNDATION*
I. Introduction and Summary
These comments are filed in response to the Commission’s request for comments
concerning the agency’s review of the transfer of control of licenses in connection with the
proposed acquisition of DIRECTV by AT&T Inc. These comments do not endorse or oppose the
proposed merger. Rather, their purpose is to set out baseline principles by which the Commission
should evaluate this as well as other mergers and to provide a summary analysis of
AT&T/DIRECTV in light of those principles.
Mergers and acquisitions are competitive entrepreneurial activities Read More…

Free-Market Advocates’ Comments to FCC, Opposing Internet Regulation

July 15, 2014

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of  Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet

GN Docket No. 14-28

Comments of

Free-Market Advocates Opposed to Internet Regulation

For 10 years officials at the Federal Communications Commission have told Americans that the Internet will “break” unless the agency steps in to keep it “free and open.”  All the while, the Internet’s privately driven development has been vibrant, relentless and universal.  Nevertheless, at points during this same period the Commission twice sought to encumber the Internet with restrictive common carrier-like, Net Neutrality regulations.  In response to each of these actions, the DC Circuit twice struck down the agency’s overreach.  In the latest DC Circuit ruling – Verizon v. FCC[1] – the Court struck down the main thrust of the Commission’s arguments, but found that the Commission had some authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act.   The Commission has apparently undertaken the present Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to once again establish a regulatory regime in the absence of a market failure or a clear Congressional grant of authority.

The Internet is “free and open,” making the vast “network of networks” an integral engine for societal growth, participatory democracy and global commerce.  Its healthy development came primarily through the lack of government regulation, not because of it.  Although the Court seems to have offered the FCC a very narrow pathway to impose some form of Net Neutrality regulation on the Internet, nothing demands that the FCC go forward with its present plans.

Read More…

IFC Reply Comments to FCC: Title II Reclassification Unjustified, Unnecessary

August 12, 2010

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service                    

GN Docket No. 10-127

FCC Docket No. 10-114

 Reply Comments

of the Undersigned Members of the

INTERNET FREEDOM COALITION

Introduction

The Commission is being asked by Free Press and other organizations to pursue a radical course of action – reclassifying information services as telecommunications services in order to regulate the Internet for the first time.  We write to urge the Commission to keep the Internet free of new government regulation and taxation and to refrain from rushing into such a potentially disastrous course of action.

Analysts are only beginning to grasp the extent of the disruptive and destructive consequences of regulating the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and the Commission is in no position to predict the outcome, much less assure Americans it will be positive.  Americans have heard political leaders admit that we will not know the full extent or nature of massive health care and financial services regulations until after the underlying legislation has been passed.  Now, Americans are facing the imposition of an even lesser-understood regulatory regime over the Internet without the benefit of any legislative process whatsoever.

CLICK HERE FOR PDF

IFC Supplemental Reply Comments: FCC Lacks Authority, Justification for Reclassifying Internet as Title II Service

April 26, 2010

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.

Read More…

IFC Reply Comments to FCC: Refuting Free Press’ Arguments for Regulating the Internet

April 26, 2010

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.

Read More…

Social Heading