|
|
Don't let the government slow Internet progress 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.
|
|
Latest from the IFC Don’t just extend the Net tax moratorium; keep it for good Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Jason Wright WASHINGTON - Across the nation, local governments are looking for ways to make the Internet more accessible to citizens and encourage its use. From school programs to telecommuting initiatives to reduce traffic, local governments are rightly finding efficient use of the Internet as a powerful tool. And they are realizing that the Internet has become such an integral part of life that it is no longer optional for many people. States talk about the “digital divide” and actively work to encourage and enable adoption. At the same time, many are straining at the bit to penalize and discourage use by taxing Internet access. The only thing keeping them from doing it is the moratorium enacted by Congress in 1998. If allowed to lapse — as it is scheduled to do on Nov. 1 — Americans will face different barriers to Internet use depending on where they live. That would be a substantial drag on adoption and improvement of the Internet. The discrepancy between encouraging Internet use and then penalizing it through taxation borders on hypocrisy. For instance, some states have created powerful Web sites and encourage people to use them to access state information and systems. Poor citizens need services just as much — sometimes more — than rich ones. Taxing access sends a powerful message: Not only do we expect you to pay your service provider a monthly fee, but we want our pound of flesh, too, before you get our services. This is doubly galling when one considers that moving services to the Internet ultimately saves money by reducing the number of people needed to service constituents. Education provides another good example. Teachers assume that kids have access to the Internet at home. Instant access to global resources has become an important part of teaching. Many schools even post homework on the Web and use e-mail to communicate with students. It doesn’t make sense for states to spend thousands of dollars a year for each student and then tax a key part of the learning process. As budgets get tighter, states are tempted to add new taxes. In the case of Internet access, legislators need to do something that many struggle with: trust the market. Many of the things that people do on the Internet will ultimately generate additional tax revenue. “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies to Internet commerce as well as it does anywhere else. There is no denying that billions of dollars are spent over the Internet. A strong economy helps the nation and the states. The added state revenue that would come from taxing Internet access would be more than offset by the loss of money caused by a slowing of the Internet economy. This is a federal issue. The playing field must be level when it is so easy to operate across the country and the world. Congress is considering extending for a few more years the moratorium on Internet access taxes. This is not enough. The ban should be permanent. State and local governments need to start looking for other sources of revenue. Service providers need a known environment so they can build a stable business model and then follow it to build out their networks. Just extending the moratorium will cause them to hedge and move more cautiously. Finally, consumers need to know that their Internet bill will not creep up at the whim of legislators. So Congress, don’t just extend the moratorium. Kill the Internet tax for good. Jason Wright is president of the Institute for Liberty and co-founder of the Internet Free Coalition. Examiner Labels: Internet Tax Moratorium 11/06/2007 10:56:00 AMRead more! Press Release: FCC Should Not Interfere in Cable Application Market Monday, November 5, 2007 Federally Controlled Application Standards Could Impede Innovation FCC SHOULD NOT INTERFERE IN CABLE APPLICATION MARKET Federally Controlled Application Standards Could Impede Innovation WASHINGTON D.C. - The Federal Communications Commission should refrain from regulating technical standards in the cable industry, explains Adam Thierer in "Unplugging Plug-and-Play Regulation," a Progress on Point released today by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. The author warns that leaving standards creation in control of the government, as opposed to private negotiation, would do little to benefit consumers. Instead, FCC-controlled standards could hinder the cable applications and platform market by restricting future development and innovation to inferior technology. In his paper, Thierer, PFF Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom, addresses two competing proposals currently before the FCC concerning ways the FCC can facilitate development of two-way cable services, such as pay-per-view and video-on-demand. One proposal from the consumer electronics industry requests that the FCC impose "common carrier" type regulations on cable facilities in order to ensure third party service providers are able to have input into interoperability standards for their products. However, the author warns, "regulation of this market could impose significant costs on industry and consumers alike by locking in sub-optimal technical standards and expanding the FCC's authority to micro-manage the industry in the future." Thierer explains that FCC regulation can only be warranted if there is an identified market failure in the cable applications market. With no reported exclusions of third-party services and applications, pre-emptive regulation is not justified. Consumer demand and other entertainment platforms, such as FIOS and programming available via the Internet, provide competition in the market which will discourage attempts to block application providers. The FCC should also not deny cable companies the right to develop services and applications for their networks in favor of third-party innovation. Thierer concludes that if the FCC wants to promote development of features and services for cable, they should refrain from imposing open access type regulations. Instead, he explains, "the better approach is to encourage ongoing marketplace experimentation, private negotiations, and greater facilities-based competition." "Unplugging Plug-and-Play Regulation" is available on the . The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. It is a 501(c)(3) research & educational organization.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif -------------------------------------------------- Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. http://ga1.org/join-forward.html?domain=pff&r=Ap3JdM11RfxQ Labels: net neutrality 11/05/2007 11:33:00 PMRead more! IFC reiterates strong opposition to extend "must carry" rules IFC Coalition Letter The Honorable Kevin Martin, Chairman The Honorable Deborah Taylor Tate The Honorable Robert McDowell The Honorable Michael Copps The Honorable Jonathan Adelstein Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 October 19, 2007 Dear Commissioners: The undersigned organizations wish to reiterate their strong opposition to proposals to extend “must carry” rules for cable operators to include the multiple streams of programming broadcasters may offer following the transition to digital television. To do so would impose what is an unreasonable and likely unconstitutional burden on cable operators. Currently, cable operators are required to carry certain commercial and public television stations -- already a government mandated taking of cable operators’ privately built property. However, following the upcoming digital transition, broadcasters will be able to divide their digital spectrum to offer multiple streams. A multicast must carry requirement could increase the amount of property seized from cable providers by six times or more, with no just compensation from broadcasters – a likely violation of the takings clause of the Constitution. A requirement that cable providers carry every single stream on separate channels might also impede those companies from offering additional services including high-speed Internet, HDTV and Internet phone service – services on the cutting edge that have been developed to meet the needs and desires of subscribers. Cable operators have built large private infrastructures at enormous costs, and depend upon private subscribers for their survival and success, while broadcasters already enjoy free license to use public airwaves. To give broadcasters a free ride on cable operators’ private infrastructure would represent the worst sort of government mandate, and would fly in the face of the property rights protections found in the Constitution. We strongly urge the Commission not to support a multicast must carry rule for cable, and instead to allow the free market to determine the programming offered to cable subscribers. Sincerely, Grover Norquist Americans for Tax Reform David Keene American Conservative Union Fred Smith Competitive Enterprise Institute Kristina Rasmussen National Taxpayers Union Kelsey Zahourek Property Rights Alliance Derek Hunter Media Freedom Project Michelle Korsmo Americans for Prosperity Michael Flynn Reason Foundation Jim Martin 60 Plus Association Chuck Muth Citizen Outreach Jeff Mazzella Center for Individual Freedom Jason Wright Institute for Liberty Ryan Ellis American Shareholders Association Labels: net neutrality 11/05/2007 11:32:00 PMRead more! Previous Posts: Top News
|
|
© 2007 Internet Freedom Coalition ® All rights reserved