News Heading

Video: Even Supporters Don’t Understand Title II Net Neutrality

September 30, 2014

by Mike Wendy
Media Freedom

This video shows a representative from Namecheap as he tries to describe Title II Net Neutrality, and the need for it.  Not surprisingly – because even the professional FCC lobbyists can’t tell you exactly what Title II Net Neutrality is – he stumbles along, and then finally comes to the conclusion that the entire Internet must be treated as a utility, and, anyway, all his group is really concerned about is that peoples’ access to information isn’t purposely slowed down by ISPs.

OK, now I get it.

What a deliberate mess the FCC has created. Read More…

Backdoor Net Neutrality

September 29, 2014

by Peter Roff
US News

If you missed the latest battle over of the Internet, don’t be surprised. The federal government has grown increasingly sneaky as it attempts to take control.

For most of the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission has attempted to ram through controversial policies known collectively as “net neutrality” under which people who use a lot of bandwidth could not be charged more than those who use a little, and big content companies like Netflix and YouTube would get a government-guaranteed free ride.

The idea has appeal to the so-called millennials, who seem to believe anything that’s on the Internet should be free – or mostly free – and that they shouldn’t have to pay more for using more bandwidth. As an economic proposition this will lead to a slowdown in technological innovations; companies that maintain the essential infrastructure will not have market-based incentives to make improvements.

Congress has said “no” to net neutrality. So have the federal courts, telling the FCC it does not have the authority to impose net neutrality on Internet service providers. Now the American people are saying “no,” too – but you probably haven’t heard about that because, in the battle between the pressure groups, the “pro” side is whining while the “con” side is winning.

[MORE: Cartoons about Congress]

The FCC recently proposed giving itself the authority to regulate the Internet as a public utility, much like electric power. As such, the agency argues it would then be able to impose net neutrality on the entire system by basically bringing it in through the back door in the dead of night when no one was looking. Before taking any action, however, the agency was required to put the regulations allowing it to do this out there for the public to review and comment on. It’s important to note that every comment has to be considered as part of the process of deciding whether – and how – to move forward.

Liberal groups organized in support of the idea. Calling their activities the “Battle for the Net,” they claimed they managed to generate 777,364 public comments to the FCC in favor of Net regulation. This sounds like a pretty substantial number and was the focus of many of the news commentaries on the issue.

What was missed, apparently, is that the folks behind StopInternetRegulation.org, who oppose treating the Internet like a public utility, drove 808,363 public comments on the same proposal in just three weeks – meaning, on a head-to-head basis, the “no” side has more support.

[SEE: Political Cartoons]

Americans, it appears, like the Internet just the way it is. Most of the news reports, however, seemed to miss this, which provoked the ire of those behind the “no” to regulation campaign.

“Everyone needs to get this story right,” said Phil Kerpen, president of the group American Commitment, which set up the StopInternetRegulation.org website. “[O]n our side are the vast majority of the American people who love the Internet the way it is – unregulated, supported by private investment in a free economy, competitive, and highly innovative,” he said in a release. “On the other side are radical left activists, who are seeking political control over the Internet.”

Kerpen continued:

The leftist proponents of regulation keep hiding their true agenda. They pretend to be defenders of the Internet we all know and love, but what they are actually advocating are massive new monopoly-style ‘public utility’ regulations on the Internet – regulations that have been opposed for decades by a bipartisan consensus which included President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, Democratic FCC Chairman Bill Kennard, and the bipartisan majorities in Congress who passed the 1996 Telecom Act specifically to move away from monopoly regulation and into the competitive world we live in today.

There are threats to the continued freedom of the Internet coming from all sides. Some people are lobbying to tax Internet access. Others want it regulated as a public utility, as explained above. Still more want to see the U.S. government give up its role supervising the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers – allowing the U.S.-chartered ICANN to become a wholly private entity, operating on its own authority, which just might allow information-censoring countries such as China, Russia and Iran to carry just as much or (in combination) more weight than the United States on Internet-governance issues.

Congress has said “no” to more regulation of the Internet. So have the federal courts. Now the American people have taken the same position. It’s time for the FCC to listen and to drop this whole, ridiculous idea.

Opponents of Internet Regulation Carry the Day

September 22, 2014

by Phil Kerpen
Hillicon Valley

An incredible thing happened in the recent reply-comment period regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to regulate the Internet like old-fashioned monopoly telephone service: the side telling the agency not to regulate carried the day.

The radical left, demanding federal regulatory control of the building blocks of the Internet, brought all the usual hype and hoopla and had free-spending corporate backers in Google and Netflix, who want regulators to force you to pay the costs of their downstream bandwidth, so they won’t have to. Read More…

Slippery Net Neutrality

September 22, 2014

by Mike Wendy
Media Freedom

The concept known as Net Neutrality is essentially a creature of the Left – a vessel into which it has poured all of its societal or other angst, framing a “problem” – which purposely has no defined edges – and then creating a “solution” to “fix” it.  If one has to generalize, Net Neutrality means the “non-discrimination” of content, applications, services or devices as they run over / attach to various points of the Internet.  In application (at this point in time), Net Neutrality “makes sure” that all the stuff flowing over the Internet from edge providers to end users gets treated equally and unmolested by the network providers.  When this occurs, the world is a better place.  So, we must have Net Neutrality, for without it, no one will ever be able to live freely again.  Ever.

It’s settled science. Read More…

Opponents of Internet Regulation Flip the Script

September 22, 2014

by Phil Kerpen
The Cagle Post

An incredible thing happened in the recent reply-comment period regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to regulate the Internet like old-fashioned monopoly telephone service: the side telling the agency not to regulate carried the day.

76817 600 Opponents of Internet Regulation Flip the Script cartoonsNate Beeler / Columbus Dispatch Read More…

Net Neutrality and the Dangers of Title II

September 30, 2014

by Brent Skorup
Tech Liberation

There are several “flavors” of net neutrality–Eli Noam at Columbia University estimates there are seven distinct meanings of the term–but most net neutrality proponents agree that reinterpreting the 1934 Communications Act and “classifying” Internet service providers as Title II “telecommunications” companies is the best way forward. Proponents argue that ISPs are common carriers and therefore should be regulated much like common carrier telephone companies. Last week I filed a public interest comment about net neutrality and pointed out why the Title II option is unwise and possibly illegal. Read More…

Video: Even Supporters Don’t Understand Title II Net Neutrality

September 30, 2014

by Mike Wendy
Media Freedom

This video shows a representative from Namecheap as he tries to describe Title II Net Neutrality, and the need for it.  Not surprisingly – because even the professional FCC lobbyists can’t tell you exactly what Title II Net Neutrality is – he stumbles along, and then finally comes to the conclusion that the entire Internet must be treated as a utility, and, anyway, all his group is really concerned about is that peoples’ access to information isn’t purposely slowed down by ISPs.

OK, now I get it.

What a deliberate mess the FCC has created. Read More…

Opponents of Internet Regulation Carry the Day

September 22, 2014

by Phil Kerpen
Hillicon Valley

An incredible thing happened in the recent reply-comment period regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to regulate the Internet like old-fashioned monopoly telephone service: the side telling the agency not to regulate carried the day.

The radical left, demanding federal regulatory control of the building blocks of the Internet, brought all the usual hype and hoopla and had free-spending corporate backers in Google and Netflix, who want regulators to force you to pay the costs of their downstream bandwidth, so they won’t have to. Read More…

Slippery Net Neutrality

September 22, 2014

by Mike Wendy
Media Freedom

The concept known as Net Neutrality is essentially a creature of the Left – a vessel into which it has poured all of its societal or other angst, framing a “problem” – which purposely has no defined edges – and then creating a “solution” to “fix” it.  If one has to generalize, Net Neutrality means the “non-discrimination” of content, applications, services or devices as they run over / attach to various points of the Internet.  In application (at this point in time), Net Neutrality “makes sure” that all the stuff flowing over the Internet from edge providers to end users gets treated equally and unmolested by the network providers.  When this occurs, the world is a better place.  So, we must have Net Neutrality, for without it, no one will ever be able to live freely again.  Ever.

It’s settled science. Read More…

Opponents of Internet Regulation Flip the Script

September 22, 2014

by Phil Kerpen
The Cagle Post

An incredible thing happened in the recent reply-comment period regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal to regulate the Internet like old-fashioned monopoly telephone service: the side telling the agency not to regulate carried the day.

76817 600 Opponents of Internet Regulation Flip the Script cartoonsNate Beeler / Columbus Dispatch 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