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”!
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.
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.
Opposition to net neutrality dominated the second round of the Federal Communications Commission’s comment period, according to an analysis from the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency nonprofit.
Those comments — making up about 60 percent of submissions — came nearly exclusively from form letters originating from a group calling itself American Commitment.
That is a reversal from the first batch of comments, when the vast majority of comments were in support of net neutrality and only a sliver expressed opposition to regulations to ensure all Internet traffic is treated equally. Read More…
By Mario Trujillo and Julian Hattem
THE LEDE: The Federal Communications Commission is standing behind its count that 3.9 million public comments were submitted regarding proposed rules on net neutrality.
The Sunlight Foundation took issue with the number in a blog post Tuesday, in one of the first comprehensive analyses of the final round of comments, which ended in September.
“We spent enough time with these files that we’re reasonably sure that the FCC’s comment counts are incorrect and that our analysis is reasonably representative of what’s there,” the open government group wrote. Read More…
Sixty percent of the FCC’s second round of net neutrality comments voiced opposition to regulation, but the bulk of those appear to be linked to a Koch-backed organization. Sony hackers are now warning moviegoers who see “The Interview” that they could fall victim to a 9/11-sized terrorist attack. And the Senate has confirmed FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly to a new term at the agency.
FCC FLOODED WITH ANTI-REGULATION COMMENTS: Net neutrality advocates dominated the FCC’s first comment period, but it appears that net neutrality opponents won the second round. According to an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation, 60 percent of the second round comments were made by critics of net neutrality.
But the transparency group pins this reversal primarily on a form letter from one organization, American Commitment. The conservative group with ties to the Koch Brothers was single-handedly responsible for 56.5 per Read More…
Seth L. Cooper
The Internet is a continuing success story of high-tech innovation and economic vitality. Critical to that success is the largely hands-off approach that federal government has taken toward regulating and taxing the Internet.
But a federal agency, at the urging of President Obama, now aims to subject Internet services to new restrictions — and to stick Internet consumers with billions in costly new fees and taxes.
In a Nov. 10 public announcement, Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to stop regulating broadband Internet lightly as an “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act and reclassify it as a “telecommunications service” under Title II of the act. Read More…
Randolph J. May
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler apparently is still considering adopting new net neutrality regulations that are based in some measure on classifying Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II regulation is derived directly from the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the public utility-like regime developed in the 19th century to control the rates and practices of the railroads. This form of regulation was included in the 1934 Communications Act to regulate what was then the monopolistic Ma Bell system.
There are many policy reasons why Wheeler should take the prospect of Title II regulation off the table — including the fact that adopting Title II classification will result in the imposition of substantial new taxes and surcharges on consumers’ bills. But here I want to focus on one particular, thus far unremarked upon, aspect of the legal difficulty that Title II classification would pose. Read More…
Transcription – Free Press’ Craig Aaron on bullhorn: “We’ve brought in a giant magnifying glass. ‘Cuz we are going to symbolize how closely we’re going to be watching these rules and this decision. And how carefully we’re going to be scrutinizing if this is real Title II. Not fake Title II. No loopholes. No poison pills. We will only settle for real Net Neutrality.“
Demonstrator in background holding sign: “Title II is common carrier classification?“
Voice off-camera: “You got it.”
Aaron: “That is. That’s right. Com Read More…
For anyone born after 1985, the idea of connecting with a relative on FaceTime, Skyping a friend traveling abroad, or discussing a Halo mission with friends over a headset in real time is second nature.
But it’s equally true that these services might never have come to pass without significant efforts over a decade ago by many in the Internet community to keep government regulators at bay as they actively considered how to regulate these technologies.
Back then, we argued that the government could play a key role by exercising restraint and letting innovators innovate. In particular, a large chorus of innovators (as well as President Clinton and a bipartisan Congressional leadership) argued then that the government should not regulate the Internet as a public utility. But in a striking display of amnesia, this is exactly what President Obama is now calling for as the best way to preserve Internet openness. Read More…
The FCC is currently considering ways to make municipal broadband projects easier to deploy, an exercise that has drawn substantial criticism from Republicans, who passed a bill to prevent FCC preemption of state laws. Today the Mercatus Center released a policy analysis of municipal broadband projects, titled Community Broadband, Community Benefits? An Economic Analysis of Local Government Broadband Initiatives. The researcher is Brian Deignan, an alumnus of the Mercatus Center MA Fellowship. Brian wrote an excellent, empirical paper about the economic effects of publicly-funded broadband.
It’s remarkable how little empirical research there is on municipal broadband investment, despite years of federal data and billions of dollars in federal investment (notably, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). This dearth of research is in part because muni broadband proponents, as Brian points out, expressly downplay the relevance of economic evidence and suggest that the pr Read More…
President Obama recently weighed in on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality proceedings, basically endorsing a government takeover of the internet. Given the president’s predilections for executive orders, the decision is not surprising. Imposing sweeping new regulations on the internet would continue the expansion of the administrative state that the president favors. But new regulations come at the price of reduced innovation and lower levels of capital investment, which is unfortunate, because neither the administration nor the FCC have yet to make the case that current internet policies have been problematic.
In fact, a look at the internet’s development demonstrates just the opposite: limited regulation has fostered the development of one of the most important and disruptive technologies of our time. In spite of-or, more likely, because of-light-handed regulation, the internet has evolved at a pace that is transforming large swathes of the economy. Today, there are 2.5 billion people connected to the internet. By the 2016, the internet is expected to generate $4.2 trillion in economic activity among the G-20 nations. Read More…
Ben Fox Rubin
Sixty companies involved in building the Internet’s backbone cautioned US government officials Wednesday against placing stricter rules on broadband Internet providers, saying such a change would bring a huge drop in investment for infrastructure projects.
The Federal Communications Commission is working on new guidelines for how broadband providers can manage Web traffic on their networks. Sitting in the middle of a contentious debate, the FCC has to weigh the interests of Internet service providers against those of Web companies and users. Service providers could profit if they were to charge some companies more money for better Internet speeds, while many Internet companies and users want to ensure all online traffic is treated the same, a concept known as Net neutrality. Read More…
No one loves their public utilities. They’re slow, unresponsive to change, and only just good enough for government work, which isn’t saying much.
If you’d talk to progressives working in the Internet space, though, you’d hear a different story. They think that utilities, and the 19th Century regulation used to control them, are the greatest things since sliced bread. You see, they want to make private U.S. broadband providers public utilities, and radical groups like Free Press, Public Knowledge and MoveOn.org have pulled out all of the stops to get the Federal Communications Commission to do so.
Why? Read More…
by Free State Foundation
On the issue of ) AT&T and Direct TV merger
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet
GN Docket No. 14-28
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 – 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.
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
of the Undersigned Members of the
INTERNET FREEDOM COALITION
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.
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.