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.
How net neutrality regulations could undermine the open Internet
by Tim Lee
Washington Post
In recent years supporters of network neutrality have tried and failed to get Congress to enact neutrality regulations. In 2010, Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s choice to lead the Federal Communications Commission, decided to act anyway, relying on a controversial interpretation of existing statutes to justify a new regime of “open Internet” rules.
At the time, most network neutrality supporters described Genachowski’s as a step in the right direction. But some warned that the FCC’s legal arguments, if accepted by the courts, could be bad for network neutrality in the long run. They could open the door to future FCC regulations—for example, to combat online gambling, pornography, or piracy—that could actually undermine Internet freedom.
MetroPCS drops challenge to net neutrality rules
by Brendan Sasso
Hillicon Valley
MetroPCS dropped its lawsuit challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality regulations on Friday, leaving Verizon to continue the legal battle against the rules on its own.
T-Mobile, which was not challenging the rules, acquired MetroPCS earlier this month.
The FCC’s rules require wireline broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally. Cellphone carriers are prohibited from blocking any apps or services.
Should Conservatives Vote to Give Tax Collectors MORE Power?
by Bartlett D. Cleland
Institute for Policy Innovation
The U.S. Senate recently approved a measure handing significant new powers to each state’s department of revenue, the state equivalent of the IRS. That means that each senator voting for the Marketplace Fairness Act is encouraging state tax collectors to reach outside of their own state and into the pockets of non-citizens. Thus the legislation radically expands the power of government, particularly where taxes and government audits are concerned.
NLRB “Poster Ruling” May Reveal Court’s Take on Verizon 1st Amendment Net Neutrality Claim
by Mike Wendy
Media Freedom
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit – the same Court that will hear Verizon’s suit against the FCC’s Net Neutrality order later this year – came out with a ruling last week which may bolster the claim that the FCC violated Verizon’s First Amendment rights through its Net Neutrality regulations.
In National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, the Court tossed out a rule by the NLRB which made employers presumptively guilty of unfair labor practices simply by not displaying government posters informing workers of their rights.
Democrats accuse Republicans of distorting intent of spectrum law
by Brendan Sasso
Hillicon Valley
House Democrats urged the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday to reject the advice of a group of Republicans on the upcoming auction of broadcast TV licenses.
The Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats accused House Republicans of seeking to “advance a one-sided re-interpretation of the goals and meaning” of the law authorizing the auction and trying to “spin the legislative history in a way that inaccurately reflects the intent of Congress.”
For Independent Agencies, SEC Regulatory Accountability Bill is an Act to Follow
by Seth L. Cooper
Free State Foundation
Everyone needs a reality checks sometimes, even “the experts.” When so-called expert independent agencies consider regulating areas of our economy, shouldn’t they check to make sure new regulations won’t cause more economic harm than good? Isn’t it worth double-checking the results once new regulations are in place?
For independent agencies, cost-benefit analysis should provide that reality check. And post-adoption “look back” assessments should serve as a double check. This is the basic approach of the SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 1062). It’s an economic-minded reform bill scheduled for consideration soon on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
W. Patrick McCray on visioneers
by Jerry Brito
Surprisingly Free
W. Patrick McCray, author of The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future, tells the story of these modern utopians who predicted that their technologies could transform society as humans mastered the ability to create new worlds.
Do Not Track, Silver Bullets, and Long-Term Privacy Protection
by Adam Thierer
Technology Liberation Front
Today over at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Daily Dashboard blog, I have a guest post entitled, “Let’s Not Place All Our Eggs in the Do Not Track Basket.” The essay builds on my Senate Commerce Committee testimony last week by arguing that:
If there’s one lesson I’ve learned in twenty-one years of covering information technology policy, it’s that there are no simple silver-bullet solutions to complex issues like online safety, hate speech, spam, cybersecurity, data breaches or digital privacy. Problems such as these demand a layered, multifaceted approach that incorporates many solutions, the first among these being education and awareness-based efforts.
Did Hensarling Force Obama’s Hand On “Recess” Appointments?
by John Berlau
Open Market
They called it a “stunt” early last week when House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) refused to allow Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) director Richard Cordray to testify due to the constitutional cloud over Cordray’s appointment. But this “stunt” just may have forced the Obama administration’s hand in submitting a brief later in the week urging the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.
In a statement, Hensarling announced that the committee could not “legally accept testimony from Richard Cordray … until he is validly appointed as the bureau’s director.” In the letter that Hensarling sent to Cordray, Hensarling cited the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Noel Canning v. National Labor Relations Board that three “recess” appointments to the labor board made the same day and in the same manner as Cordray’s appointment were ruled unconstitutional. “It is clear,” Hensarling wrote, “as a number of legal scholars have concluded, that your appointment was also unconstitutional.”
“Low-Ranking” Counterproductive Video Regulations Offer Valuable Lessons
by Donna Coleman Gregg
Free State Foundation
[Below is a short summary of this latest FSF Perspectives. A PDF version of the complete Perspectives is here.]
With the Internet and online media, we live in an era of instant polling and constant rankings.Just opening a web browser often reveals another new “Top Ten” list of the “best of” everything from U.S. colleges and professional sports teams to local restaurants. There are even websites that rank the rankings lists.
IFC Reply Comments to FCC: Title II Reclassification Unjustified, Unnecessary
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.
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.
