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.
Has Sen. John Kerry flip-flopped on regulating broadband?
By Mike Riggs
The Daily Caller
A letter from several congressmen sent to the FCC in 1998 seemingly contradicts Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry’s current stance on net neutrality. The letter [PDF] obtained by The Daily Caller is addressed to then-FCC Chairman William Kennard, and was sent two years after the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the largest policy overhaul of the communications industry in five decades.
“The overarching policy goal of the 1996 Act is to promote a market-driven, robustly competitive environment for all communications services,” reads the letter, which was signed by Kerry. “Given that, we wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.”
California writes itself a censorship blank check
By Seton Motley
The Examiner
The First Amendment of our Constitution - Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech – could not be any clearer.
But we have about half of a professional class – lawyers – and about half of the political class – Leftists – attempting to muddy the crystal clear waters of this Constitutional restriction on government.
The government censors have spent the last 220 years searching for any conceivable way around this universal restraint on their power. When total censorship cannot be achieved, the censors go for it piecemeal. And they do so in part by demonizing the speech they wish to silence.
FCC net neutrality proposal delayed
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post
A resolution of a contentious battle over so-called net neutrality rules has been postponed until after November elections, when it could be even harder for the Federal Communications Commission to push through its controversial proposal, analysts said.
That’s good news for telecommunications and cable companies, which have been loath for such rules. And it effectively helps FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski avoid regulation that has attracted strong criticism by some lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.
Wednesday, the chairman of the FCC called for nearly two months more time for the public to comment on his policy proposal introduced one year ago that would require network operators such AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to treat all data and applications running on their networks equally. He specifically asked for more feedback on whether such rules should apply to the wireless industry. He also called for more input on how rules on how network operators manage the traffic could allow for some paid prioritization of certain information.
“As we have seen, the issues are complex, and the details matter,” Genachowski said in a statement.
After Google-Verizon, FCC Wants More Comments on Net Neutrality
By Chloe Albanesius
PC Mag
The Federal Communications Commission has been relatively silent since Google and Verizon released their net neutrality policy proposal in early August. On Wednesday, however, the agency called for additional comment on two key components of the Google-Verizon plan – the exemption for wireless and other “specialized” services.
“The FCC’s Wireline and Wireless Bureaus are seeking further public comment on issues related to ’specialized’ (or ‘managed’) services and mobile broadband,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said in a statement. “The information received through this inquiry, along with the record developed to date, will help complete our efforts to construct an enforceable framework to preserve Internet freedom and openness.”
Last month Google and Verizon released a plan that would impose net neutrality principles on the Web, but exempt the wireless industry, as well as other “additional” service that broadband providers might embark upon in the future, like telemedicine.
Carly Fiorina opposes Net neutrality
By Tony Romm
POLITICO
California GOP Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina this week staked out her spot opposing tough Net neutrality rules.
The former Hewlett-Packard CEO and telecommunications industry executive told POLITICO she opposes any federal requirement that Internet providers treat all Web traffic equally.
“The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.”
A spokeswoman later added that Fiorina “opposes Net neutrality and thinks government intervention and more regulation will not be helpful where the Internet is concerned.”
Senator Kerry at it Again
By Jenn Cobb
Americans for Tax Reform Blog
The Daily Caller recently unearthed a letter from several Congressmen to former FCC Chairman William Kennard in the wake of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Among the letter’s signees is Senator John Kerry, whose signature represented his commitment to “policies that favor market forces over government regulation–promoting the growth of innovative, cost effective, and diverse quality services.”
This is all well and good, except that it brings to light yet another of Senator Kerry’s many flip flops, as Kerry’s stance on the current net neutrality issue illustrates a pro-government regulation, anti-free market mindset.
“The overarching policy goal of the 1996 Act is to promote a market-driven, robustly competitive environment for all communications services,” reads the 1998 letter. “Given that, we wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services.”
Government vs. Private Control and “Balkanization” of the Internet
By Kelly William Cobb
Americans for Tax Reform Blog
The Economist had a piece yesterday called “The Future of the Internet: A virtual counter-revolution.” It twists and turns through the ways that government and businesses are attempting to “balkanize” the Internet; to take it over and turn it into a “collection of proprietary islands accessed by devices controlled remotely by their vendors.” The piece is certainly worth a read, but even if the picture it portrays is accurate, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good thing for consumers and the future of the Internet.
First, it points out how “governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty.” China is blocking content; India and Saudi Arabia threatened to block BlackBerry and other services; the U.S. is pushing regulations for Net Neutrality that could lead to government enforcement of price control, access, and more, eventually turning the Internet into a virtual public utility.
FCC Will Figure Out What To Do About the Internet Later
By Peter Sunderman
Reason Hit & Run Blog
With the FCC’s September meeting just a few weeks away—it’s scheduled for September 23rd—the agency has been under enormous pressure to make a call on how it will pursue its Net neutrality agenda. On the left, the loudest members of the activist class have urged the FCC to embark on a program of wholesale regulatory reclassification, shifting broadband Internet from a Title I information service to Title II telecommunications service. The problem, though, is that just about everyone else, including Democrats in Congress and some factions within the White House, has been pushing the agency to hold its regulatory horses.
Stimulating Competitive Disadvantages in Broadband
By Diane Katz
The Foundry, The Heritage Foundation Blog
By now it’s obvious that the government’s “stimulus” spending spree has failed to achieve its intended results—just as critics of Keynesian economic theory predicted. Compounding the policy blunder is the failure of officials to properly vet some of the costly public works projects.
Case in point is the $7.2 billion broadband deployment scheme: Federal officials failed to determine whether targeted communities actually lack Internet service options. In a number of cases, in fact, the government subsidies will put existing private service providers at a competitive disadvantage.
Some $2.2 billion has already been allocated by the Departments of Commerce (DOC) and Agriculture (DOA) to enhance broadband services in “unserved” and “underserved” areas. (The balance of funding is scheduled to be awarded by September 30.) But according to a newly released report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), program officials “lack detailed data on the availability of broadband service throughout the country, making it difficult to determine whether a proposed service area is unserved or underserved.”
Tech at Night: Net Neutrality, FreedomWorks, Christian Coalition, RIAA, Copyright, Cybersecurity, Intel, McAfee
By Neil Stevens
RedState
Good evening RedStaters. I spent all weekend battling a monster cold, so I’m still a bit thrown off, and so didn’t even try to get tonight’s installment of Tech at Night in before midnight Eastern. In fact it’ll be a reach to get this done before midnight Pacific, but such is life.
RedState diarist ladyimpactohio (follow her on Twitter at @ladyimpactohio) already scored one big win by peeling the Gun Owners of America from the Free Press radical Net Neutrality coalition, but the right is already at work on the next target: the Christian Coalition. Dick Armey and FreedomWorks are leading this fight, and I’m glad of it.
Way back when I started covering this issue, I said there were three names on the Save the Internet (Free Press front group) list that bugged me: Gun Owners of America, Christian Coalition, and Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds. If we can peel off at least two of three, I’ll be happy.
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.
