Save the Internet: the battle over net neutrality heats up

Doug Ross Journal ^ | 04/28/2006 | Doug Ross

[directorblue]

Ever wonder why the telcos spend so much on lobbyists rather than, oh I don’t know, value-creating new applications like Skype and Vonage? And don’t think for a second that killing net neutrality isn’t a huge issue. It has already happened in Canada and the results weren’t pretty. As the National Journal noted today, this could be an election deal-breaker for the GOP!

[Wolverine]

DemocRATS and other libs could pressure providers to block access to sites they do not like. They will do anything to block Conservative blogs and Conservative grassroot organizations.

The letter is in response to recent efforts by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org and SavetheInternet.com who promote the idea that active government interference is necessary to 'save' the Internet. The free-market movement believes the Internet is the modern frontier of innovation and economic development, and should remain free from regulation.

To view the letter in entirety, please visit http://www.freedomworks.org

You can take action here:

http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?Screen=Alert&IssueID=7341&SessionID=$AID=575:SITEID=-1:APP=GAC$

---

"It is a fact we all know too well: Once government is free to dictate price, content and speed for the Internet, Congress will find a way to tax products, services and require providers to collect government mandated fees just for using the 'privilege' of using technology. While supporters of Net-Neutrality legislation argue their position with no basis of fact -– a solution in search of a problem –- history has taught us well that when the government attempts to regulate commerce, it is the consumer who ultimately pays."

[Wolverine]

ping

[directorblue]

Hogwash. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue. This is a freedom vs communism issue.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA), Instapundit, Right Wing News, Right Wing Nuthouse, and many other conservative groups are on the side of network neutrality.

Why?

Because the telco lobbyists have papered Washington with enough money to destroy the current state of net neutrality. Will you be able to visit the NRA website if they haven't paid AT&T an added "prioritization" tax and the Brady Group has? Will you be able to search on Google if Yahoo pays off AT&T?

Do the research here, then go to SaveTheInternet.com now and take action.

[onyx]

Why do you excerpt your own blog, when all you do is use FR to post your own stuff?

[Wolverine]

 

Network neutrality would constitute a major government initiative to regulate how the Internet as a commercial vehicle operates. Today, in America, Congress has virtually no power over how the Internet is run. Network neutrality is a sweeping and intrusive restriction. It would set a horrible precedent in terms of the government’s ability to meddle with the architecture and operation of the Internet. It also would create a spider web of laws and restrictions that generate uncertainty and open the floodgates for bureaucrats and lawyers to exploit semantic loopholes. We have done well enough without the government’s intrusion in the Internet, there’s no reason to start now.

 

"It is a fact we all know too well: Once government is free to dictate price, content and speed for the Internet, Congress will find a way to tax products, services and require providers to collect government mandated fees just for using the 'privilege' of using technology. While supporters of Net-Neutrality legislation argue their position with no basis of fact -– a solution in search of a problem –- history has taught us well that when the government attempts to regulate commerce, it is the consumer who ultimately pays."

[directorblue]

Your statements are incorrect. The current state of the Internet is -- and always has been -- network neutrality. And it's been enforced by the FCC.

Here's telco lobbyist Walter McCormick, Jr. -- head of the U.S. Telecom Association -- speaking to lawmakers recently on the topic of network neutrality :

"Our industry has stated that it will not block, impair or degrade consumer access to the Internet, and the FCC has made it clear that it has the authority to enforce its broadband principles... Therefore, we believe that legislation in the area is premature. Any grants of new regulatory authority or statutory ambiguities could chill innovation and investment."

We wouldn't want to chill innovation and investment, would we? Unfortunately, McCormick's logic has all the intellectual rigor of an Art Schlicter ethics class.

Instead, there's pretty clear evidence emerging that the telcos' plans to eradicate neutrality are already stifling Internet innovation:

"...Blair Levin, analyst with Stifel Nicolaus: "Right now, I would never invest in a business model that depended on protection from Net neutrality," "

Without investment, where will the next Vonage, or Google, or Skype, or Digg come from? In fact, the only innovation-destroying aspect to this whole debacle is the telcos' unwillingness to invest more in R&D than on lobbyists.

And why can't we turn Mr. McCormick's promises into proposed law? We can - obviously. The FCC currently enforces net neutrality. We need to empower the FCC to continue to do so.

Head over to SaveTheInternet.

[directorblue]

First, I saw others do so and followed suit.

Second, I thought this was an issue that other FR readers would want to know about - the Democrats getting some high-ground for the '06 elections.

Last, I didn't realize that was against the TOS. Let me know if it is.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Why do you excerpt your own blog, when all you do is use FR to post your own stuff?

Generates page views to his blog.