Stop Federal Regulation of Internet

NewMax.com ^ | May 17, 2006 | Dave Eberhart

[AmericaUnite]

WASHINGTON -- A group of 24 conservative organizations have announced the formation of the Internet Freedom Coalition (IFC, www.internetfreedomcoalition.org) to oppose "net neutrality" regulations, which the groups say mark the first major attempt by Washington to regulate the Internet.

"We're proud to join with other leading free market and faith-based organizations to ensure that the Internet remains driven by the free market, not by Washington bureaucrats and politicians," said Jason Wright, president of the Institute for Liberty and IFC co-director.

At issue is a brewing battle that pits cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service – including AT&T and Verizon – against major Internet players such as Google and Amazon and large-scale users like the left-wing MoveOn.org, who support the net neutrality regulations opposed by the IFC.

The Internet providers are lobbying to create a two-tiered Internet in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority, including the all-important boon of faster loading. Last year phone companies spent $60 million lobbying at the federal level, and Verizon alone contributed more than $81 million to Congress between 1998 and 2005.

What the users like MoveOn want is the so-called net neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to continue to be treated equally.

While that may appear to many to be a desirable move, the conservative groups warn that it would open the door to U.S. government regulation of the Internet, allowing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use this likely popular issue to sink its claws into the currently unfettered Internet.

MoveOn recently sent out an e-mail asking its 3 million-plus e-mail contacts to sign a petition asking Congress to vote for "meaningful and enforceable net neutrality laws," saying such legislation "prevents AT&T from choosing which Web sites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more."

The IFC's Wright has countered: "The big government, pro-regulation crowd wants the government to regulate the Internet. Speaking on behalf of our collective membership of over 3 million citizens, we oppose network neutrality and any other form of regulation or taxation of the Internet.

"Make no mistake: network neutrality is the first giant leap toward government regulation of the Internet."

The current featured player in the dispute is Ted Stevens, R-Ala., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, who has released a 135-page draft telecommunications bill – a re-write of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Absent from the legislation, however, are any regulations related to net neutrality, which means there is nothing in the bill to grant the FCC power to enforce net neutrality concepts.

Currently, the Internet is regulated by a U.S.-based, non-governmental organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. If MoveOn and its allies have their way, a federal agency, the FCC, would gain unprecedented control over the Internet.

In the House, in more bad news for MoveOn and company, a bid by Democrats to get extensive net neutrality regulations hammered into law failed recently.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is a strong proponent of net neutrality laws. She has said the legislation with no provisions for net neutrality "would block the FCC from restoring meaningful protections for Internet consumers and entrepreneurs, and from prohibiting the imposition of bottleneck taxes and other discriminatory actions on the part of broadband network operators, such as AT&T and Verizon."

But Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and chairman of the Commerce and Energy Committee, pressured his fellow GOP members to vote against an amendment addressing net neutrality, arguing that neutrality proponents were overstating their case.

"I don't think all the Draconian things they predict will happen if we don't adopt their amendment," he said.

Mike McCurry, co-chair of the group Hands Off the Internet and former press secretary for President Bill Clinton, agreed: "Hypothetical problems are no justification for giving the FCC and other government regulators the power to decide how the Internet will evolve."

The proponents of net neutrality claim that with Web sites paying service providers, minor sites would be harder to access and slower to navigate as the paying clients get the bulk of the bandwidth.

But the major broadband providers downplay such fears, and say it will be economically feasible to invest in higher-speed links only if some bandwidth can be reserved for paid content.

For example, in a recent interview with CNET News.com, Verizon Chief Technology Officer Mark Wegleitner said movie-quality video could be delivered to DSL subscribers if the copyright owner would pay.

Writing in the Washington Post, Robert E. Litan, a senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution, explains why the issue is coming to a head. Litan notes that until recently, traffic congestion on the Internet was not a problem.

"There was so much excess capacity in the fiber optic cables and other parts of the complex telecommunications network that heavy traffic delivered from one site did not threaten the reliability of traffic delivered from other sites and routed through the Net."

Litan maintains that existing networks are rapidly running out of excess capacity.

"We need new cyber-highways if the brave new world of movies, fast Google searches and telemedicine - to take a few examples - is to become at all viable."

The big question, he says, is who will pay for these higher-speed networks.

And the big question for the Internet Freedom Coalition and others who oppose net neutrality laws, according to Wright, is: "Will a Republican Congress really allow MoveOn and liberal allies to turn back the clock on the greatest innovation and wealth-building enterprise to come along in a generation? We certainly hope not."

[oblomov]

If some form of neutrality had not been in place, would the conservative-libertarian blogosphere ever have emerged, or would the MSM have been able to continue domination?

[AmericaUnite]

I don't think we have a 2 tiered system now. Do you?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

At issue is a brewing battle that pits cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service – including AT&T and Verizon – against major Internet players such as Google and Amazon and large-scale users like the left-wing MoveOn.org, who support the net neutrality regulations opposed by the IFC.

Gun Owners of America also supports net neutrality.

[Uncle Fud]

The telcos and cable companies owners would like to use their government-granted monopolies to shut out competition (for example, throttling or blocking VOIP). This is rent-seeking and not the free market at all.

Imagine if your state road department set up its own for-profit delivery service, and then imposed a speed limit of 25 mph on DHL, UPS, and FedEx.

[David Allen]

We need internet freedom from oppressive government oversight. The past year has shown how quickly one can move from having broad public support to losing it.

If Democrats win in November, we'll want an internet that can't be run by social engineers and PC police.

[Dazedcat]

"..and large-scale users like the left-wing MoveOn.org, who support the net neutrality regulations opposed by the IFC."

Great, MoveOn.org supports this? Do I have to even give this further thought???

Besides the liberal left supporting this, why in Gods' name would anyone want government intervention of the web? Information is vital. I don't want the federal government meddling in anything internet.

[AmericaUnite]

Imagine if your state road department set up its own for-profit delivery service, and then imposed a speed limit of 25 mph on DHL, UPS, and FedEx.

So, I'm confused. I don't want states taxing the Internet, nor government censoring (other than tracking down criminals-terrorists). Who zooming who here? Google already tilts its searches. I mostly use Dogpile. But, I don't want government or the UN putting controls on the Internet.

[AmericaUnite]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634364/posts
The Web's Worst New Idea [Google and Microsoft team up with Moveon.org. ]

[strategofr]

"I don't think we have a 2 tiered system now. Do you?"

No, there is no two tiered system now. This is something the big companies want to put start putting into place at this time.

It may disadvantage us in some ways---but it's a million times better than bringing the federal government into the Internet. The real reason Move on.org wants to bring the Feds into the Internet at this time is because Hillary is afraid of the Net. The early Internet almost got the Clintons---and Hillary saw the danger of conservatives on the net before conservatives even figured out how to be there.

[mysterio]

If some form of neutrality had not been in place, would the conservative-libertarian blogosphere ever have emerged, or would the MSM have been able to continue domination?

The way I understand this, not having net neutrality means that we are going to eventually have a situation where small websites are like public access stations that a lot of people don't get and the majors will dominate, just like tv and radio. I don't want to see that happen ever.

[Penner]

The Internet providers are lobbying to create a two-tiered Internet in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority, including the all-important boon of faster loading.

And no more pesky alternative media.

[Rhadaghast]

We do need a law that any adult oriented content end in .XXX ! WE do need to move porn to a regulated space for our nations protection.

[ThePythonicCow]

Someday we need to learn that not everything worth doing is worth having the federal government do.

The comparison with 25 MPH limits on UPS and Fedex trucks doesn't seem appropriate. It's more like the highway owner wants to add a bullet train alongside the roadway, that carries ten times as much, ten times faster, and wants to charge for it.

Bully for them I say. If I don't want to pay extra for hi-def video on demand via my internet connection, I don't have to. I am not in the slightest worried that I will have difficulty getting a network link good enough to continue reading FreeRepublic.com. What else would any right minded person need?

I am very much worried that if we let the Federal governments camel nose any further into our internet tent, they will very much put its freedom at risk.

We have far more to fear from an expansion of Federal government powers than we do from a little more unfettered capitalism.

[Uncle Fud]

I'm still waiting for unfetterred capitalism to give me a choice of broadband providers.

Right now I have the same amount of choice as in a Soviet style economy. Buy from the state licensed monopoly, or do without.

When I have a half-dozen to choose from, then I agree it will be "unfettered".

[ThePythonicCow]

Many of us a couple of broadband providers to select from - DSL (over phone line) or Cable.

And just because some companies have a near monopoly in something doesn't mean we want the federal government taking it over. Good grief. The Feds already manage a third of our damn economy - talk about Soviet style economy. Don't blame a few lucky, probably temporary, market dominating companies for making us like the Soviets - the damn federal government is doing a heck of alot more toward that end than any business ever did.

[ThePythonicCow]

By the way, even if you don't have a choice of broadband providers in your area, many areas do, and the big providers of broadband are all facing competition in a good portion of their markets, especially between Cable and DSL.

The price of broadband has been cut in perhaps half in the last couple of years do to this competition, and you all benefit, even those of you in single provider markets, due to the fairly uniform national pricing policies of the big providers.

So capitalism is working for you, whether you know it or not.

[Uncle Fud]

The price of broadband has been cut in perhaps half in the last couple of years

What else has been happening on your planet?