Stop Government Regulation of the Internet

ALERT: A coalition of mostly left-wing organizations, led by the wanna-be socialists at MoveOn.org, is helping to push legislation through the U.S. House that they're calling "Net Neutrality" -- but the effect that it would have would be to impose government regulations on the Internet!

The new bill they're pushing, the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" (H.R. 5417), has been strongly opposed by advocates of free markets and a free Internet -- but it's been passed out of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, and is due to be voted on quickly.

Thankfully, there are some Congressmen willing to stand up to MoveOn and their cronies. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) noted a number of his concerns as the committee was debating the bill, stating, "It is a well-intentioned bill that would certainly prohibit some anticompetitive conduct. The problem is that it would also prohibit a lot of conduct that is procompetitive."

Suppose, for example, that an innovative company wants to provide a new video service that requires greater bandwidth than most existing products. Suppose that a broadband provider has the capacity to provide that extra bandwidth to one company, but not to six companies. Under this bill's prohibition on any discrimination in the broadband provider's terms or conditions of service, it would not be able to offer the extra bandwidth to the one innovative company because it would then be required to provide it to all.

As Rep. Smith notes, "This is a regulator's dream, but an entrepreneur's nightmare."

Preemptively legislating new regulatory burdens can also have many unintended consequences. Stated Rep. Smith, "I am particularly concerned about the effects on intellectual property protection."

For example, the bill says that a broadband provider cannot block access to lawful content. How does that apply when users subscribe to a peer-to-peer file sharing network that is primarily used for infringing purposes, but may also include some lawful content?

It's also unclear how broadband providers would comply with some of the provisions. For example, the bill provides that a broadband provider must clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information concerning the terms and conditions of its service. That is so broad and vague that you can't be sure how anyone could know what it meant as a practical matter. But if the broadband providers violate that requirement, they are subject to all the remedies of the antitrust laws, including treble damages.

As Jason Wright of the Institute for Liberty noted, "The leftist Moveon.org coalition claims that so-called 'Net Neutrality' rules are the 'First Amendment' for the internet. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The unprecedented regulation Moveon lobbies for limits innovation by restricting certain businesses from the option of seeking more reliable connections to support advanced services like VoIP or IPTV."

We need to STOP MoveOn.org and their liberal allies -- before they start a snowball effect of government regulations over the internet.

TAKE ACTION: The point is that it is very difficult to write rules for how the Internet should grow. So far, it's done a pretty good job of growing on its own. And it's the uncertain and unpredictable effect of the bill is what makes it worrisome.

Even a coalition of first responders has expressed their concern that the bill could potentially affect the development of new technologies to address interoperability.

Instead of writing proscriptive rules to solve speculative problems, it would be better to focus our efforts on preserving the application of current antitrust laws to safeguard against anticompetitive practices on the Internet.So-called "net neutrality" is anything BUT neutral. There's nothing neutral about the government: dictating one, and ONLY one, way to design networks; creating an innovation double standard where innovation at the edge of the network is encouraged but discouraged inside the network; or rigging the game by picking winners before the game is played. And THAT is what MoveOn.org and their friends are pushing.

The fact is, "net neutrality" is the epitome of a solution in search of a problem. Click "Go!" NOW to send a free message directly to your Congressman, telling him to OPPOSE the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" (H.R. 5417), and keep the federal government AWAY from the world's freest, fairest market... the internet.

NOTE: There are a lot of potential unintended consequences from "net neutrality" legislation that the far left doesn't want you to know about: it could hinder public safety and homeland security; complicate protecting Americans privacy; erode the quality and responsiveness of the Internet; limit consumers' competitive choices; and discourage investment in broadband deployment to all Americans. Let's "nip this in the bud" NOW. For more info:

http://www.handsoff.org/
http://www.netcompetition.org/
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14435

You said -- "if 50% of everyone on your DSL network starts streaming porn, from a host that has paid for enough bandwidth on their end (its cheap there) to pump it out - you will eventually pay higher ISP costs, even if you don't view that material. that's the issue here in a nutshell."

Does it make it any better if it's viewing TV News or Documentaries or downloading the latest iTunes episode of a television show? Is viewing "porn" somehow *different* than all the rest of these things? I'm wondering why you're singling out "porn" -- as opposed to all the other kinds of video viewing that is available. The net doesn't know the difference between one kind of rich content and the other. And that's the way it should be -- "net neutral" and non-identifiable.

And continuing on the topic at hand -- if someone's bandwidth needs are really *so immaterial* -- then I would simply advise them to use a dial-up service. They *obviously* don't need the extra bandwidth in that case.

So, in other words, if *that person* (who says that their bandwidth needs are very very low and they don't want to pay for the overall instrastructure "buildup" to supply the "rich content" of today -- they can simply stay with that dial-up and not have to pay for it (i.e., that rich content). That's how it's accomplished.

On the other hand, the ones who want the rich content and higher bandwidth, they pay for the additional service they are getting. AND, furthermore, if a standard DSL or Cable line is not sufficient, there are options to go higher. I can (and do) pay for the higher service on my Cable line and get their highest speed for downloads. In addition to that, I also pay for a DSL line and get sufficient download speeds from that. I have them both.

And, if I want higher download speeds I can actually "stair-step" up in download speeds and get higher and higher. Of course, I then pay more for it -- according to what I want. The service that supplies me will make sure that the service is adequate for what I pay for.

And then, if I even want higher speeds, I can go further into the commercial area and get even higher speeds -- just like the businesses do and the likes of Yahoo and Google and MSN and so on.

In other words, I can buy whatever service I want -- right now -- and pay for only that level of service that I want and the supplier will have it available for me. I don't have to get charge triple and quadruple for extra and specialized services.

The costs for the local networks (at the consumer side) is actually paid for by the consumer, as they need it. If they have dial-up, they get what they pay for. If the consumer finds that dial-up isn't "cutting it" -- then the consumer is free to step up to a higher level service. And they can stair-step all the way up to whatever they need -- and pay for what they need. The local service will accommodate them fully, for whatever they need. It works perfectly right now -- in the present way of maintaining "net neutrality". That's what should be *maintained*, as it is, right now.

And likewise, on the "business side" (for those services supply "rich content"), they *pay for* whatever bandwidth that they need (in the aggregate) for all the consumers that will be accessing their site and content. That business is *already* paying for it right now.

Therefore, we have the system in place -- of the present "net neutrality" in which each side is paying for the bandwidth that they need -- whether it's the consumer or it's the business. And that "system" already results in *double-billing* on the same data.

The side that is opposed to "net neutrality" wants the consumer to continue paying for his bandwidth (as now), along with the business service supplying whatever content to continue paying (as now) -- and then -- to have *additional charges* for special content -- so that the charges are now *triple* and *quadruple* instead of what they presently are (instead of merely *double-charging* as they are doing now).

As they presently are, you can pay for whatever bandwidth you want. You can stair-step up in your bandwidth.

How many people have dial-up for FreeRepublic. I don't -- and I actually *would not* want dial-up for "FreeRepublic" -- because I've tried it before in the past. It's *not pleasing* to use that way -- at all. Therefore, I paid for higher bandwidth for Free Republic -- and I'm satisfied. If I come across some other "rich content" that is not sufficient for what I presently have -- I will be paying *more* for my bandwidth.

And so, all others do *not* have to follow my path. They can all stay with dial-up and that bandwidth and pay a lot less. It's their choice -- as it stands right now.

You said -- "if you want to pay for that, fine, so long as you understand what you are signing up for."

Believe me, everyone who has dial-up, and then tries high-speed Internet (along with the accompanying increase in bandwidth) will know *exactly* what they are paying for. That's no problem knowing what you're paying for. Just get online and you'll find out immediately.

Whether they actually want to or not -- is *still* their choice. The fact of the matter is that people like the high-speed (and higher bandwidth) -- but would prefer to *not* pay for it. That's the real problem with a lot of people.

Regards,
Star Traveler

You said -- "if the all you can eat buffet is over-run with 400 pound people - guess what happens? the price is no longer $9.99, either the price goes up for EVERYONE who comes into the buffet, or the 400 pounders can pay more."

I find that's already the case with all-you-can-eat places. I bring kids in and they pay more for what they eat. I bring my father in and everybody can eat more than him. And in some cases and instances, I don't eat as much as everyone else. So, I guess I should complain that these all-you-can-eat places are extremely unfair to my family (as my particular circumstances are).

Well..., no..., the fact of the matter is that I'm not that stupid as to think that they have to accommodate every *peculiarity* of each customer and tailor the "all-you-can-eat" situation to *each circumstance*. You no longer have an *all-you-can-eat* place, any longer. I just understand what the situation is and go there anyway.

HOWEVER, the Internet is not like the all-you-can-eat places -- because there *are* different levels of service and you can choose whatever level you want. It's only for the consumer that you have a certain modicum of "all-you-can-eat" -- and that is only within a tight range. So you buy a range you want and you're in a group of *similar* "all-you-can-eat" customers. If you step out of that "band" (and/or "range"), then you have to pay for a new "band" of "all-you-can-eat" customers. In any case, you are still paying for your level of service.

And the big business, with their rich content that they may be serving, is paying even more -- commensurate with whatever they are "serving".

So, it's *not* like the "all-you-can-eat" restaurants. There are different levels of service for the business and the consumer. They pay for what they get, no matter what *others* are receiving and/or paying for.

Regards,
Star Traveler

You said -- "they don't "pay their share" - they only pay for their egress costs, and their cost structure for bandwidth there is far different then for end subscribers."

What they are *serving* -- is -- the major cost for rich content providers. So, when they pay for (in your terms of "egress costs") that bandwidth, that's exactly paying their fair share. It's a share "cost" that is determined by the provider to that business.

That "provider" (to that business) has determined that this is what it should charge the business -- in order to recoup its costs of doing business and make a profit. If they're not doing that (and I believe they are, though...) -- then that provider will go out of business. Believe me, they're staying in business and making a profit (for whatever their business model is).

The cost structure for the consumer is different, of course, because it's a consumer-oriented business (along with the costs of maintaining consumers), versus the different cost structures for businesses. It's absolutely normal that a business will buy a product under a different pricing structure, because they are a business -- than a consumer will, for a much, much lower volume of business, but much more "customer service" per unit of bandwidth involved.

They are two different pricing models -- and they are both working well, at the present time, as I see it.

Regards,
Star Traveler

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.