Thread: [ALERT] 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!

They MUST be stopped -- before it's too late.

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 below 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

http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/ ... 51&type=CO

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

Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help expand consumer choices and opportunities on the internet, without worrying about more government regulation. Thank you!

Sincerely,


William Greene, President
RightMarch.com

We have to pay attention to this folks. If they take control over our internet, we could have some serious problems.

Okay Folks. Well we will soon have to pay tolls if we want our web sites serverd faster. The bill passed today allowing the communications companies to do as they please. They rejected the Net Neutrality ACT Yesterday.

241 8-Jun H R 5252 On Passage P
Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006

240 8-Jun H R 5252 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions F Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/index.asp

My Thanks to Sue Myrick, Chrles Taylor and Flip Flopin Robin Hayes for doing the Wrong thing again. See how your reps voted against you here

Click on vote 241 and 242
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/index.asp

Sorry I dont have time to poist how they voted.

Posted 06/09/2006 @ 12:23am
House Rejects Net Neutrality
SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST
PERMALINK
COMMENTS (61)

The First Amendment of the Internet – the governing principle of net neutrality, which prevents telecommunications corporations from rigging the web so it is easier to visit sites that pay for preferential treatment – took a blow from the House of Representatives Thursday.

Bowing to an intense lobbying campaign that spent tens of millions of dollars – and held out the promise of hefty campaign contributions for those members who did the bidding of interested firms – the House voted 321 to 101 for the disingenuously-named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE). That bill, which does not include meaningful network-neutrality protections creates an opening that powerful telephone and cable companies hope to exploit by expanding their reach while doing away with requirements that they maintain a level playing field for access to Internet sites.

"Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, (Thursday's) vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation." says Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst for Consumers Union.

In case there was any question that Kenney's assessment was accurate, the House voted 269-152 against an amendment, offered by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey, which would have codified net neutrality regulations into federal law. The Markey amendment would have prevented broadband providers from rigging their services to create two-tier access to the Internet – with an "information superhighway" for sites that pay fees for preferential treatment and a dirt road for sites that cannot pay the toll.


After explicitly rejecting the Markey amendment's language, which would have barred telephone and cable companies from taking steps "to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access…services over the Internet," the House quickly took up the COPE legislation.

The bill drew overwhelming support from Republican members of the House, with the GOP caucus voting 215-8 in favor of it. But Democrats also favored the proposal, albeit by a narrower vote of 106 to 92. The House's sole independent member, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a champion of internet freedom who is seeking his state's open Senate seat this fall, voted against the measure.

Joining Sanders in voting against the legislation were most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including its co-chairs, California Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, as well as genuine conservatives who have joined the fight to defend free speech and open discourse on the internet, including House Judiciary Committee chair James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, and Intelligence Committee chair Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan.

The left-meets-right voting in the House reflected the coalition that has formed to defend net neutrality, which includes such unlikely political bedfellows as the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, the American Association of Retired People, the American Civil Liberties Union and all of the nation's major consumer groups.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, opposed COPE, while House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, and Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, were enthusiastically supported it.

Among the Democrats who followed the lead of Hastert and Boehner – as opposed to that of Pelosi – were House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and Maryland Representative Ben Cardin, who is running for that state's open Senate seat in a September Democratic-primary contest with former NAACP President Kweisi Mfume. Illinois Democrat Melissa Bean, who frequently splits with her party on issues of interest to corporate donors, voted with the Republican leadership, as did corporate-friendly "New Democrats" such as Alabama's Artur Davis, Washington's Adam Smith and Wisconsin's Ron Kind – all co-chairs of the Democratic Leadership Council-tied House New Democrat Coalition.

The fight over net neutrality now moves to the Senate, where Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan have introduced legislation to codify the net neutrality principles of equal and unfettered access to Internet content into federal law. Mark Cooper, the director of research for the Consumers Federation of America, thinks net neutrality will find more friends in the Senate, at least in part because the "Save the Internet" coalition that has grown to include more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals is rapidly expanding.

"This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality," says Cooper.

Cooper's correct to be more hopeful about the Senate than the House. But the House vote points up the need to get Democrats united on this issue. There's little question that a united Democratic caucus could combine with principled Republicans in the Senate to defend net neutrality. But if so-called "New Democrats" in the Senate side with the telephone and cable lobbies, the information superhighway will become a toll road.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=90090