SubscribeiAWFUL (which stands for Internet Advocates Watchlist for Ugly Laws) launched this week, calling attention to the “most reckless and misguided laws” impacting the Internet.
The site, a project of NetChoice, a Washington, DC eCommerce advocacy group, particularly opposes what they feel are “misguided” regulatory approaches to online problems by well meaning lawmakers, often on the state level. NetChoice claims to be a coalition of trade associations, eCommerce businesses, and online consumers, “all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice and commerce on the Net.”
The inaugural list of the worst contains several state tax initiatives targeting Internet commerce, rules forcing websites to spend more time and effort enforcing their abuse of service policies, and an effort to regulate online ticket sales. NetChoice also challenges efforts by lawmakers to incorporate certain standards, such as security and encryption, into law.
Presumably, the weight given to determining which are the “worst” laws is determined in part by the group’s members:
1-800-Contacts
America Online/Time Warner
American Vintners Association
Association for Competitive Technology
eBay
Electronic Retailing Association
IAC
Internet Alliance
NewsCorp
Oracle
Overstock.com
VeriSign
Yahoo!
The Wine Institute
One of the intended purposes of the iAWFUL list is to draft consumers into the fight against the targeted legislation. While most of the inaugural list’s targets are anti-consumer, NetChoice doesn’t answer exclusively to those consumers. They answer to the members who belong to the organization. Often, the interests of consumers and business do merge, but not always.
Knee-jerk, overly prescriptive laws can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication before they have a chance to emerge. Too many laws are proposed without considering unintended harm they may cause to thousands of Internet companies and millions of Internet users.
NetChoice is dedicated to fighting these attacks on core Internet principles.
Destroying business models may not always be anti-consumer. On our own issue of Internet Overcharging, could legislation designed to put an end to it be seen as a friend or foe to NetChoice? A business model alone may be worthy of fighting to protect, but as Stop the Cap! readers understand, that isn’t always true. Legislators are not the only ones capable of engaging in overreaching antics. Some of NetChoice’s member companies have done that themselves.
Care must also be given to determine the exact definitions of “stifling” and “core Internet principles.” The former may be a matter of perspective, the latter is not defined at all.
Perhaps iAWFUL will be a consistently positive asset for consumers and will not incorporate laws designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive behavior and Internet Overcharging onto their top 10 list. Time will tell. But consumers should always be wary about Internet organizations that claim to represent consumer interests, but rely on industry money to keep the lights on. Some of those groups, particularly those in Washington, turn out to be astroturf organizations that claim to represent ordinary citizens, but really front for commercial interests, which often have a different agenda.
Other stories of interest:
- States With Pro-Monopoly Protectionism Laws
- Americans for Prosperity Pro-Corporate Front Group Behind Calls Harassing NC Residents
- Sen. Sam Brownback: Cap ‘n Tier is Good for the Internet
- Frontier Website: Cap Language Revised, But Inconsistencies Remain
- Exaflood 2: Electronic Bugaboo – Again With the Internet Brownout Theory
Well I’m glad America Online/Time Warner (now just AOL and Time Warner) spun off Time Warner Cable, because your quote directly contradicts what TWC is doing in NC. I’m curious as to the true nature of the relationship between TWC and it’s former parent company AOL/Time Warner.
“Your quote” in this instance refers to that of the organization and not myself I presume.
Oh them indeed
I know of a couple of “overly-prescriptive laws (that) can destroy whole business models or stifle innovative new forms of communication” that TWC tried to get pushed through the NC State House and Senate.