Subscribe
John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Eighteen Republican senators joined twenty House Republicans in a letter writing campaign to get FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop Net Neutrality from the agenda at the Federal Communications Commission, calling the policy “counterproductive,” and would create a “chilling effect” on broadband investment in the future.
Many GOP members signing the latest round of letters also took issue with Net Neutrality a few years ago when it was a hot topic in Washington.
After Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s aborted attempt to de-fund FCC enforcement of Net Neutrality regulations, the past month has seen a full frontal assault on Net Neutrality by many Republicans. Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor (Virginia) co-authored a letter to President Barack Obama suggesting he intervene to drop Net Neutrality policies and instead focus on the national broadband plan.
Any regulations that would prohibit Internet service providers from managing their networks, they said, would discourage those companies from investing the billions of dollars needed to expand broadband access.
“We believe that network neutrality regulations would actually thwart further broadband investment and availability, and that a well-reasoned broadband plan would confirm our view. So to hastily begin the process of adopting network neutrality rules months before issuing such a plan implies that politics are driving the FCC’s decision-making process.”
Ranking Member of the House Communications, Technology & the Internet Subcommittee, Rep. Chris Stearns of Florida fired off a letter to Genachowski echoing the same sentiment:
Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)
“At first glance, net neutrality regulations may appear reasonable and harmless, but, a deeper examination reveals that net neutrality is neither reasonable nor harmless. These mandates would harm consumers, reduce competition, and discourage new investment and innovation at a time of tremendous technological growth.”
“The FCC bears the responsibility to prove a market failure, especially since its 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007 decisions on cable modem service, digital subscriber line service, broadband over power line service, and wireless broadband service were predicated on the notion that the broadband market nationwide is competitive and that regulation is unwarranted,” Stearns wrote.
Of course, during the years he cites, the Republicans enjoyed a majority on the Commission that made that finding.
Stearns and his colleagues suggest that the FCC could only intervene if substantial evidence existed the broadband marketplace was collapsing.
The Senate Republicans, led by Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, questioned the need to adopt new regulation, suggesting only two abusive incidents have occurred in the last five years that would have been prohibited by the regulations.
“It appears your decision to create new commission rules is outcome-driven. Your promulgating network neutrality rules seems to emanate from a fear that there may be some problems related to openness in ‘the future.’ Our view is that it is harmful for the commission to impose industry-wide rules based upon speculation about what may occur in the future.”
“Such a major policy shift should be contemplated with only all of the FCC Commissioners involved,” they wrote. “To do it with just one party reduces the confidence the public and Congress has in the proposal.”
Pro Net Neutrality groups had none of it:
Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge:
It is truly unfortunate that the House Republican leadership has put itself in the position of trying to slow down the greatest economic engine for job creativity and innovation ever created. Under the neutral, non-discriminatory Internet, thousands and thousands of new businesses were created and millions of dollars were invested.
The latest House Republican letter asking for the FCC to slow action on preserving an open, non-discriminatory Internet is simply another attempt at a delaying tactic by those who favor big telecom and cable companies over competition and innovation.
The letter also has fatal flaws, such as when it asserts that Net Neutrality would make investment more difficult, or that Net Neutrality would result in lower speeds and higher prices for consumers. Both of those claims are false. Billions of dollars were invested in the Internet ecosystem, not only by carriers, but by companies doing business on the Internet, and by consumers subscribing to Internet services. That is the investment we seek to expand. There is nothing in banning discrimination on the basis of source, ownership or destination of bits would create lower speeds or raise prices. Those are simply distractions.
Net Neutrality is about big telecom, cable and wireless companies (which are often the same) picking winners and losers on the Internet. It has nothing to do with online services, consumer electronics or applications. The FCC should proceed to guarantee the freedom of the Internet that all consumers and businesses deserve.
Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition:
This issue has been under debate since 2005 when the Supreme Court issued its Brand X ruling. The previous Republican-led FCC engaged in ad-hoc enforcement in the Comcast case. To suggest this is a radical policy u-turn is simply incorrect.
The Internet existed for more than 25 years under a neutral regime. During that time, a national data network was built out by telcos and cable providers, despite a neutrality requirement. To suggest that a return to that status quo threatens broadband investment is not borne out by experience. In fact, it is critical to investment that this issue be addressed sooner rather than later — further delay in addressing this core policy issue will harm investment flows into new and innovative technologies.
“
Other stories of interest:
- FCC Commissioner Regurgitates Industry Talking Points On Demand
- Stupid Reasons to Oppose Net Neutrality #1: Why Not Net Neutrality for Newspapers?
- CRTC Embarrassed By FCC Net Neutrality Actions?
- FCC Expected to Introduce Net Neutrality Rule Monday
- One Half Done, One to Go: Net Neutrality Doesn’t Ban Internet Overcharging
Want a peek into what would happen if ISP’s had their way? Look at the wireless carriers and their restrictions. The two parallels are very similar.
I am with Verizon Wireless. Just got on board with them after switching from All-Tel whom they bought out since they had better plans. Anyways, got my phone and stuff. Can I put applications that I want on the phone? No, I have to go through the Brew store. Can I put ring tones on my phone? Yes, but they do make it hard to do so and most people don’t know how to do it without or know of programs like Bitpim. Can I download attachments from the Internet? No, I have only access to the Brew store for downloads. Can I use Google maps? No, I have to use Verizons GPS program which isn’t free. Can I watch video on the internet? Yes, but it is only limited to Youtube and at a lower bitrate. The web browser on the phone is crippled on purpose by Verizon. Thankfully, it does have Flash but minimal Flash at that. Again, Verizon wants you to get your videos and music from their Brew. Do I have unlimited Internet? Sort of. If I tether my phone to my PC there is a cap but by using the phone there supposedly isn’t one. Can I take my phone to another CDMA provider? No, it has been “branded” with Verizon software. So even when my contract is up and even though I bought the phone, it theoretically still isn’t my phone. It is Verizon’s phone. They put so many restrictions on what you can with the phone that they have crippled it so you have to use their applications, at a premium price, their ringtones, at a premium price, their videos, at a premium price, and their GPS, at a premium price. So on their network, their is no such thing as Net Neutrality. If there were, they wouldn’t be riding the gravy train charging $2 for a 20 second lossy ringtone at a atrocious bitrate. These Republicans can have the proverbial middle finger if they think Net Neutrality will be a detriment to the American people. I have never heard such idiotic tripe in my life. If the ISP’s get their way, what I detailed above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Today’s Republican Party would call Teddy Roosevelt a commie
Unfortunately, Sen. Brownback is my representative. My last correspondence with him resulted in his defense of the industry and his assertion that there is plenty of competition currently. I had pointed out in my original letter to him that I only have one option for cable and high speed internet where I live, which is only a few short miles from Kansas City and Overland Park, Ks. He asserted that the providers spend a lot of money to advance service. The only thing I can see that they are spending a lot of money on is his re-election campaign funds.
I’m debating sending a snail mail letter this time with a few bucks(all that I can afford in this economy since my wife was layed off), just to make a point. No doubt he would probably just pocket the money for an early morning cappucino at a Washington coffee shop and continue on his way to an hour long meeting with Time Warner’s lobbyists and pocketfuls of money. He no longer supports or votes his constituents wishes, only the wishes, err, I mean money, of big business. The state of Kansas would be better off with a monkey as a figurehead and a vote on any decisions needed, at least the monkey being bribed with bananas would be understandable.
Don’t feel bad Jeremy. My representative is John Boehner. I made a half-assed attempt (sent some emails) to keep him from being re-elected last year. Unfortunately his only opponent was a 20-some year old kid.
The thing that really pisses me off about Mr. Boehner is that his constituency doesn’t include one large city – it is ALL farm country. There isn’t one large or even medium sized corporation in the counties he represents. Yet he has consistently (this isn’t the first time) voted against his constituents in favor of large Corporations. And wow, did he have the money last election – multiple yard signs at EVERY road intersection, 4′ x 5′ signs every other intersection, numerous high dollar glossy direct mail campaigns, TV, radio, etc., etc. Jesus himself could have run against him and lost.
How do you fight that? My problem is that most of my friends are not computer geeks like me. And when I try to talk to them about net neutrality they look at me like it is a rocket science term. They haven’t got a clue nor do they want to have a clue. And these are college educated middle class individuals. So if I get that reaction from them how far am I going to get with the farmers in this area who don’t use computers?? Mr. Boehner has the money to disinform the hell out of them and he knows it. So a few properly informed individuals writing letters to him is not going to dissuade him in the slightest. It’s going to take much more than that to compete with the corporations lining his pockets.
However, it was nice to see that we at least scared the duopolies enough to bring out the big guns!
The popular coffee shop
Everyone got coffee at the shop at the corner it was one of the 2-3 in town. They had a good selection of coffees and many different brews. They refilled your cup when it was empty. You got free doughnut if you bought something while you hung around. You would buy a few other things such as a small breakfast while you were there. All in all it was a good deal for everyone around. People came in all the time
Then one day the owner decided he was not quite making enough money. How to fix that? Well lets get rid of the free doughnut first. No more freebies you want doughnuts you buy them. Also we no longer sell them here as they take too much time and money to mess around with. Well that seemed reasonable to almost everyone as they didn’t really like them anyway. His competitors thought it was a swell idea too and did the same.
But the owner still decided he was not quite making enough money. How to fix that? ‘I know’ he told himself, ‘I will charge the different companies that make the coffee a premium to have their coffee served here’. The coffee companies are using *MY* store, *MY* pots, *MY* cups *MY* counters, etc…. The customers thought well that is OK it doesn’t change what I get. Then one day it did. The coffee they wanted was not ready. It would be 3 hours before a pot would be ready. But there are the ‘store brands’ which no one really liked but would drink because its a bit more expensive and ready now. His competitors thought it was a swell idea too and did the same.
But the owner still decided he was not quite making enough money. How to fix that? ‘I know’ he told himself, ‘I will sell my cup by the 1/2 cup but increase the price a little bit’. ‘See those kids in the corner they sit in here all day and drink gallons of the stuff’. They are drinking all of your free coffee (psst and I bet they are republicans too). You can get your coffee cheaper if you only buy a half cup. His competitors thought it was a swell idea too and did the same.
The moral? Net neutrality is about money. It is about removing services people have enjoyed for years and saying go elsewhere if you want it. It is about charging more and more to people who either already paid for something and are getting less. It is also about charging money to people you wouldn’t even think of sending a bill to. It is about playing one group against the other and get your customers fighting amongst each other. That way they do not notice they are actually being ripped off.
So let me get this straight. You think we are getting something “free” from the ISP with unlimited usage plans even though we pay for it? And since we get this free thing, in a attempt to get more profit, they are going to take it away? I am still not getting what we get for free. Ok, so they take this “free” thing away and then decide that they are not making enough profit so they are going to implement caps which they have already tried to do long before Net Neutrality even hit the stage and failed. And so on with price increases..
And this all happens because of the big bad Net Neutrality.
And then you go into some diatribe at the end saying it is a money grab but you don’t specify for whom. Then you say it is about taking away services yet don’t elaborate what services are being taken away. And the rest of the paragraph digresses.
Yep, that Net Neutrality is going to be the death of us all.
Guess i was a little too subtle for you. Telnet access gone, Usenet access gone, Hulu up on the table to be ‘gone’, I can go on… These sorts of things were standard services offered by ISPs before 2000. Now they are non existent as duopolies do not really have to compete on service. Dialup ISPs had these sorts of things because they did compete with each other. This was the ‘free’ stuff. This ‘free’ stuff cost them money. But they took it away as a ‘cost cutting measure’. You end up with less and pay the same amount. Which is really a price increase to you.
Then I am accused of being a ‘pig’ and using too much bandwidth. Which I know is hogwash as I have measured it.
Then I am told that the sites I go to must pay my ISP for the right to a ‘higher priority’ on the network I pay to use. This what ‘network neutrality’ is really about, money
Then I am told I am to pay 300x more if I go over some randomly picked limit. When the reality is the number is just to fit some sort of increase in profit for this quarter. (the other side of network neutrality coin, and more money)
Then I am told that the little grandma down the street is subsidizing my internet. When in reality she wouldn’t have that service if I hadn’t bought it early on. (a distraction from the real issue)
Then I am told the republicans/democrats are out to get me. When in reality they are too lazy to do the right job, and let others do it for them. (another distraction from the real issue at hand, but an issue in its own right)
Sorry didn’t mean to be so subtle. Your right there is no money grab here at all I should have known better and not try to come up with a way to explain it to people! Wait there I go all being subtle again. If you think network neutrality is about ‘proper network congestion control’ you have been drinking too much propaganda kool aid. It is about money. Otherwise why would they bother? In every instance these guys have been acting like a monopoly. Monopolies are always up for a money grab…
I would be willing to bet cold hard cash they use the words ‘monitization of the network’. They want to charge the end user (you) 3 times for each byte you send and recieve. Once over at the host site. As the end sites will just pass the cost on to you. Once as you go to once to over their network (what you pay now). Then once again when you go over some magic limit (the reason for this site). In the end YOU end up paying 3x for something you are getting for less money right now. And guess what I would be willing to bet even more cold hard cash that there are MBA’s sitting in little meeting rooms trying to come up with even more ways to ‘get more money out of that network’. These two crazy schemes are just the beginning as they have already ‘trimmed the fat’. The fat being those ‘free’ services they used to have to compete with the dialup ISPs that basically do not exist anymore.
Clear now?
“Guess i was a little too subtle for you. Telnet access gone, Usenet access gone…This was the ‘free’ stuff.”
You think it was free? Are you that gullible? They just included it in the monthly price bud. Never was free because it wasn’t free for the ISP’s. They are not just going to absorb those costs and be nice. Also the reason they canceled Usenet was not due to downloading, but pressure from the RIAA and MPAA, since they hired out a 3rd party for Usenet access and never handled it directly. Losing Usenet access had nothing to do with Net Neutrality. And too subtle? Please get over yourself.
“Then I am told that the sites I go to must pay my ISP for the right to a ‘higher priority’ on the network I pay to use. This what ‘network neutrality’ is really about, money”
I think you are confused my friend. Net Neutrality prevents this kind of network discrimination.
“Then I am told I am to pay 300x more if I go over some randomly picked limit. When the reality is the number is just to fit some sort of increase in profit for this quarter. (the other side of network neutrality coin, and more money”
A cap has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If there were no Net Neutrality, you think there would be no caps? Again, are you that gullible?
The Internet has grown into what it is now because of Net Neutrality.It is only up to here recently that ISP’s have been scheming for ways to make more profit in these hard economic times. They can’t simply keep raising prices because eventually that path will drive subscribers away. Also, they see a threat to their cable tv and on demand services. This is the reason they want caps. They implement caps, they save their cable tv and on demand stuff. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or running out of bandwidth. If they were running out of bandwidth, why offer the premium tiers in the first place and try to get everyone on the lower tiers to conserve bandwidth? Because they make more money off the premium tiers. Their broadband side is making the money while their TV side is losing money. Yes, you are right, it is about the money as I have pointed out.
Need proof?
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/projections/report-cable-households-decline-17300
There has to be something done or ISPs are going to be like the cell phone carriers just as the previous commenter stated. What will happen when ISPs starts blocking which sites you can visit because it is not part of their network. No you can’t visit YouTube because we don’t own that. You have to visit our video site.
Once we pay our monthly bill we should be free to visit any site or use any service we choose to do.
Broadband is a classic public utility and should be regulated as such, if providers are to be prevented from cherry-picking their markets and dictating what internet sites their customers can have access to. Otherwise, both individuals and regions will be condemned to second class service, in the first case because they can’t afford better and in the second case because the market isn’t lucrative enough for the bean counters.
High-speed broadband is an indispensable tool even for small businesses these days. Countless areas of the country that lost their livelihoods because jobs were exported will have little chance to recover if they are subject to the whims of the cable and phone companies. The term “public option” has become familiar in another context. Well, it could play the same role in broadband that land grants and other subsidies for the railroads played in the development of the nation in the 19th century. Net neutrality and public utility style regulation are different sides of the same coin.
[...] Stop the Cap! » Republicans Launch Offensive Against Net …15 Oct 2009 by Phillip Dampier Eighteen Republican senators joined twenty House Republicans in a letter writing campaign to get FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to drop Net Neutrality from the agenda at the Federal Communications Commission, calling the policy … Stop the Cap! – http://stopthecap.com/ [...]