Tweet
On Thursday, 72 Democrats sent a letter to the Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski. The letter concerns net neutrality, which, according to the Chairman, is set to be enshrined as the FCC’s official policy.
The letter is very odd, especially if you’re not well versed in telecom lobbyist lingo. It lays out “concerns” relating to net neutrality that really don’t make much sense.
The heart of the letter reads:
As the FCC embarks on its much anticipated rulemaking addressing the subject of “net neutrality,” we therefore urge the Commissioner to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network investment. We are confident that an objective review of the facts will reveal the critical role that competition and private investment have played — and of necessity will continue to play — in building robust broadband networks that are safe, secure and open. In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to the limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.
Clearly, these Members of Congress are urging the Commissioner not to adopt net neutrality standards. But the argument they’re making is very curious. They point to the innovation that drove the creation and adoption of the Internet and broadband technologies as a reason to keep government regulation out of the picture.
On the surface, this might be convincing. After all, the Internet has grown up just fine without these regulations, why would we need them now. That is, until you realize that net neutrality is already the de-facto law of the land.
Right now, we have net neutrality in deed if not word. The FCC has enforced the provision, too, as Chairman Genachowski explained:
We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen one service provider deny users access to political content.
And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons for concern about even greater challenges to openness in the future, including reduced choice in the Internet service provider marketplace and an increase in the amount of Internet traffic, which has fueled a corresponding need to manage networks sensibly.
The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.
Or we could take steps to preserve a free and open Internet, helping to ensure a future of opportunity, prosperity, and the vibrant flow of information and ideas.
I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.
In other words, the Internet grew up to be the amazing tool it is today precisely because net neutrality reigned. Recently, telecom companies have started to change that.
In this light, the 72 Democrats who signed this letter don’t have much of an argument. They correctly note that the Internet has grown up well in the open platform it was given, a platform that includes net neutrality. And then they proceed to argue against making these rules formal. It makes no sense…
…until you consider the lobbyists.
The big phone and cable companies have launched an all-out assault on Capitol Hill to try to stop Net Neutrality. They’ve hired hundreds of lobbyists, spent tens of millions of dollars, and unleashed sleazy Astroturf groups to mislead politicians, distort the facts, and resurrect long-debunked myths.
The bad news is that these dirty and deceitful tactics appear to be working on a few people who should know better.
This afternoon, several dozen Democrats sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking them to walk away from their plans to protect Net Neutrality.
Their letter parrots telco talking points — which had to come from somewhere, and it certainly wasn’t from the more than 1.6 million people who have signed a petition in support of Net Neutrality.
This is a campaign by telecom lobbyists to block net neutrality from being preserved, using a false talking point about increased regulation. And yes, these Democrats really should know better, especially people like Jared Polis, who’s trying to have it both ways by defending this letter and saying he supports net neutrality.
It is because of net neutrality that we have blogs like this one. It’s because of net neutrality that we have Google, YouTube, Facebook, and all the other sites we take for granted every day. And there’s nothing wrong with the FCC making net neutrality a formal rule so this innovation can continue into the future.
Sign the petition supporting net neutrality and watch out for that telecom spin.
21 Comments
Actually, that smart cop on the beat is there to protect the public from the muggers, the lobbyists just want that reversed so that the muggers are enjoying free enterprise, the freedom to mug.
The lobbyists need to be kicked a million miles away from DC. Every last one of them.
Thank you, Jason, for the “heads up”!
Perhaps it is Democrats in Congress (and, quite possibly, other places) who need to “take off their jammies and get real”?
Does Congress, and especially the “majority” in Congress, not have enough serious business, especially now, to occupy their beautiful little minds, that they must engage in pathetic game-playing of the most useless, infantile, and destructive sort?
Disgusting and shameful.
DW
This is about bandwidth not freedom of speech on the internet. They want to throttle and control frequencies and certain types of data, like slowing down your video downloads or charging you more for how much you download etc… It’s been a fight all the way here to preserve any semblance of it, so it really hasn’t worked so well. If it did we wouldn’t be at the back of the bus behind every other first world nation when it comes to cell phone rates, choice to use your phone on other networks, more provider choices of home internet providers, more services, faster speeds, with cheaper rates. This is about maintaing their monopolies. Thanks for the link to the petition :)
Agreed. This is very much about monopolies.
Agreed. I think the telecoms have made it clear that they see more money for them in attempting to assert market power over what infrastructure exist than building more.
I think the ‘innovation’ the corporate suits are thinking of is more like the innovation that brought us the mortgage crisis /housing boom-bust, and financial meltdown than the innovation that brought us the internet (which was more from government funded, and academic, research and development than corporate finagling). That might be a good talking point for this issue.
I am not familiar with most of the names on that letter, but I see Ross and Welch, that is bad sign. I also see Cardoza, who represents where I grew up. That is bad sign too. Cardoza is not the worst Blue Dog, IMHO he is very timid opportunist who does the right thing once in awhile if pressed. But mostly he runs with safety of the mushy Blue Dog lite fellow travelers. He represents what is now considered ‘Red California’ and fears the mythical rigid ‘center right’ ideology of the US. The poor timid ignorant thing does not seem to realize that his Truman Democrat region is awaking from its long Reagan Democrat slumber and went almost 60% for Obama. He cannot or is afraid to think for himself. If many of the signers are like Cardoza, we may be able to influence them (unlike people like Ross, who I believe to be a corrupt tool).
My reps have all heard from me that internet neutrality, health care reform and global warming are do or die issues for me. DiFi is hopeless. I have told her she has lost my vote so many times that I am sure my paper letters go in the trash, and e-mails get routed to a junk mail folder.
I forgot about radio spectrum dominance and IP addresses. They lie when they say they want o promote competition, because it’s really about keeping it out. If we had any semblance of real competition there would be many providers, products, and services to choose from.
Google really wants to get in on the game so they are driving this and we will benefit too.
@newtonusr: According to my son (super nerd), the current FCC people Obama has put in place are doing a bang up job, so far. He apparently really understands the field so he hopefully won’t be swayed by such sophomoric arguments these reprobates are pushing in their letter.
How is throttling on an economic basis NOT limiting free speech?
When someone has money, infrastructure, influence that exceeds anyone else, how is this NOT limiting what you can say, how you can say it, and who can see it?
When the government, say, charges a tax on tobacco, they are doing more than one thing – they are subsidizing health care costs (we hope), and they are discouraging consumption.
Bandwidth aside, maintaining their monopolies is by definition restraint of free speech. Just because it’s a package deal doesn’t mean it isn’t a real consequence.
Your access won’t be “blocked”, it will just be so slow it won’t be worth your time. Death by a thousand cuts, but you’re still alive.. sort of .
One thing net neutrality will protect is your personal bandwidth, and the same speed of access onto the internet at the Telco switch. You are entitled to the speed you buy, and you can’t be limited to the amount of data you download. That is what they want to do, just like if you go over your minutes on your cell phone plan. They also want to prioritize your access speed onto the trunk lines at the switch, putting you in line behind their premium customers.
I ask again – this assumes an economic model wherein you, with more money and more influence, decides that I, with less money and less influence, have to pay more for the same access I have now. How is this NOT inherently, implicitly restraint of free speech masquerading as the ‘hand of the free market?’
You are trying to argue a philosophical point with the wrong person.. Try your congressman.
But applying the same logic, If shutting down lobby money hurts businesses freedom of speech, and we don’t have the money to compete with them to get access for redress, then our freedom of speech has been lost.
I don’t think internet access or presence is equal to the freedom of speech. but the bandwidth/speed we buy has to come the same level of service or access.
Monopolies curtail our right to compete in an open market, under a perverted capitalist system. That seems to me to impose on all kinds of our rights. You can still go out and scream in the street.
That is exactly, precisely what I would argue. Just because Nino Scalia doesn’t agree with me…
Well, you get the point.
Jared Polis is becoming a tremendous disappointment.
I may have missed something…
Why is Michael Copps NOT the Chair of the FCC?
It’s the opening act in the kabuki theatre: the faux, and illogical, concerns about stopping the “progress” of the internet when that is exactly what they plan on doing under the cloak of their “concern”. Next up these very concerned “public servants” will meet and furrow their brows as they devise some way to thwart net neutrality. They certainly won’t get any resistance from the democrats dynamic duo of dlc deceit, rahm and obama. There is little doubt that obama inc. … the new name rebranding of the establishment … wants expression and movements against their agenda thwarted.
Z
Another thought is that a decade or go, it was an open question whether the unregulated free market or government policies would do a better job or producing adequate infrastructure with public good aspects. The glibertatians said that the US would bury the rest of the world in every which way when we let big corporate competition bloom.
I think that question has been answered, and glibertarians have been proven wrong once again. The US is lagging behind other countries in Europe and Asia that have approached internet access and infrastructure as a public good, and let social policy set basic ground rules for competiton and investment. They are advancing while we are not. The fact that we had an international experiment, and the answer is trending away from letting big coporations do whatever the heck they want to grab cash being the best policy might be another good talking point.
neoliberals and gliberatarians.. unregulation is an invitation for monopolization and corruption. The jury is in but these governmental types are ignoring it and still trying to shove it down our throats at our peril and their short term gain.
Jon Walker is upstairs!
Snowe Strikes Again, Universal Underinsurance
Shutting the door doesn’t sound robust or open to me. I have software options for that secure part. Unless, of course, the secure part refers to the pols.
net neutrality; equal speed is democracy.