Surprise, surprise.  So Google, perhaps the leading proponent of so-called "Net Neutrality," predictably…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Net "Neutrality": Google Says Nondiscrimination for Me, But Not for Thee

Surprise, surprise.  So Google, perhaps the leading proponent of so-called "Net Neutrality," predictably doesn't consider itself constrained by the same rules of nondiscrimination from which it seeks to benefit via government intervention:

Progressives have long argued that the federal government must protect the Internet from discrimination by treating service providers like Comcast as public utilities.  Now we learn that the Net doesn't have to be neutral, as long as Google is the company targeting legal businesses that are politically unpopular.  Google recently announced in a blog post that the search engine would no longer run advertisements for payday loans with high interest rates and a 60-day repayment period.  'Ads for financial services are a particular area of vigilance given…[more]

May 31, 2016 • 01:05 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Press Room CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act"
CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act" Print
Thursday, August 01 2013

August 1, 2013

Dear Representative:

The undersigned organizations wish to reiterate our opposition to the so-called “Internet Radio Fairness Act,” which would require the government to grant subsidized, below-market rates to Internet radio companies for their input costs. This approach moves in the wrong direction by rejecting free-market based rates and involving the government more subjectively in the compensation paid to property owners.

While consumers have more choices than ever before in how, where and when they listen to music services, many of which are licensed in the free marketplace, artists and recording companies are still subject to government compulsory licensing with respect to digital radio services that compete with the market services, with rates set by the government. In other words, digital radio services get special favored treatment compared with their competitors. Currently, Internet radio companies at least must pay a government rate that is based on the rate paid by their competitors in the marketplace. The “Internet Radio Fairness Act” would instead have the government subjectively set a rate that would protect entrenched incumbent services. The proposed standard, created in the 1970s, is intended to prevent disruption of established services, according to supporters of the legislation. Therefore, the bill would deliberately keep new, young, innovative services from replacing current industry leaders.

As long as the government is involved in setting rates, a truly free market cannot exist in compensating music owners and creators for their work. The best way to achieve parity among music distributors is to get the government out of the rate-setting business, rather than to further involve government by granting below-market rates to favored entities. Competitive companies can flourish under a rate set by a true free market because successful on-demand music services such as iTunes, Spotify, Rhapsody, and Rdio already pay rates set by the marketplace. At the very least, the current system of setting rates based on market indicators is certainly better than government-forced below-market prices to benefit a particular company or service type.

There is nothing fair about government picking winners and losers in the music industry or any other marketplace. Therefore, we urge you to oppose the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.”

Sincerely,

Al Cardenas
American Conservative Union

Duane Parde
National Taxpayers Union

Tom Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

David Williams
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
Since its inception in 1861, how many Medal of Honor recipients have been women?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Smart Democrats began dusting off copies of their Plan B for the 2016 fall campaign this week. They were prompted by a devastating report from Department of Justice inspector general, who found that 'significant security risks' were raised by Hillary Clinton's decision to use a private e-mail server at the State Department. ...Democrats will carefully watch the polls in the next few weeks. If Hillary…[more]
 
 
—John Fund, National Review OnLine
— John Fund, National Review OnLine
 
Liberty Poll   

If Bernie Sanders debates Donald Trump before the California presidential primaries, who will be the biggest loser?