Freedom Line Blog

In an op-ed publish today by The Daily Caller, CFIF’s Jeffrey Mazzella and Timothy Lee warn that proposed “Net Neutrality” rules being considered by President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission threaten to stifle Internet innovation and cut off tens of billions of dollars in private investment  in the deployment of high-speed broadband networks. 

Thanks to private investments of $60 billion or more annually by Internet service providers, the World Wide Web has blossomed over the past decade into a tool that most Americans use daily to access news, information and entertainment. We also use it to communicate with family and friends, to share photos with loved ones, and for education and civic participation purposes. The Internet drives increased commerce and promises efficiencies in the healthcare and energy sectors. It motivates new innovation and jobs on a pace that continues to surpass our collective imagination.

All this has been made possible primarily because the Internet has remained largely unregulated. Its growth and development have been gated not by federal bureaucrats, but rather by users’ individual wants, needs and dreams.

But all of that could change if net neutrality regulations are put in place. …

Read the full piece here.

Join the fight to stop the government takeover of the Internet here.

The Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) this week unveiled a national grassroots campaign to rally conservatives in opposition to the Obama Administration’s efforts to impose onerous “Net Neutrality” rules on the Internet. The ‘Stop Net Regulation’ campaign, launched during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., encourages Americans to get active online through a national petition and by contacting their elected officials in opposition to a government takeover of the Internet.

Join the fight by signing the online petition here.

Read CFIF’s media release here.

Fresh off his famous catastrophes on the healthcare and deficit reduction fronts, Barack Obama momentarily shifted his bumbling gaze yesterday to Net Neutrality.

What exactly is Net Neutrality, you ask?

Well, think of it as ObamaCare for the Internet, and you get the essential idea.  Net Neutrality would federally bureaucratize Internet service by dictating rigid price controls and traffic surge management to providers, among other toxic provisions.  The Internet seemed to be doing just fine so far, what with the ongoing explosion of content delivery and devices like the iPhone.  But why should that stop Obama from “fixing” something that isn’t broken?

In an unintentionally amusing commentary entitled “President Obama Hearts Net Neutrality,” Stacey Higginbotham praises Obama, who appears to be shifting his Midas-in-reverse focus to this dangerous campaign.  When asked about Net Neutrality, Obama responded:

I’m a big believer in Net Neutrality.  I campaigned on this.  I continue to be a strong supporter of it.  My FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has indicated that he shares the view that we’ve got to keep the Internet open, that we don’t want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn’t have a lot of money but has a good idea from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet.  So this is something we’re committed to.

Consider the absurdity of Obama’s comment.  He curiously demands that we “keep the Internet open,” even though it has somehow managed to remain open all this time without the need for crippling Net Neutrality regulations.  And he suggests that Net Neutrality is necessary to allow innovators to “start their next YouTube or their next Google,” leaving one to wonder how anyone ever managed to start YouTube or Google in the first place without Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality advocates dishonestly concoct the bogeyman of sinister Internet service providers blocking web content, but the reality is that America faces a continuing exponential increase in Internet traffic.  This rapid growth will require innovations and investment by Internet service providers to carry it, just as they have done to date.  Obama wrongly alleges that Net Neutrality is somehow necessary to allow the next YouTube or Google, but the truth is that the next YouTube or Google will be impossible if network providers are prohibited by bureaucratic Net Neutrality regulations from managing the surge in data traffic.

The need for freedom and flexibility of network providers to innovate will become even more critical as Americans increasingly shift to smart phones.

As noted by a report in today’s Wall Street Journal, “carriers are already running at over 80% capacity,” and “are scrambling to build out next-generation networks that promise higher bandwidth and faster speeds.”  If Obama and his FCC succeed in imposing suffocating Net Neutrality regulations that they recently proposed, however, service providers’ difficulties will only increase as Obama bureaucratizes the Internet in the same way that he attempted to bureaucratize healthcare.

Americans concerned about the future of Internet growth and innovation must therefore act quickly to stop Obama’s reverse-Midas Net Neutrality scheme.  Please contact your Senators and Representative immediately and demand a stop to this destructive scheme before it’s too late.

The FCC recently voted to advance the process to pass “Net Neutrality” regulations, something Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and others have called “the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.” CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the issue in this week’s Freedom Minute.   Watch the video below.

As President Obama’s FCC moves forward to impose burdensome Net Neutrality regulations on the Internet and just in time for Halloween, CFIF this week released the following illustration highlighting the intricate web between the Obama Administration and Google, a leading supporter of Net Neutrality.  The illustration raises the question: Is Net Neutrality merely a trick on Internet users or just a treat for Google’s welfare?

[+] ENLARGE IMAGE

Despite recent bureaucratic attempts to regulate and control the Internet, there are at least some in Congress who realize that an open Internet cannot coexist with government regulation.

This week, Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced H.R. 3942, a bill to block the FCC’s net neutrality regulations.  As Blackburn lamented, “The Internet is the last truly open public marketplace.  Its openness is the key to its efficiency and success.  Not all public spaces need to be regulated spaces.”

At present, H.R. 3942 has no cosponsors, but that only means you should call your representative and urge them to sign on to support Internet freedom.

Read the text of the bill here.  Read more of CFIF on net neutrality here.

James Pethokoukis, Money and Politics columnist and blogger for Reuters, notes that the FCC’s decision to proceed with a process of imposing so-called Net Neutrality rules on Internet network providers is not only “curious as well as wrongheaded,” it could result in the next “systemic risk” for the U.S. economy.

Questioning the wisdom and necessity of strict Internet regulations to be imposed under the false promise of “neutrality,” Pethokoukis wrote:

The financial crisis that has convulsed the global economy for the past two years should be a potent reminder to communications regulators that the best of government intentions can create horrible, though unintended, consequences. …

“Like physicians and Fed governors, the first goal of regulators should be to do no harm. And that is especially true when they are trying to impose a solution in search of a problem. Broadband prices, for one thing, are on the decline. The average cost of consumer broadband has dropped to less than $20 a month from $50 a month in 2001. And more people have access. As late of 2004, 70 percent of households still used dial-up modems for web access. Today, just 10 percent do with broadband speeds doubling over that period. Tough to find a market failure here. …

“But the FCC — with the full encouragement of the Obama administration — nonetheless intends to push forward with seeming little concern about the unintended consequences of intervening into a well-functioning sector vital to the American economy. At the very least, the FCC will likely face years of court battles over the rule that could serve to paralyze the sector. Now there’s your systemic risk.”

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, whose company has been lobbying hard in support of Net Neutrality, admitted recently, “It is possible for the government to screw the Internet up, big-time.”

Perhaps Google and other large corporate content providers who wish to use the heavy hand of government to continue to freeload on the backs of ordinary Internet consumers should heed Schmidt’s warning.

Here’s a contradiction to chew on for a while:  Google’s chief executive Eric Schmidt tells The Washington Post that he’s wary about destructive overregulation of the Internet…  Yet he simultaneously favors so-called Net “Neutrality?”

According to Mr. Schmidt, “it is possible for the government to screw up the Internet, bigtime.”  The article reports that he went so far as to say that “it would be a terrible idea for the government to involve itself as a regulator of the broader Internet.”

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

But how can Mr. Schmidt square his accurate concern about destructive Internet regulation with his advocacy of Net “Neutrality,” which would needlessly introduce federal rules into Internet service for the first time?  Stated simply, he can’t.  Nevertheless, he and Google foolishly advocate Net “Neutrality” because they believe it serves their short-term corporate interest.  Of course, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries initially believed the same thing about ObamaCare, before belatedly recognizing the toxic longer-term reality…

The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines this morning to advance the process of imposing strict net neutrality regulations on the Internet.

According to a report in The Hill:

With Thursday’s vote, the five-member panel began the process to move forward with open-Internet regulations announced last month by the agency’s chairman, Juilus Genachowski. His proposal would formally codify the FCC’s current four principles intended to prevent Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to certain content and services and therefore deciding which applications consumers have access to. He also proposed two additional principles, one to ensure providers do not discriminate between applications and another to require Internet companies to disclose their network management practices to consumers.

“Genachowski had the full support of Democratic Commissioners Micheal Copps and Mignon Clyburn, as expected. Republican Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Atwell Baker dissented to the idea that government regulation is needed to keep the Internet open, but supported the beginning of a fact-finding process to learn more about the technical and legal questions surrounding net neutrality.”

At an event put on earlier this week by the Safe Internet Alliance, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) cautioned against the imposition of net neutrality regulation, calling it the “fairness doctrine for the Internet.”

The Obama Administration’s highly-publicized campaign to punish and silence Fox News may have broader implications than just the broadcast media.  So too might the “Fairness Doctrine” that it favors.  Namely, as noted by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R – Tennessee), they portend ominous censorship possibilities if government control over the Internet becomes a reality via so-called Net “Neutrality.”

By targeting Fox News, the Obama Administration has abandoned any pretense of governmental content neutrality.  It has thereby commenced an attempt to censor those whom it disfavors, and elevate those whom it favors.  The same is true of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which conveniently targets those media sources most likely to engage in criticism of Obama and the liberal agenda more generally.  Should Net “Neutrality” become a reality, that censorship could be spread to the Internet as well by introducing regulatory control over Internet delivery options.  Does any reasonable person believe that they would stop there?  It may sound far-fetched to suggest that the White House would stoop to Internet censorship, but who would have thought that it would so openly and explicitly target a single media outlet, the only one that exposed such things as the ACORN undercover videos?

We’re not just talking about a slippery slope here.  With this White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress, we’re talking about a greased slope.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the push for so-called “net neutrality” is heating up in corporate boardrooms, as Internet giants Facebook, Twitter, Digg and Amazon penned a letter to FCC (Federal Communications Commission) Chairman Julius Genachowki this week in support of his plan for stifling government regulation of private high-speed wireline and wireless networks.

The FCC is scheduled to release details of its net neutrality rules on Thursday.  However, the period for public comment is still open.  Or, you can call the Congressional switchboard (202-224-3121) to air your views against government regulation of the Internet with your elected officials.

The Center for Individual Freedom opposes so-called “net neutrality” because it would introduce stifling government regulations onto what is now a free and open Internet.  More here and here.

Last month, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski laid out his plan to impose new “net neutrality” regulations on Internet service providers, a move which could severely restrict their ability to adequately manage the flow of data and information through their broadband and wireless networks.

CFIF and others have warned on numerous occasions (see here and here and here) that the imposition of strict “net neutrality” rules would stifle the very innovation that Internet and wireless consumers have grown to demand and expect of an industry that’s been able to rapidly evolve during a time when most other sectors of the economy continue to struggle. 

Even The Washington Post editorialized that Genachowski’s net neutrality regulations “will jeopardize [‘an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity’] — and stifle further investments by ISPs — with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace.” 

Now, some Members of Congress are ramping up their opposition as well.

Questioning the necessity for and warning against the new rules, 18 Republican Senators, led by Senator Sam Brownback, sent a letter yesterday to Chairman Genachowski:

We fear that the proposals you announced during your September 21, 2009 speech will be counterproductive and risk harming the great advancements in broadband speed and deployment that we have witnessed in recent years and will limit the freedom of the Internet.”

The letter goes on to read:

You recognize that significant progress with respect to broadband deployment has been made ‘thanks to substantial investment and technological ingenuity.’  Broadband service providers have invested billions of dollars in building and upgrading their networks to better serve their customers.  However, burdensome regulations will have a chilling effect on further private sector investment, at a time when the U.S. economy can least afford such an impact.

“It is because of significant competition among broadband service providers that consumers have more choices and are enjoying the best online experience that has ever been available. … Mobile networks are getting faster, making such networks even stronger competitors to wireline networks.  Market-based solutions and competition is working.”

Read the full letter here (.pdf).

The FCC is scheduled to vote next week on whether to unveil the proposed regulations, which are reportedly still a work in progress, to the public.

CFIF has commented extensively on the imprudent push by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Julius Genachowski and others in the Obama Administration to impose “Net Neutrality” regulations on Internet network providers.  We’ve discussed how Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem that will stifle private investment in high speed networks and work counter to the President’s goal of universal broadband access.

But in addition to the policy arguments against Net Neutrality, the question remains whether the FCC even possesses the statutory authority to impose such regulations without Congress’ consent.

Barbara Esbin, Senior Fellow & Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, analyzes that question in a recent paper titled, “The Audacity to Hope Regulatory Restraint Will Prevail.”  Her conclusion: “[N]o, it does not, at least not for the reasons the agency has advanced to date.”

Esbin writes:

The question of regulatory jurisdiction is not so directly implicated when the FCC propounds broad, but unenforceable, policy principles, as it did with its 2005 Internet Policy Statement. But legally binding ‘rules of the road,’ such as those envisioned by the agency’s Chairman, must rest on a convincing factual predicate and must come within the scope of the regulatory powers delegated to the FCC by Congress. And it is the latter that is called into question by the FCC’s reliance on the doctrine of ‘ancillary jurisdiction’ in its Comcast P2P Order, currently on review before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court not especially hospitable to such claims. If the FCC’s jurisdictional theory falls before the D.C. Circuit, the most it may be able to achieve with its new rulemaking is an expanded set of policy principles. Well, one can hope.

Read the full paper here (.pdf).

The Washington Post, in an editorial published this morning titled “The FCC’s Heavy Hand,” takes a surprising but welcome position on the issue of Net Neutrality.  Surprising because of the predictable and consistent pro-regulation stance to which readers of WaPo’s editorial page are accustomed.  Welcome because it rightly points out that “federal regulators should not be telling Internet service providers how to run their businesses.”

The editorial begins:

In a speech at the Brookings Institution last week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski promised that his agency’s plan for regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) will be ‘fair, transparent, fact-based and data-driven.’

“That’s nice. But Mr. Genachowski failed to convincingly answer the most important question of all: Is this intervention necessary?”

The answer is “No!”  As the Post noted, Net Neutrality regulations “will jeopardize [‘an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity’] — and stifle further investments by ISPs — with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace.”

As we’ve often noted, Google is one of the biggest corporate lobbyists for Net Neutrality, by which federal regulations and bureaucrats would do to the Internet what they’ve done to public education. This is corporate welfare of the worst kind, as Google seeks to cement its business model of free-riding on telecommunications infrastructure through government dictate.

But it raises the question – why not attach “Search Neutrality” amendments to any Net Neutrality legislation that it advocates?  After all, Google justifies its lobbying on the ground that Internet service providers are somehow ready to spring their sinister plan to block consumer access to various websites.  Never mind that we’ve gone two decades without any substantive problem in this regard, and never mind that the marketplace would punish any service provider that actually attempted to block consumer choice in that manner.  But even accepting its rationalization at face value, isn’t Google just as capable of blocking sites in its search results?  What is to stop THEM from suffocating consumer access?

Accordingly, we propose that if Google is serious, how about adding a “Search Neutrality” provision to any Net Neutrality bill that it advocates?  Paraphrasing your own motto, Google, don’t be evil.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski today laid the groundwork for formal imposition of so-called Net “Neutrality” rules upon the telecommunications sector in a speech before the Brookings Institution, and the usual chorus of nanny-state activists quickly applauded this potential intrusion.  The Free Press trumpeted that Chairman Genachowski’s speech was “a breath of fresh air in a Washington policy environment that has long stagnated under the influence of a powerful phone and cable lobby.”  So let us get this straight…  The Internet is the most innovative and thriving sector in American life, but Net “Neutrality” advocates are under the illusion that it has somehow “stagnated?”

Among other things, Genachowski contended that, “if we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late.”  As if the Internet has somehow been constrained and closed to date?  Tellingly, Genachowski later slipped into an admission when he said that we should “take steps to preserve Internet openness” (emphasis added), acknowledging that it has been, and remains, open.  He later said that, “we will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity.”

In other words, even according to Genachowski, the Internet is “an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity,” but federal government intrusion is suddenly and mystically vital to its survival? It all obviously recalls Ronald Reagan’s adage that the most terrifying words are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

As we’ve said on multiple occasions, Net “Neutrality” is a supposed solution in search of a problem.  Doesn’t the federal government have enough on its plate right now without adding spoliation of the Internet?

It appears that Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is ready to formally commence its invasion of one of the few frontiers that it has not yet commandeered – the Internet.  After months of concerned anticipation and speculation, the Wall Street Journal reports that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will officially propose codification of “Net Neutrality” rules that have heretofore remained unadopted.  He will rationalize his takeover initiative in a speech this coming Monday, according to the report.

So what is wrong with “Net Neutrality?”  Very simply, it isn’t “neutrality” at all.  Rather, it means that the federal government will impose its corrosive presence into the Internet, which has remained the most vibrant and innovative sphere of contemporary American life precisely because the federal government has kept out.  “Net Neutrality” will reverse that.  In this age, continued Internet innovation demands flexibility and freedom on the part of Internet service providers to experiment with different delivery and pricing models to prevent increasing gridlock and maintain consumer quality.  By imposing a one-size-fits-all business model upon private entities, however, federal bureaucrats will stifle that flexibility and freedom to operate and experiment with different models.  Ultimately, continued Internet innovation and consumer quality will be the casualty.

After all, what sectors has the federal government improved after imposing its heavy hand?

Perhaps the best manner of illustrating “Net Neutrality” is that it is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet.

We don’t need the federal government controlling our healthcare, we don’t need it controlling our airwaves and we certainly don’t need it controlling the Internet.