In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight the benefits of the Trump Administration's deregulation effort…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Agree with Trump's Pandemic Deregulation Initiative

In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight the benefits of the Trump Administration's deregulation effort, both pre-pandemic and going forward, and how a budding effort among Congressional leftists to impose a moratorium on business mergers would severely undermine that effort.  Rasmussen Reports brings excellent news in that regard, as large majorities of Americans agree with Trump rather than hyper-regulatory leftists:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows that 58% of likely U.S. voters approve of Trump's decision to temporarily limit government regulation of small businesses to help them bounce back.  Just 26% are opposed, while 17% are undecided."

Sadly but perhaps predictably, those on the left stubbornly disagree:

The president's action has triggered…[more]

May 26, 2020 • 12:43 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.
“Net Neutrality”: Regulating and Politicizing the Internet Print
By CFIF Staff
Monday, January 01 2007

What are the unintended consequences of Net Neutrality?

  • Net Neutrality would stifle much-needed private investment, at a time when policymakers should promote policies that encourage further investment and job creation. Broadband providers are investing billions of dollars in critical communications infrastructure to deploy advanced networks at a rapid pace, but so-called “Net Neutrality” legislation would diminish incentives to invest. In addition to stifling investment incentives, Net Neutrality could hinder public safety and homeland security, degrade the quality of consumers’ online experience, limit competition, and kill network innovation.

Is Net Neutrality a free speech protection?

  • No. Net Neutrality is essentially the “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet. Advocates on the Left mischaracterize the debate for political gain, but Net neutrality legislation is about mandating common carrier, nondiscrimination regulations for Internet service providers, not about protecting free speech. Net Neutrality is a key pillar in the information commons, anti-property rights and wealth redistribution agenda of the far Left. Supporters of Net Neutrality believe that all Internet infrastructure and online content should constitute public property – owned, operated and run by government bureaucrats.

What are some examples of real life consequences of Net Neutrality?

  • Everyone who has a broadband connection will experience more congestion and increased service interruptions if providers are restricted in managing traffic on their networks. Consumers will also pay higher prices to get online (a de facto tax), notice a decline in service options, and have far fewer choices online. Net Neutrality will prohibit consumer-oriented services, such as video on demand, and stifle innovations in services that we cannot even envision today.
  • Net Neutrality will also slow down and prohibit several critical health information technology applications. For example, Net Neutrality would require that data sent over the Internet to a doctor in a large city using an advanced telemedicine application to remotely monitor a patient with a heart condition in a rural town be treated the same as all other traffic online. Simply put, Net Neutrality regulations would strip networks of the ability to prioritize lifesaving medical information as it travels over the Internet, meaning your EKG results may get slowed down and degraded because the kid next door is downloading movies or a bad actor is flooding the network with SPAM.

 


to view the pdf click here.

Question of the Week   
When did Memorial Day officially become a federal holiday?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Our governmental COVID-19 mitigation policy of broad societal lockdown focuses on containing the spread of the disease at all costs, instead of 'flattening the curve' and preventing hospital overcrowding. Although well-intentioned, the lockdown was imposed without consideration of its consequences beyond those directly from the pandemic. ...The lost economic output in the U.S. alone is estimated…[more]
 
 
—Scott W. Atlas, MD, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow; John R. Birge University of Chicago Booth School of Business Professor; Ralph L. Keeney, Duke University Professor Emeritus and University of Southern California; Alexander Lipton, Jerusalem Business School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Visiting Professor and Dean's Fellow
— Scott W. Atlas, MD, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow; John R. Birge University of Chicago Booth School of Business Professor; Ralph L. Keeney, Duke University Professor Emeritus and University of Southern California; Alexander Lipton, Jerusalem Business School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Visiting Professor and Dean's Fellow
 
Liberty Poll   

Under coronavirus restrictions, have you been spending more, about the same or less than before on home technology equipment, services and subscriptions?