« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The right speaks out against Net Neutrality

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  April 15th, 2010 at 12:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

A letter opposing Net Neutrality went out today to members of Congress from a number of groups on the right. The spectrum of our movement is represented: libertarian groups, religious and values-oriented groups, economic and fiscal policy advocates, large organizations, and grass roots are all there. The entire list of signers, available below the fold, is as diverse as it is long.

They all recognize that we’ve all benefited from how the Internet has grown and innovated under years of regulation with a “light touch,” because contrary to myth the Internet has never been a Title II Common Carrier under the Communications Act*, and that we must continue to allow the free flow of information without heavy-handed government interference. Competition protects us better than empowering an activist FCC ever could.

I’m glad to see that more of us are coming around on this critical issue. We’re a long way from the days when Free Press front group Save the Internet could rattle off technobabble and convince conservatives that their neo-Marxist regulatory plans were harmless.

* I linked to AT&T, and now the neo-Marxists are going to call me a capitalist lap dog! Oh no! Everybody Panic!

Anyway, here’s the letter itself for review:

April 15, 2010

Dear Member of Congress,

We are writing to alert you of a dangerous effort currently underway at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Unelected bureaucrats are seeking to fundamentally alter the federal government’s role in regulating the Internet by imposing so-called “net neutrality” mandates. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have agreed that a “light touch” approach to the Internet creates competition, lowers prices, incentivizes innovation, and ultimately benefits consumers. The current proposal under consideration is a harmful departure from long held successful policies. The FCC’s attempt to regulate the Internet is unwise and must be opposed.

The Internet is prime example of what can be achieved when companies are free to compete without the intervention of the heavy-hand of government. America’s broadband service providers have invested billions of dollars in improving their networks and consumers are winning. The Internet is faster than it’s ever been, we have access to high-definition video online, and new premium online services are made available daily. The great success of the Internet has been made possible because the government has stayed out. There is no evidence of a market failure to justify the burdensome government regulations some are proposing. Unfortunately, it appears that a few FCC commissioners lack an understanding of how regulations affect investment.

Net neutrality regulations also call into question how obscenity and other objectionable content on the Internet is treated. Let’s be clear, all content is not equal and does not deserve equal treatment, but net neutrality prohibits broadband service providers from prioritizing the content consumers want and preventing peddlers of child pornography from having unblocked access to every home Internet connection. It is critically important for parents and families to continue to have access to the tools necessary to keep unwanted content out of the home.

We ask that you support innovation, competition, and consumers and oppose this effort to regulate the Internet.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Schlafly
President and Founder
Eagle Forum

Penny Nance
CEO
Concerned Women of America

Grover Norquist 
President 
Americans for Tax Reform
Tom McClusky
Sr. Vice President
Family Research Council Action 

Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity

Steve Pociask
President
American Consumer Institute

C. Preston Noell III
President
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Andresen Blom
Executive Director
American Principles in Action

Bill Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

Lisa Correnti
President and Founder
OneNationUnderGod.org

Kelly William Cobb
Executive Director
Digital Liberty Project

Timothy Lee 
Vice-President of Legal and Public Affairs
Center for Individual Freedom  

Steve Elliott
Founder
Grassfire Nation

Mathew Staver
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Chuck Muth
President
Citizen Outreach

Mario Lopez
President
Hispanic Leadership Fund

Joseph K. Grieboski
Founder and President
Institute on Religion and Public Policy 

Deal Hudson
President
Catholic Advocate

Phil Kerpen
Director
NoInternetTakeover.com

Andrea Lafferty
Executive Director
Traditional Values Coalition

Timothy B. Wildmon
President
American Family Association

Curt Levey
Executive Director
Committee for Justice

Rev. Rob Schenck
President
National Clergy Council 

Phillip L. Jauregui
President
Judicial Action Group

Jamie Story
President
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Dave Trabert
President
Kansas Policy Institute

Larry Cirignano
President
Faith & Freedom New Jersey

John Taylor
President
Tertium Quids

Hance Haney
Director and Senior Fellow
Technology & Democracy Project
Discovery Institute

Dr. Carl Herbster
President
AdvanceUSA
Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • notreallyrepublican

    I know, sacrilege. But let me lay it out.

    “Let?s be clear, all content is not equal and does not deserve equal treatment”

    From a technical perspective, this is simply incorrect. A bit is a bit is a bit. It’s a 1 or a 0. Bit’s from google are not inherently harder to handle then bits from redstate. That’s the even playing field of the internet, and what makes it great. independant voices, such as us, have just as much reach as the big guys, our voices are placed on the exact same level as, say, George Soros. Net Neutrality has been the de facto regime of the internet since its proliferation.

    And this has caused some consternation. When you or me or susie with her cat on youtube can be as entertaining as that full on HBO package from comcast. I can be more well-informed through here or NRO as i can be watching CNN on cox.

    When a company puts up barriers to entry on that, by making it pay-for-play to get to customers at a network speed that the customers already paid for, that’s double dipping, that’s squashing out the little guy, and thats defrauding the consumer. I buy 15 megabits from comcast. I bought that 15 megabits because that’s the bandwith i wanted, to replace my tv, my radio, my home phone (software phone with a number provided by Google Voice) my newspaper, my… everything. That’s the package I bought.

    It’s a personal freedom issue for me. I bought a service from a company, I’m perfectly capable of determining what I do with that service, not leaving it up to the vagaries of business contracts and who has the money to afford the ‘fast lane’.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Your last line is one of the better self-beclownings I’ve seen in a while.

    Thanks for admitting you’re just against free markets and don’t want people to be able to pay for service.

  • notreallyrepublican

    If you want to just lay it out in snide comments, im fine just dropping it, but if you want to dive in depth to what you mean by that a little more I’d be happy to listen. I don’t see how im against buying service… I spent 2 months looking for the perfect plan at the right price to consolidate all my needs into an internet connection, im actually rather engaged in the whole’ buying internet service’ part :)

  • notreallyrepublican
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You just admitted that you’re a pro-big government, pro-socialist shill for the Marxists.

    You make a mockery of your so-called conservatism and the third party fringe.

    I’m content to let you babble like a moron without my having to say a word. Every comment you make benefits me.

  • notreallyrepublican

    “You just admitted that you?re a pro-big government, pro-socialist shill for the Marxists.”

    If i did, im unaware of my secret Marxist core, might explain why I hate myself sometimes :)

    But if you care to enlighten me as to how im a closeted big government socialist, im more then open to hearing it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You just endorsed government regulation to prevent people from having the freedom to go into the market and paying for better or worse service depending on how much money they want to spend.

  • notreallyrepublican

    Many of the ‘wired’ conservative groups support net neutrality for many or the reasons I espoused. Here’s a decent little read that might be more eloquent then I am: http://techrepublican.com/blog/the-conservative-argument-for-net-neutrality

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    “When a company puts up barriers to entry on that .. that?s squashing out the little guy,..”

    You’re saying we need government involement to make it a fair playing field.

    And rather than laying it on the little guy to become more competitive and innovative on his own, you’re supporting government interference and control.

    Manipulation of the market.

    But it’s a gateway to media control, control of what we use freely now.

    Once they’re in, they can govern content, including this site.

    Fairness Doctrine for the Net.

  • notreallyrepublican

    I posted a link to TechRepublican, it might have something for you to ponder a bit, whether or not you agree with me.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    and that’s akin to the Catholic Church pushing for socialized healthcare.

    While they may have good intentions, net neutrality isn’t something anyone wants to play with with THIS ADMINISTRATION.

    The efforts of THIS ADMINISTRATION to control any other part of the economy and free speech should be stopped, period.

    … and points of Jim’s post are also debatable.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    Nice smiling face over on their site.

    Of all things.

    Coalition Guest Commentary – Sen. Lindsey Graham: Clean Energy Bill Should Balance Security, Economy and Environment

    http://www.cc.org/commentary/coalition_guest_commentary_sen_lindsey_graham_clean_energy_bill_should_balance_security_e

  • cousinfromanotherplanet

    while dispensing vitriol Neil and Veronica…why don’t you follow the link provided by the reasonable and rational NotReally and educate yourself about the subject a little.

    FYI The US lags behind much of the world in broadband speed and although still one of the cheaper places is not the cheapest by a margin nor the most widely divested.

  • charlienosurf

    I’m a fairly staunch conservative, this is one of those times where I disagree with Neil’s position here.

  • soup77

    So what is the counter argument to:

    us – “Well it is your choice, pick a different provider if you don’t like the one you have”

    them – “Well in my city we only have one internet provider and they have a monopoly on everything, so we can’t switch”

    How does one respond to that? Currently in Denver we have Qwest and Comcast. If both of them decide to limit Xbox Live gaming (for example) then there are going to be a lot of unhappy people. Will this happen I doubt it, but that doesn’t stop people from thinking that the big bad corporations will kill all broadband. Which is ridiculous argument in itself.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • LibertarianHawk

    And I say that as somebody who is very strongly in favor of non-discriminatory traffic policies. I couldn’t sympathize more with the stated intention of Net Neutrality.

    And while I do have philosophical qualms about the government telling private property owners what they must and must not do with their property, my chief argument against Net Neutrality is entirely practical.

    Simply put: History suggests that regulation, once it begins, never really ends….nor does it remain limited to the subject matter which motivated the regulation.

    Network providers will seek their own list of concessions to make up for whatever they’ll claim to lose by having to accept this restriction. And they’ll get some or all of them.

    Then, off we’ll go until the next matter comes up. And despite proponents originally only wanting to limit the FCC’s role to enforcing neutral traffic policies, the horse of jurisdiction will already be out of the barn. It’s their charge for good….and God only knows where they’ll take that.

    I can appreciate people on the left not seeing this coming. They rarely seem inclined to think about the unintended consequences of the policies they push.

    I can’t, though, figure out why so many conservatives seem blinded to what this is likely to precipitate.

  • LibertarianHawk

    ….the emerging 4G technology will offer a wireless way around the “last-mile” oligopolies (that is: the actual copper and/or fiber lines running around a particular town that are typically owned by cable companies or telephone companies).

    So the argument should be: why not take actions promoting open competition rather than actions restricting specific operating policies?

    I don’t see why there couldn’t be room in the market for providers with neutral policies and ones with limited ones — or even different kinds of access services from the same provider.

    We need to let providers and customers sort this out. And if provider A tries to be restrictive, watch how quickly he loses customers to provider B.

    If both A and B do it, then the best thing we can do is be sure the barriers for new provider C aren’t high.

    Now, if A, B, and C do it despite consumer resistance, then it’s probably something that’s going to happen regardless…in which case the FCC forcing it upon them is likely to cause some adverse unintended consequences.

    The most recent parallel is the whole subprime mortgage fiasco.

  • notreallyrepublican

    but they’d need to be formulated into a plan. And you still couldn’t avoid more regulation, so the proposals are equal on those grounds.

    To wit: The biggest barrier to entry in that market is infrastructure. The copper needed to wire a city costs a lot. The labor will cost a lot. It’s a significant barrier to entry. They handled this with phone companies by requiring them to lease access to those lines to other carriers who wanted to offer service. So at that point if you lived somewhere atlantic bell was prevalent and didn’t want them for some reason, MCI could offer you service, paying bell for the use of their lines. The regulations weren’t ‘you had to give it for free’, but ‘you cant refuse to lease in order to box out other providers’.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I just can’t be bothered to argue with the freshly registered one post wonders.

  • notreallyrepublican

    This was actually supposed to be a reply to your post below about encouraging competition, it’ll make more sense if you know that first :)

  • strategerist

    This whole debate really kicked into gear when Comcast decided to throttle bittorrent and later meter total monthly bandwidth.

    Of course, bittorrent can be used to pirate movies and music just as it can be used to distribute digital copies of the bible and the constitution – it is inherently neither good nor evil. That said, it was becoming apparent that a small minority of users were impacting the overall performance of the network for other users and that much of the material being downloaded was TV shows, movies, music and porn. Cable companies sell access to all of that material so they saw this as potentially eroding their profitable PPV and premium services.

    Not to mention the fact that cable providers have business relationships with content owners and creators and were most certainly under pressure to take at lease some steps to curtail the wanton infringement of digital content.

    So throttling was implemented to minimize the impact that the heavy users were making on the shared network and bandwidth caps were implemented to make accessing content on the internet (either through piracy or through legitimate avenues that do not profit the cable company) more expensive than accessing the same content through the cable services.

    From this point, I think the statists saw an opportunity to co-opt this issue and use it to leverage more control – ostensibly in the interest of protecting consumers, but lets not forget that the content lobby (RIAA, MPAA, etc) is extremely powerful and are constantly seeking new legislation and intrusions to limit the way that even paying consumers can use their licensed content.

    I think the government interests saw this issue as a way to appear to be pro-consumer while helping their friends in big content and also inserting controls that may prove useful to law enforcement and the suppression of the free flow of information.

    I am open to the idea that there may be some anti trust issues with the cable companies and the tension between internet content delivery and the traditional model of cable video / ppv content delivery, but I am not convinced it is in need of a break up or anything like that.

  • yoyo

    I swear (without profanity – sometimes) – My Sr. Senator can be such an idiot.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I can oppose the DMCA *and* NetNeut.

  • yoyo

    Charlie – Thank you for the intriguing insight into your position.

    “fairly staunch conservative” – Really? Let me guess, cuz you say so?

    “one of those times where I disagree with Neil’s position” – When were the other disagreements? What positions?

    …Give me a break. Go back to DKos or wherever.

  • soup77

    I appreciate the help.

    And thank you Neil for responding to my private correspondence.

    As I said in my note to you. I’m just trying to get a grip on this stuff so I can have an informed debate with my peers. My apologies for jumping in the deep end on the first day of school without a life preserver. I’ll make sure to wade into the shallow end first with my little duck floaty fully intact next time. ;-)

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    you are welcome to move to them.

    In the meantime, enjoy your freedom to be a chump before the Obama Adminstration invents socialized internet and tames your right to free speech.

    I read. And Jim Backlin says Hollywood has a monopoly over entertainment and creativity, which is far from the truth.

    I name Passion of the Christ and the gamut of the Indie Industry, bub.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    yard full of ‘em?

    you’ve a meanie, obsessed HOA President, too?

  • jcrocker76

    Net neutrality is also about universal equipment, such as modems, whether they are dsl phone modems or cable modems. Some people want universal equipment across the board, which would go against the spirit of competition amongst hardware manufacturers as well as drive up costs of high speed providers to purchase new equipment, or even change their wiring schemes.

  • mash

    …..really this is a no-brainer. Everyone likes the way the internet works except for a few companies who exist in a fairly uncompetitive environment. I’ve got to abandon ship on this one. Its just pure ideological nuttiness not to support net neutrality.

    Everyone loves the wild west quality of the internet. What, do we want it to look more like cable TV? That would be a disaster.

    The passing reference to how letting companies do whatever they want to lead to more innovation lacks imagination. What kind of innovation are they referring to? who knows. The obvious effect of treating information differently will be that less is available and you’ll see more doritos commercials.

    Again, everyone loves the way the internet is. When that changes we will probably never get it back and I for one will be sad. Some people here seem to think that only the government can push people around with their weight, as if a major company has some sort of divine halo around it. As if being pushed around isn’t being pushed around…when its a large, private, near monopoly doing it….

    I know it isn’t pure free market….but in a near monopoly condition the market isn’t really all that free either…

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s amazing how many people by perfect coincidence a) just registered at RedState but b) happen to be making their first posts on this issue.

  • steveinseattle

    Corporate media does not accurately portray conservative thinking because it has a limited market share. If you give them the chance they will not allow conservative voices to be heard – only radical voices to get a good story.

    If you want the truth out – don’t give them the chance to charge more or limit access to sites like this one. Please. Your voice needs to be heard.

  • mash

    I know know, its just a big conspiracy blah blah blah.

    As it turns out, Redstate has a waiting period to comment. I’m not sure how long. I registered about 10 days ago or so.

    Anyway, thats my real opinion up there.

  • mash

    In my town we’ve got qwest and comcast. whoopee do, that’s some fearsome competition there. I’m sure that will spur a lot of innovation…

  • cousinfromanotherplanet

    I make a comparison with other countries doesn’t mean I should move there. The blinkered view that there is nothing to be learnt from any other country on earth only leaves you weaker as you have less sources of information. Further this kind of thinking is absurd, for instance if you’re a Christian then you are a follower of a religion that comes from another part of the world and reading a bible in translation. Shouldn’t you move to Israel and learn Hebrew?

    BTW Backlin doesn’t say H’Wood has a monopoly he says “The media conglomerates that control much of the entertainment and news landscape in our country..” Misrepresenting other’s statement is either a sign of a lack of smarts or duplicitousness.

  • strategerist

    Sorry, but I have never seen anyone suggest anything about “universal equipment”.

    The great thing about networking is that once you get above the physical layer, it does not matter what your equipment is, as long as it adheres to the standards.

    Now there have been a number of pushes to lock down certain inconvenient hardware features such as the so called “analog hole” in A/V gear and some people want to force some kind if unique identification chip into every computer to facilitate all sorts of really granular controls on content.

    Some of those scenarios suggest that if you create a document on your computer using this crypto module, all of your work will be encoded and traceable back to you – no only that, but in theory, some authority could issue a ban order to all systems that would effectively prevent everyone from reading anything that you put out (such as an illegal copy of the constitution or some other egregious example of totalitarianism).

    So far these are mostly just the stuff of statist and monopolist dreamers. No doubt some hacker, somewhere will be around to break the system.

    Just like humans, information wants to be free.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Commissar-dictated universal equipment is a horrible idea. It precludes innovation.

  • yoyo

    I picked up my yoyo to quit smoking.
    I quit smoking to reduce my Carbon Footprint.
    My kids found my yoyos and left them in the yard.
    I get nasty grams from the HOA.
    Therefore, I get a yard tractor to collect my yoyos.
    And now my tractor increased my Carbon Footprint.
    Darn vicious cycles!

    (Almost none of this is true, btw, only the first sentence.)

    ‘:o)~

  • charlienosurf

    I’m not sure if some of these comments are directed at me since that was my first post?

    For the record, I registered months ago and have been following this site for years.

    Anyway, since we’re on this subject. It strikes me that Neil has a very strong interest in this subject.

    For the sake of disclosure, is there any personal interest you may have in the outcome of this legislation Neil, aside from your conservative beliefs?

    That’s a fair question btw and not an attempt to discredit you or your position on the topic.

  • LibertarianHawk

    But I also think that all of this needs to be couched in a resistance to accepting the premise of entitlement.

    In other words, if I choose to live in a small town, it means that I’m implicitly accepting the limitations that come along with that. Or, if I choose to live in a big city, I’m implicitly accepting the headaches of congestion, etc.

    If I ever don’t like living in a small town that, say, doesn’t have any good Chinese restaurants, then I can:

    a) Accept that and try to gain affinity for the cuisines that are available

    b) Open up my own Chinese restaurant

    or c) Move elsewhere, if it’s that important to me.

    Reagan used to call this last thing “voting with your feet” in his defense of federalism. And he was right.

    We have a tendency to look at some things — beyond those precious unalienable rights — as entitlements of simply being American. And we’d do well to cut that out, IMO.

    The closest major city to me is Chicago — but it’s 6 hours away. There are things I can get and do there that I’d never be able to get or do where I live.

    But I’d never live there, for various reasons. And that’s a value judgment, fully taking into consideration those things I’m missing out on by living where I do.

    I hope and expect that 4G will prove to lower entry barriers for prospective Internet providers. And I recognize the problems inherent in the status quo — which is, in many areas, clearly an oligopoly.

    I just think we’d live to regret using regulation as the remedy — and probably sooner rather than later.

    At that point, I suspect that Net Neutrality proponents will be too busy expressing outrage at whomever they blame for emerging regulations they don’t like to even stop and consider that perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to get regulators involved in the first place…even if it was for something they considered a good idea.

    I’ll tell you one of the first things I’d expect to see go out the window: the relative dearth of sales taxes on goods purchased over the Internet.

    States haven’t been forgoing those as they have for any reason other than logistical chaos. And the FCC could easily establish an order from that chaos — at which time every single state would drop their moratorium in the blink of an eye.

  • LibertarianHawk

    It’s not simply an ideological kneejerk, it’s being all-too-familiar with the reality of regulatory history. I oppose this on practical reasons, not ideological ones.

    Let me put it this way: if I could get an ironclad guarantee (say, in the form of an unambiguous Constitutional amendment) that government involvement in regulating bitstreams would never, ever go any farther than dictating providers had non-discriminatory packet-shaping policies, I’d be fine with it….

    …and, believe me, that goes against my ideological tendencies — since the networks in question are, after all, private property.

    I support non-discriminatory policies every bit as much as you do. And I completely understand all of the underlying issues and arguments in favor of mandating them.

    The problem is that I fear it will end up looking to history like the first crack in the dam. If it doesn’t, it would be the first time in American regulatory history where this wasn’t the case. And we’ll have made that crack with a hammer and chisel.

    I can tell you first-hand that absolutely nobody has more influence over utility regulators than the utilities themselves do. That’s not to say that it isn’t normally an adversarial relationship. But it does inevitably become a give-and-take.

    “You have to do X, Y, and Z….but, in return, we’ll allow you to do A, B, and C. Oh, and BTW, everybody else (either currently in the business or in the future) must also do X, Y, and Z — and is just as free to do A, B, and C.”

    This is how this stuff progresses. Every. Time.

    And as soon as we start seeing regulations that apply equally, universally, and permanently to all Internet providers — but that consumers don’t like — I’m going to tell you right now that you and others who pushed for this first foray into Internet regulation, however innocuous, will actually be the ones to blame.

  • LibertarianHawk

    And I have just as strong feelings about it as he does.

    I have zero dogs in this fight — other than being an Internet consumer who fears the prospect of inviting the federal government into the room as an arbiter, in any capacity, of what can, cannot, must, or must not flow over Internet links.

    They need to be kept out of it completely. Because once they’re in it even slightly, their influence will only grow….and, I suspect, often in ways we won’t be inclined to like.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    I said “you are welcome,” not you should move there. You’re free to do as you please.

    I would only admire and move to a socialist country, if they guaranteed an equal number of churches to mosques — which I don’t believe in. People will go to where they are so inclined. That’s freedom.

    And yes — control of the media = a perceived monopoly. But if crass is what society wants, crass is what it’ll get. The market will make it so.

    Same with porn. If people want to worship porn rather than their God that created them, that’s their right.

    You “convert” society by encouraging them, loving them and being a nice example, sometimes being stern, not by legislating it according to the political/legislative flavor of the day.

    If you haven’t noticed, that would be socialism with this Administration.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The FCC has been in the content regulation business longer than ISPs have, doofus.