News broke just before the weekend that California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina opposes the absurd notion known as Internet Network Neutrality (NN).

“The principle sounds fantastic, but the principle is not the problem,” Fiorina said in an interview at the Technology Policy Institute’s conference in Aspen, Colo. “The problem is how companies and regulatory bodies are trying to translate that principle into policy, which would have a bad effect.”

A spokeswoman later added that Fiorina “opposes Net neutrality and thinks government intervention and more regulation will not be helpful where the Internet is concerned.”

It’s really helpful to have someone running for office publicly standing opposed to NN who is as knowledgeable on it as is Fiorina – she is a former (1999-2005) chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP).

Fiorina’s opponent is a big NN proponent.

Fiorina’s position contrasts greatly with that of her opponent, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, who previously cosponsored legislation that would have set open Internet rules firmly in place.

In a statement, Boxer reaffirmed her support for Net neutrality. Her office later added that Boxer felt it was “premature to comment” on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s efforts to mandate Net neutrality using its own rule-making process.

(Emphasis mine.)

“Premature to comment?”

(more…)

It’s last call at Club Network Neutrality.  The crowd supporting this government Internet land grab is rapidly thinning.  The latest two to head for the exits each deal a huge blow to the media “reform” cause – for different reasons.

The first is Big Search mogul Google.  By its sheer size, power and sphere of influence it is a major player in the Net Neutrality (NN) debate – and they have been pro-NN.  But Google’s recent deal with Verizon – which deviates slightly from puritanical NN tenets – was a bridge too far for the pro-NN crowd.

So Google became the latest to receive the sad, tired “You Are Evil” treatment the Left reflexively delivers against their political opponents.  Google probably wasn’t all the way out the door on their own – but they may be now, shoved through by the subtle, soft-spoken pro-NN forces.

If so, we say welcome to the Great Outside – let’s do lunch.

The second was the conservative group Gun Owners of America (GoA).  Though not the monster entity Google is, their departure is important because it weakens substantially the pro-NN case that the partisan push to over-regulate the Internet isn’t partisan.

(more…)

In step with federal government intrusion into the health care system, the auto industry, and the financial industry, the FCC and the Obama Administration has had its eye on asserting control over the Internet.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) closed its official public comment period “In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service.”  In English?  Despite broad opposition, three of the five unelected members of the FCC are one step away from officially regulating the Internet under laws originally intended for monopoly telephone carriers in the 1930s.

So how can the FCC make this dramatic change in the way the government treats the Internet?  Well, according to the Democrats on the Commission and far left advocacy organizations like Free Press, it’s a surprisingly simple process – one that does not include the approval of Congress approval or any elected officials.

Just since June 17, the FCC: opened a Notice of Inquiry to seek the “best legal framework for broadband Internet access” on a partisan 3-2 vote; accepted comments on these proposed regulations; and then allowed for reply comments so that policy, advocacy, and industry leaders would have a chance to refute whatever points were made during the initial comment period (to whomever might be interested in a seemingly obscure telecommunications issue, in the middle of August!).

And that’s it, folks!

(more…)

On Monday, Google and Verizon—two of the nation’s biggest companies operating in the tech space—announced a compromise joint proposal on Internet regulation that has tech policy observers buzzing.

The proposal, discussed during a conference call featuring Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, represents a substantial softening of Google’s position on controversial net neutrality proposals, say several tech policy observers.

Notably, while enshrining non-discrimination rules with regard to what is often referred to as “traditional Internet broadband service,” the proposal also allows broadband providers to offer what are known as “differentiated services,” such as Verizon’s FiOS service, which need not be neutral.  This is being interpreted in some quarters as a major shift on Google’s part.

The company took fire yesterday from Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group that some tech policy experts have speculated for years took money from Google to finance its advocacy efforts, which helped promote an approach that observers say could, if adopted and enforced, have benefited the corporation substantially.  In a statement, Free Press adviser Joel Kelsey remarked that “If codified, this arrangement will lead to toll booths on the information superhighway.”

(more…)

Amazon.com, the online retailing powerhouse, last week announced a shift in stance on net neutrality that has tech policy observers in the nation’s capital buzzing.

The company, a long-time backer of the controversial policy and member of the pro-net neutrality Open Internet Coalition, signaled in an op-ed by its Vice President for Global Public Policy, Paul Misener, openness to a compromise measure, which would allow what are known as “managed services” to be offered by Internet Service (ISPs) subject to certain conditions.

Specifically, Misener argues that “Internet content providers (and consumers) should be able to purchase ‘quality of service’ or ‘managed services’ from network operators on the same basis–equal availability and no harm to other content.”

Previously, net neutrality proponents had been unwilling to sanction the marketing of such services, irrespective of equal availability or non-prejudicial impact—a position still held by many on the “pro” side of the debate.

The shift was therefore dubbed a “major departure” by one expert tracking the net neutrality debate with whom Capitol Confidential spoke, and one that could have significant ramifications for the way the net neutrality battle plays out moving forward.

(more…)

The Left is far more organized than you might imagine, but a little investigation can turn up some fascinating examples of how they coordinate with front groups and the media to advance their policies.  Consider this New York Times editorial. The FCC is attempting to play musical chairs with regulatory authority until they find one that will let them regulate the Internet. A lot of Congressional Republicans and Democrats–in fact, a majority of them–have questioned that move.

On Tuesday, the Sunlight Foundation, which promotes itself as an organization working “to make government transparent and accountable”, released a strange bit of “research” showing that a few of the pro-net neutrality organizations didn’t spend as much money on lobbying the federal government as the companies who were being threatened with regulation.  They didn’t even attempt to figure out whether the money was being spent on net neutrality, or how much was spent by relevant organizations that weren’t at one particular meeting.  They didn’t mention, or calculate the value of, all the “behind closed door” lobbying that is being done by activist front-groups like Free Press.

Of course, the New York Times just regurgitated their sloppy advocacy. Sunlight used numbers! With decimals! So it must be facts!

But there is something else that the New York Times did not bother to check before writing this editorial about the influence of money in politics.

Who funds the Sunlight Foundation?

It turns out, the Sunlight Foundation’s “research” is funded by organizations who just happen to have a direct interest in net neutrality regulations.

Look at record:

Google, which strongly favors government “neutrality” regulation, has given Sunlight nearly $100,000 during the past two years. And Google executive Kim Scott sits on Sunlight’s board of directors.

But when Big Government exposed ethics violations by Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, who came to the White House from Google and yet continued private email coordination with them about policies effecting the company – possibly violating federal archiving rules – did the Sunlight Foundation investigate?  Or even call for more transparency from the White House to prevent such abuses?

Sunlight did not say a word.

(more…)

A New York Law School study released this month warns that tinkering with the broadband regulatory regime could spell the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and reduce GDP by $80 billion.

The study, authored by Charles Davidson and Bret Swanson, forecasts that the nation would hemorrhage 500,000 jobs in a best-case scenario were broadband reclassified as a Title II telecommunications service. That just so happens to be an objective currently under pursuit by members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with support from backers of “net neutrality” policy.

The forecasted job losses are likely to make for unpleasant headlines for the FCC at a time when jobs and the economy remain paramount in the minds of most voters and legislators.

“Especially at time when the national economy is attempting to recover from a major and enduring downturn and private sector job creation remains a concern, the destabilizing impacts of the FCC’s proposals place the nation’s economy at even greater risk,” the study reads.

Telecommunications companies have for months now warned that a formal adoption of the FCC’s reclassification proposal could hamper innovation and infrastructure investment, and observers say this study could provide them with fresh ammunition in the fight against reclassification and net neutrality.

(more…)

The number of congressional Democrats who oppose the Federal Communications Commission’s bid to reclassify broadband as a traditional telecommunications service has reached seventy-six.  Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, last week urged Commission chief Julius Genachowski to search for a legislative solution in the adoption of so-called Network Neutrality rules.

Stabenow, whose disapproval of the FCC’s controversial undertaking promises to spur similar statements from colleagues in the upper chamber of Congress, asked Genachowski and his four fellow commissioners–two of whom are Democrats, and both approve of the measure–to stay the implementation of the agency’s reclassification proposal until Congress can revise the Communications Act.

“I urge the Commission to withdraw its Title II classification effort and work with the Chairs of the appropriate Congressional committees to develop [a] suitable and clear statute that will help us achieve our national broadband goals,” Stabenow wrote in a letter to Genachowski.

Democratic legislators chairing the relevant communications, commerce and technology committees in the House and Senate said last month that Congress will soon “launch a process to develop proposals” to overhaul the bill, which established in 1934 the FCC’s jurisdiction over traditional telecommunications services. Polls indicate that legislative action on net neutrality is slightly more palatable–though only marginally, and still faces broad public skepticism–than the FCC reengineering the regulatory framework of its own accord.

(more…)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently hit a major stumbling block in its effort to impose net neutrality via the “reclassification” of broadband services.  Following months of civil rights groups, artists, and a major union voicing their opposition to net neutrality as a policy and a federal appeals court ruling that the FCC’s regulatory power was more limited than the agency had believed, 248 members of the U.S. House of Representatives went on the record to oppose the FCC’s plans.

But that hasn’t stopped the FCC from continuing to pursue reclassification.  Last week, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn unveiled herself as a supporter of designating broadband a telephone service under Title II of the Communications Act.

In a speech to the Media Institute, Clyburn rejected the notion that reclassification constituted a power grab saying that “The chairman is proposing that we reestablish the authority that the commission and most observers thought we had.”

But opponents say that the FCC’s proposed action is exactly that—a naked power grab, aimed not at reestablishing something “stripped” of the FCC, but rather extending the agency’s reach to impose heavy regulation on Internet services, in possible usurpation of Congress’ authority.

(more…)

Four senior congressional Democrats inadvertently confirmed Monday that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—which, under Chairman Julius Genachowski’s leadership has been trying for months to impose contentious net neutrality rules—lacks the authority needed to regulate the Internet.

For weeks, the FCC has been threatening to “reclassify” broadband in order to subject it to regulation that would institute net neutrality, despite concerns regarding jurisdiction and agency powers.  However, now, Senators Jay Rockefeller and John Kerry, and Congressmen Henry Waxman and Rick Boucher say they will soon launch “a process to develop proposals” for revising the 1934 Communications Act, whose archaic framework the FCC wishes to impose on broadband services.

Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman and Boucher chair the relevant communications, commerce and technology committees in the House and Senate.

According to a statement, “As the first step, [Rockefeller, Kerry, Waxman, Boucher] will invite stakeholders to participate in a series of bipartisan, issue-focused meetings beginning in June.” The release offered few other details on the move, which could prove controversial.  Even Democrats who facially support the FCC’s end-goal of net neutrality adoption were caught off-guard by the commission’s unprecedented move to reclassify.

(more…)

Top Republican lawmakers last week sent President Barack Obama a letter protesting the Federal Communications Commission’s recent overture at adopting so-called net neutrality rules, asking that he block the agency’s controversial move to reclassify broadband.

House GOP leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor said the FCC’s proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service “could hardly come at a worse time for our nation’s economy, which is already struggling against a steady flow of increased government spending and taxation from Washington.”

The plan, announced to much fan fare among liberal special interests groups, calls for broadband to be regulated under a framework developed in the 1930s for traditional telephone services. It was widely seen among Capitol Hill observers as an end-run around a recent appeals court ruling in which the FCC was found to be lacking regulatory authority in the realm of broadband services.

(more…)

In the wake of the Court of Appeals judgment last week that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks sufficient authority to regulate broadband services, senior congressional Democrats are reaffirming their support for alternative methods of executing what some critics charge would be a de facto government takeover of the internet.

Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and co-author of the House’s Internet Freedom Preservation Act, said the FCC should “take any actions necessary to ensure that consumers and competition are protected on the internet,” and offered to “continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to provide the Commission any additional authority it may need to ensure the openness of the Internet for consumers, innovators and investors.”

Markey, like FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, is a backer of net neutrality, a policy that would inadvertently be instituted were the FCC to reclassify broadband services under existing rules relating to telephone services, and directly instituted were his bill passed and signed into law.

Fellow Massachusetts Democrat Sen. John Kerry, meanwhile, insisted that while it is within the authority of the FCC to reclassify broadband he is not advocating such aggressive action.

(more…)