This past tax day I wrote an article examining whether the government might soon be coming after content creators like Google or Netflix.  Such a notion would leave many in complete befuddlement after the past two years have seen the pro-Net Neutrality camp deeply entrenched in spreading concerns of impending doom that would be headed to the Internet if we continued even one more day without a regulatory regime placing its grip over the network.

One must understand that the heart of the much of the Network Neutrality debate has been the fear that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like that of Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T would begin charging content creators to receive prioritized connections to the Internet.  If they were to do this, then the pro-regulation crowd suggests that this would create an unfair advantage for large or established web companies and that small startup companies would not have the capital to pay these fees or “taxes” for faster, prioritized service and would therefore be at an immediate disadvantage.  Therefore any present day suggestion that any governmental agency or program should place a taxation on content as a right of way to exist on the Internet seems contrary and ironic to the goals and concerns that have been much of the fight for the pro-regulatory side of the debate.

At a February 23rd Congressional Internet Caucus panel, Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) who notes themselves as being “the voice of rural telecommunications” said that, “We would really like to see the FCC also grapple with the contribution side of the equation as well.”

(more…)

When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rammed through net neutrality regulations last December, Chairman Julius Genachowski may have been hoping Americans would be too busy with their Christmas shopping to notice and that the matter would die as other issues grabbed at Congress’ and the public’s attention in the new year.

Judging by the response of House Republicans to the FCC, however, it appears that Genachowski judged wrong.

On Sunday, Speaker Boehner fired a shot across the FCC’s bow, telling a group of religious broadcasters that the FCC’s net neutrality rules demonstrate that the agency “is creeping further into the free market,” and suggesting that FCC regulation could impact freedom of speech, moving forward.

“The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades,” Boehner said in comments cited by the Washington Times.

The Speaker’s view seems to be shared by Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee, led by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.).  That panel is set to vote tomorrow on a “resolution of disapproval” of the FCC’s regulations.

(more…)

It looks like the Soros machine isn’t done with Net Neutrality, even after its December coup at the FCC.

Our Soros-supported socialist friends at Free Press just announced that David Saldana will be its new communications director.  If that name doesn’t ring a bell, you evidently haven’t been following Mr. Soros’ funding priorities.

Before joining Free Press, he was with the Soros’ front group, the National Security and Human Rights Campaign.  Think calling it a front group is too strong?  Then just go to its website, which is conveniently located at Soros.org.  The group’s mission is to promote “progressive national security policies,” a term as embedded in contradiction as “French steadfastness.”

Prior to that, Saldana was the Deputy Editorial Director at Media Matters for America, the beneficiary of a seven-figure donation from Mr. Soros’ Open Society Initiative.

Chances are, this means that even last December’s FCC power grab over the web hasn’t gone far enough to satisfy Mr. Soros.  This isn’t surprising.  We can see his fingers in the most obvious places, like the FCC’s Net Neutrality Order, all the way down to the least lit reaches – as in the recent Comcast Merger Order and one of the company’s “voluntary” commitments to boost local journalism via the “Voice of Sand Diego Model,” a socially progressive news organization, which gets funding in part from, you guessed it, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations).

(more…)

Our Capitol Hill Insider Elizabeth Letchworth is keeping us up to date with Congress’ attempts to give the President an Internet kill switch.  Tea Party Nation’s Judson Phillips is warning against it.  From the Honorable Elizabeth Letchworth of GradeGov.com:

“The Senate Leader introduced this bill as a placeholder for the 112th Congress. He wants to use it to push Judiciary, Commerce, and Homeland Security committees to write cyber security legislation. Don’t be surprised if the Senate has a vote on this soon to show that cyber security is important to Congress, especially given the Egypt situation and the closing down of the internet. As always, the devil is in the details and S. 21 is vague to say the least.”

In an effort to resolve the rules impasse that stalled the opening day house-keeping organizational resolutions in the U.S. Senate, the two Senate leaders engaged in a colloquy (formal discussion or conference) on Jan. 27, 2011. In this colloquy, the two leaders conceded the following:

Senator McConnell:

“And, in my Caucus, I have many Senators who have complained that the Majority Leader has abused his ability to “fill the amendment” tree, preventing Senators from offering and debating amendments that they believe are important, especially when a matter has not gone through committee or cloture is filed too quickly.”

Senator Reid:

“As we have discussed, in the interests of comity and more open process in the Senate, we have agreed that we should use these procedural options of filling the amendment tree and filibustering the motion to proceed infrequently.  And, we’ll do our best to ensure that other Members of our caucuses respect this colloquy, as well.”

It is with this colloquy in mind that the Senate could see more bills introduced that will have the same bland tone as was included in the text of S. 21. The text states the obvious, outlines a serious national problem, but doesn’t address any resolution to that problem.

(more…)

As reported earlier, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) introduced a bi-partisan bill to preempt the December power grab by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. This issue is not just a boring technical issue, though, as it goes right to the core of Obama’s attempt to force his agenda by regulatory fiat.

Blackburn’s bill would place all rules governing the Internet in the purview of Congress and would take the issue out of the hands of the FCC. She is reporting that 60 members support her bill to halt the FCCs efforts to take control of the Internet without legislative action.

“The FCC’s Christmas week Internet-grab points out how important it is that we pass this bill quickly,” Blackburn said in a statement to the media.

Last year, Blackburn appeared at a Heritage Foundation meeting and discussed this issue.

“What we will do is first use this as a way to show how we’re going to keep that Pledge to America,” she said yesterday at The Heritage Foundation. “We said in the Pledge that any rule or regulation that had more than $100 million impact on our nation’s economy would be subject to review. … This is an area where we can keep that Pledge. We can go ahead and start congressional review and move forward on getting this off the books.”

This issue is not one of just Internet regulations but is one more example of Obama’s tendency to use regulation to get around the legislative process, to get around the courts, and to get around the voters in order to instill his left-wing agenda by regulatory fiat.

(more…)

Over at Slate, the always interesting Jack Schafer imagines a world where government always regulated the Internet:

In January 1993, idle regulators at the FCC belatedly discover the burgeoning world of online services. Led by CompuServe, MCI Mail, AOL, GEnie, Delphi, and Prodigy, these services have been embraced by the computer-owning public. Users “log on” to communicate via “e-mail” and “chat rooms,” make online purchases and reservations, and tap information databases. Their services are “walled gardens” that don’t allow the users of one service to visit or use another. The FCC declares that because these private networks use the publically regulated telephone system, they fall under the purview of the Communications Act of 1934. The commission announces forthcoming plans to regulate the services in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

The FCC ignores the standalone Internet because nobody but academics, scientists, and some government bodies go there. So do the online services, which don’t offer Internet access.

Regulating the Internet would make as much sense as regulating inter-office mail at Michigan State University,” says the FCC chairman. “The online services are the future of cyberspace.”

The online companies protest and vow to sue the FCC, but the heavily Democratic Congress moots the suits by passing new legislation giving the commission oversight of the online world.

(more…)

This is but the latest in Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski’s ongoing terrible interpretation of his self-appointed role as Captain Transparency.

As we have much discussed, the FCC has decided to power grab Internet authority on December 21^st.  The Commission must seize said authority because it does not have it unless and until Congress writes a law saying so – which The Chairman himself admits Congress has not done.

The Chairman will do so via a three unelected bureaucrat Democrat Party-line vote (that’s counting him).  He intends to do so under cover of Christmas – slamming it through less than 96 hours before the Big Day.

The Chairman will do so by writing (and rewriting, and rewriting some more, and rewriting again) an 80-plus page “order” – which sounds an awful lot like he’s appropriating Congress’ job and writing law.  (Because, again, Congress has never written a law that allows him to do this.)  He is in perpetual revision mode to continue to capitulate to the demands – and induce the vote – of the FCC’s most Leftist member – Commissioner Michael Copps – driving this Web takeover to the outer limits of illegal usurpation.

The Chairman will do so without a new Public Comment period on this (law and) order.  A new Public Comment period would be most appropriate given the continuing newness and dramatic scope of the Internet control he is writing and voting for himself.  (The Internet is now 1/6^th of our nation’s entire economy – and [for now] growing.)

(more…)

Next week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is anticipated to try to push through net neutrality regulations in the course of its December 21 meeting.  But as a letter released this week by thirty Republican senators makes clear, key members of the legislative branch are having none of it, and will force a confrontation on the Senate floor if the FCC proceeds.

In the letter, according to the Washington Examiner, Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev., Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, John McCain, R-Ariz., Kit Bond, R-Mo., Judd Gregg, R-N.H., Michael Enzi, R-Wyo., Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., James Risch, R-Idaho, Mike Johanns, R-Neb., John Thune, R-S.D., Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Robert Bennett, R-Utah, John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., John Cornyn, R-Texas, David Vitter, R-La., Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., Jim Bunning, R-Ky., Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, state that:

[The FCC has] admitted in published statements that the legal justification for imposing these new regulations is questionable and “has a serious risk of failure in court.” It is very clear that Congress has not granted the Commission the specific statutory authority to do what you are proposing. Whether and how the Internet should be regulated is something that America’s elected representatives in Congress, not the Commission, should determine.

Rep. Fred Upton, who is set to take over the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction where net neutrality is concerned, has already signaled his disapproval of the move in a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, which reads in part:

The FCC does not have authority to regulate the Internet, and pursuing net neutrality through Title I or reclassification is wholly unacceptable. Our new majority will use rigorous oversight, hearings and legislation to fight the FCC’s overt power grab.

(more…)

Word has it that the Internet is on the brink of a takeover.

Egged on by radical interests, the FCC is poised to impose onerous regulations to guide the medium to a more “open” future.  No matter that the Internet is perhaps one of the greatest success stories ever.  And that a key to its success rests in the fact that government has stepped out of the way, letting developers and networks do what they do best – serve Americans with cutting-edge communications tools at affordable prices.

All of this is meaningless, of course, when the whip count and brute bureaucratic force are in your favor.

You see, Washington just learned that a bill, which could stop the FCC’s plans, is in deep jeopardy.  The bill’s sponsor – Representative Henry Waxman – doesn’t have enough Republican support to credibly move the legislation through Congress.  Lacking this, the proposal is basically dead in the water (even before formal introduction), having virtually no practical effect on the rogue FCC.

On any other day I wouldn’t shed a single crocodile tear hearing this news.  Not today, however.  Said Waxman, “If our efforts to find bipartisan consensus fail, the FCC should move forward.”

This will have significant repercussions.

I have long advocated that the Internet does not need regulating.  Technology, marketplace dynamics, consumer education, reputation management, current competition law and industry best practices all work together to make sure that the Internet remains open.  Though the naysayers cry otherwise, the still-unregulated Internet is anything but broken.  With each day, new services come on line, serving more and more Americans with Internet services.

But since the present Administration came to town, radical interests have captured policymakers at the FCC.  Over the past two years, they have enjoyed immense success in peddling the idea that the Internet is in danger of breaking unless Washington comes to the rescue.

How so?

(more…)

Even Obama voters think Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem

Free Press, Public Knowledge and the rest of the ever-dwindling Media Marxist “Save the Internet” contingent incessantly assert that they are pushing their government regulatory Web agenda in the “public interest” – to protect consumers from the Big, Bad Telecom companies.

Well it turns out – yet again – that the public isn’t interested in what Free Press & Co. are offering – perhaps because they rightly realize that the “reformers” are looking to burn down the Internet in order to “save” it.

There is a new poll out that shows an overwhelming majority of the consumers Free Press and Co. are claiming to be helping – don’t want their help.  75% of Americans like the Internet just the way it is – no “saving” necessary.  And 57% think the federal government should not regulate the Internet at all.

And of the 31% who think the government should regulate the Internet, more than two-thirds of them said that the regulation should be focused on privacy, online safety and protecting.

(more…)

Oops.

Massachusetts Democrat Senator John Kerry was his Party’s 2004 nominee for President.  Two hallmarks of his losing campaign were his incredible stiffness – he managed to make 2000 Democrat nominee Al Gore look lively – and his notorious assertion that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

This linguistic whiplash was part of a Kerry pattern, and led to his being branded “Senator Flip Flop.”

We are still learning just how long-standing and ingrained this Kerry pattern is.

Mike Riggs at the Daily Caller has an amazing document from the Senator’s past.  A 1998 Congressional letter to then Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman William Kennard onto which Senator Kerry signed.  The letter reads in part:

“The overarching policy goal of the 1996 Act is to promote a market-driven, robustly competitive environment for all communications services.  Given that, we wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 (Telecommunications) Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.”

Meaning Senator Kerry was stating that the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not authorize the FCC to apply its oppressive Title II telephone regulatory regime to the Internet.

Oh what a dozen years will do to Senator Flip Flop’s outlook on things.

(more…)

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…)

The Federal Communications Commission’s bid to reengineer the nation’s broadband regulatory regime is exposing some fissures in the fragile net neutrality coalition, as a collection of minority groups Monday warned the commission against its controversial reclassification bid.

In a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate energy and commerce committees, the groups–seventeen in total, including 100 Black Men of America, the Japanese American Citizens League and the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education fund–urged congressional action to clarify the scope of the FCC’s authority as it relates to broadband regulation.

“In light of the FCC’s recent adoption of a Notice of Inquiry on broadband classification, we … have concerns about the unintended implications that such efforts could have on the state of broadband deployment and adoption across the country,” an advanced copy of the letter read.

Recent studies have warned the FCC that tinkering with the broadband regulatory regime could, in addition to retarding investment and innovation, upend the nation’s economy, killing upwards of 600,000 jobs and shrinking the nation’s aggregate economic output by $80 billion.

(more…)

Last week, we reported on the undisclosed funding and conflicts of interest behind the pro-regulatory “research” being peddled by The Sunlight Foundation and picked up by the New York Times.  Following that Big Government report, Sunlight scurried to put up a post mentioning that pro-net neutrality companies also hire government officials and spend money on lobbying and disclosing that “Google senior manager Kim Scott sits on the Advisory Board of the Sunlight Foundation.”

The most interesting aspect of this story is not really about Internet regulation, though.

The real issue is how the Sunlight Foundation, which says it exists to push “transparency in government,” actually has a stunningly hypocritical stance with its own funding and self-interest.

All you have to do is to look at its Board of Directors and major donors (often one and the same).  Start with Craig Newmark, founder of the eponymous Craig’s List. His foundations gave Sunlight $10,000 in 2009 (Craig Newmark Philanthropic Fund) and $50,000 in 2010 (Craigslist Charitable Fund).  Craig Newmark sits on the Board of the Sunlight Foundation, and has been one of the leaders in lobbying for heightened government regulations on broadband.

Next, you have Google, which has joined Newmark in financing pro-Net neutrality lobbying for years and which has a senior executive on Sunlight’s Advisory Board.  It wasn’t until our post that the Sunlight Foundation thought it relevant to mention that their Advisory Board and major donors contain people with a direct financial interest in regulation for which Sunlight is providing helpful “transparency research”.  The New York Times didn’t mention that, either.

Apparently transparency is only for those on the other side of the political aisle.

(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…)