RSSHouse Republicans in uncharacteristic unison over 'one-size-fits-all' net neutrality
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 5, 2009, 6:13 PM
As Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections, they enacted a strategy of shifting the authority for implementing and regulating so-called net neutrality to the Federal Communications Commission, where Republican opposition was less likely to forestall it. Now that the FCC itself is under Democratic control, and its new chairman Julius Genachowski comes into the job already having been recognized as the nation's leading net neutrality advocate, Republicans in Congress have little else to do but voice their opposition from the sidelines.
That's exactly what they're doing today, in a concerted effort whose timing is curiously in sync with the publication of a position paper on net neutrality from leading service provider Verizon.
In a letter today to Chairman Genachowski signed by leading House Republicans, including ranking Subcommittee on the Internet member Rep. Cliff Stearns (R - Fla.), Congress' leading opponents of net neutrality regulation made their arguments clearer than at any time before. Rep. Stearns' office shared a copy of this letter with Betanews this afternoon.
Speaking very directly to the problem, Stearns and his co-authors spoke of the FCC's obligation to provide regulation only when the market fails to regulate itself. "You should provide a thorough market analysis prior to proposing any regulation," the congresspersons wrote. "The FCC bears the responsibility to prove a market failure, especially since its 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007 decisions on cable modem service, digital subscriber line service, broadband over power line service, and wireless broadband service were predicated on the notion that the broadband market nationwide is competitive and that regulation is unwarranted. In a sector this innovative and this vital to our economy, it would be irresponsible for the Commission to do anything less, especially since this is one of the few sectors that is still investing billions of dollars in the current financial climate."
Addressing some issues that Genachowski has already spoken to -- or at least, has promised to speak to -- the House members advised the FCC Chairman to define the meaning of "net" with respect to the extent of his agency's regulatory power. Does it cover cable, wireline, wireless, satellite, broadband-over-power-line, or some combination of the five, they asked. And what exactly is "broadband" anyway -- will the FCC ever decide how fast is "fast?"
Only then should the FCC determine whether any one entity in the defined market, once it has defined it, has obtained "market power" -- essentially the ability to set prices and control the flow of communication at will. Assuming the Commission can obtain such evidence, it should then hold a formal inquiry into the actions of the organization with such power, and address that company specifically, the congresspersons advised.
In a policy statement posted to the company's blog last Wednesday and updated today, Verizon Assistant Vice President Link Hoewing suggested that if the FCC were to cast its "net" as wide as Rep. Stearns and his colleagues suggested, it would discover that all of the fields they mention are in fact in competition with one another, creating their own system of checks and balances that renders government regulation unnecessary.
"The dramatic innovation and investment in broadband, coupled with innovation in devices and applications, also means more choice than ever for consumers ??" not just in terms of networks but in all realms of the Internet ecosystem. Cable, wireless, satellite, traditional wireline companies, and others compete against each other for consumers' voice, data and video communication dollars. In addition to facilities-based providers of connections, device makers and application developers also compete for customer relationships," Hoewing wrote. "The advent of multiple broadband networks means network operators are no longer in the preeminent position with customers that they once were when they operated single-purpose networks for things like telephone and cable TV. So the field gets complex pretty quickly."
In their letter to the FCC, the House Republicans -- joined by influential Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R - Calif.) -- went so far as to equate the concept of "net neutrality" with a single-flavor approach to broadband service that would border on socialism.
Stating that the cost of complying with these regulations could cost US businesses and taxpayers as much as $350 billion combined, they wrote, "Network neutrality rules would make it harder, not easier, for such investment to occur. A one-size-fits-all Internet where every entity must provide the exact same levels of service and that costs consumers more on average for slower speeds and less innovation will not be very competitive. Nor will it serve consumers will or draw much investment for further improvements. Even if there is a problem, it does no good to adopt a regulation if it performs more poorly than engineers and markets in addressing that problem. For instance, we caution against either limiting the ability of network providers to offer managed services or restricting the use of those services only to certain purposes."
The congresspersons' concerns appear in sync with those of the two Republicans on the FCC, Commissioners Robert McDowell and Meredith Atwell Baker, who voiced their own opinions about the extent of the Chairman's reach following his net neutrality speech last September 21.
"We are concerned that both factual and legal conclusions may have been drawn before the process has begun," the Commissioners wrote at the time. "Nonetheless, we look forward to reviewing any and all compelling evidence that may be developed in the record that illustrates the palpable harms that many allege. We do not believe that the Commission should adopt regulations based merely on anecdotes, or in an effort to alleviate the political pressures of the day, if the facts do not clearly demonstrate that a problem needs to be remedied."
When the Republicans had control of Congress and the Executive Branch, legislation they had proposed to enable service providers the ability to manage service as they pleased failed to become law, due in part to a lack of cooperation among party members. Now that control has shifted in both branches of government, it appears some clarity -- for what it's worth -- may at last have been attained.
wait, there are more choices than 'Phone Company A' and 'Cable Company B' in some places in the USA???
i know that everywhere i've been, it's been a choice between those two...
Score: 1
|Be careful what you ask for....
Washington is not in it for the people....they are in it for themselves. What difference does it make if the right is for it? The right has no power at this time.
Score: 0
|Actually, there needs to be net neutrality to prevent things like cable providers who have digital phone services from blocking VOIP providers like Vonage, or even the lowly MagicJack, because they compete with their services.
If anything, the FTC needs to step in on the whole municipal monopolies that cable companies have the luxury of having in most cities and towns, and the FCC needs to make a better definition of what "broadband" and "high speed internet" really is, and maybe, just maybe, we'd all get better and faster internet services as a result.
Score: 0
|Who is blocking VOIP providers like Vonage, or even the lowly MagicJack?
Score: -2
|Comcast was for a while even though they denied it. Just like the denied messing with P2P traffic....and we all know where that ended up...
Score: 0
|Yeah for a while. Then they stopped. So why do we need more government rules??
Score: -3
|to keep it from happening again.
Score: 0
|The problem with MagicJack is the computer it's plugged into....NOT cable. The odds are better that any problem experienced with Vonage would have more to do with actual problems and less about ISP controls.
Score: 0
|Here are the facts:
Only one U.S. ISP tried to block VoIP and that was Madison River Communications. The FCC even in the absence of Title II Common Carrier protection (since ISPs are defined as an information service and not telephony service) was able to stop it immediately and fine Madison River Communications $25,000.
So what are you saying about the need for more regulation?
Score: 0
|I agree with the Republicans on this. The FCC chairman needs to cite examples of what these rules are trying to stop. I don't think there is a net neutrality problem in the USA. Let someone prove the case that this is needed. Then the politicians need to read and understand the rules before they are passed into law.
Score: 0
|Sure, once some company gets killed by an ISP, then do something, that is smart. better to head off the problem before it begins. Do you read the news? You hear what the CEO's of AT&T, Verizon,etc... are saying about making the "freeloaders" like google, amazon, microsoft, apple, etc... pay?
Score: -1
|I believe in the open and free markets. Let's say AT&T makes Google, Microsoft, and Apple pay for access to it's customers. How loud do you think that outcry would be. It would last maybe a day at best.
Score: -1
|@gubmonte
That's exactly why we need a simple 'equal access' rule.
To prevent Google, Amazon, etc locking up bandwidth.
Who do you think would be more likely to drop lots of cash on an exclusive pipe via AT&T/Comcast/Verizon? Google or Dan's wonder app?
Score: 1
|We do have 'equal access'. What's stopping Dan from getting the exlusive pipes? Money. Why doesn't he have money? Because he isn't as successful. Therefore...who do you think NEEDS to lock up an exclusive pipe? Google/Amazon or Dan's wonder app? Dan's wonder app will be able to acquire the 'exlusive pipes' it needs if it becomes successful.
Did Google/Amazon become successful because they always had more money than the competition? Because they had some built-in advantage from the getgo? Were dogpile, msn, yahoo, and ask jeeves unable to do what google did, or was google just faster/better at what they did? That's how the free market works--the good ideas are successful, and the not-so-good ones are either less successful or fail. This encourages good ideas and good business.
Free market works better when it's...free. We're in a temporary recession right now so it is a little harder at the moment to have a successful business, but net neutrality is trying to fix a temporary problem with a permanent solution--it never works. There's no way around the fact that it'll screw us in the long run.
Score: 0
|Please tell everyone what Net Neutrality is...because it is clear you have no idea.
Score: 0
|The lobbyists for "network neutrality" regulation make it out to be a matter of freedom, motherhood, and apple pie. Worse still, they have attempted to convert it into a partisan issue. Because most Republicans oppose it, they have tried to take advantage of partisanship to persuade Democrats to support it, even though it would be bad for broadband deployment and bad for consumers.
The truth of the matter is that there is no problem that so-called "network neutrality" regulation would solve. In the US (where these regulations would have effect) the Internet is not being censored or blocked. And if an ISP did so, its customers would switch in a New York minute.
So, why all the lobbying for regulation to "solve" a nonexistent "problem?" Because -- along with assurances that we will not lose what we are no danger of losing -- the regulations contain provisions that would favor certain large corporations with big lobbying money. (First and foremost of these is Google, which is funding the majority of the "network neutrality" lobbying in DC.) These provisions would actually hinder the rollout of broadband in our country (which IS an important goal). They'd also increase the cost of broadband service, limit consumer choice, kill innovation in both engineering and business models, and even make certain services that businesses -- especially startups -- might want or need unavailable. (The motive behind this particular restriction seems to be to prevent another company from arising to compete with Google. For example, a newcomer couldn't pay ISPs to accelerate delivery of its content to end users, and thus could not compete with Google's private fiber or its huge network of private caches.)
The "network neutrality" lobbyists' predictions of gloom and doom if regulation is not passed are a smokescreen. "Network neutrality" regulation is a corporate agenda that simply isn't in consumers' interest. Neither party should support it, and the President should reconsider and renounce his support for this potentially crippling and unnecessary regulation of the Internet.
Score: -1
|If there is so much competition in the USA, why does the USA pay more for less than any other industrialized country? Same goes for health care? There is no real competition in the USA. What really needs to happen is to take the taxpayer funded networks back from the telcos and have the states lease the lines to any provider wanting to provide ISP services.
Score: -1
|...because the government has done such a bang-up job with everything else it touches. Sit down, Fatty.
Score: -3
|"Because most Republicans oppose it, they have tried to take advantage of partisanship to persuade Democrats to support it, even though it would be bad for broadband deployment and bad for consumers."
You have that backwards, pardner. Like everything else of late, because Democrats support it, the Republicans oppose it. If the Democrats pushed a bill condemning pederasts, the Republicans would argue against it.
Score: 0
|Works both ways, Mr. StarBand. Government is partisan. Shocking revelation there.
Score: -4
|We pay more for health care because we have the best health care available. Because we aren't as regulated here as they are in Europe and Canada we pay higher costs because the companies are forced to accept less there. Someone has to pay for all that expensive drug research. There is plenty of competition. Depending on how you get your insurance either the company you work for picks the plan or you can. With a name like fatty don't expect a cheap rate though.
Score: -3
|If we have the best healthcare availble why is the life expectance so low? Why does the USA have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the industrialized world? Why is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy for the past several decades, health care expenses? Why do tens of millions not have any healthcare insurance? Why is my employer trimming back health care coverage (hint it is not becuase the costs are down because of competition)
Score: 0
|@DataWeasel - what is your solution..oh wait, yeah you are just a troll offering nothing. If you say my idea is bad, then by logic, you must have an idea which is "better". What is it?
Score: 0
|Where are you getting these so called facts from? Why do you suppose foreign leaders come here for health care?
If we have the best healthcare availble why is the life expectance so low?
Because we don't live a healthy lifestyle. Look at all the crap we eat.
Why is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy for the past several decades, health care expenses?
Because Americans don't know how to save money for a rainy day.
Why do tens of millions not have any healthcare insurance?
They choose not to buy it or they are too stupid to sign up for Medicaid.
Why is my employer trimming back health care coverage
Because they know what's coming. There are 1500 health insurance companies in the US. How can there not be competition?
Score: -2
|What's the problem? Do you see any internet providers blocking access to something? This is a law that no one needs.
Score: -3
|@fatty - My solution...free market will take care of it so keep the government out of it. If people don't like that ISP A filters traffic, they go to ISP B. If the government gets involved then lobbiest get involved. If lobbiests get involved then the solution typically doesn't wear well for most consumers, just a small section of consumers who have money to lobby for what they want.
Government can't solve all your problems. Some problems are BECAUSE of government.
Score: -3
|You talk like there are endless numbers of ISP's to choose from. I have two...a cable company and a telco. What happens when they both throttle my iTunes movie downloads because they have a competing service? Or do not apply their bandwidth caps to their movie downloads?
Score: 1
|If you wait, it will be too late. It will take years for the courts to hear and judge a case. in that time, if someone is getting throttled, they will be dead
Score: -1
|Why do other countries emphasize healthy lifestyles, which is the most important part of healthcare? Simple...in the USA, the greed based healthcare system makes more money treating illness than preventing it. This goes as far as the massive government subsidies to corn farmers to make High Fructose Corn Syrup.
You do realize roughly 75% of those who declare personal bankruptcy due to health bills, do have insurance at the start of their illness? then they get dropped and denied coverage by the greed based insurance companies?
Yes there are 1500 leeches which suck $100's of billions out of they system rather than said money actually going to providing healthcare.
Amazing the stuff they do not tell you on Faux News, huh? Do a little research yourself
Score: 0
|That is the circus of the one party system in the USA. By the rich, for the rich. the circus is just to distract from the real problems
Score: -1
|You talk like broadband is a right. It's a service. Have we become so entitled that even services must conform to the "greater good"? Let's water down that slippery slope a little more...
Score: -2
|If you don't like the capitalist based system here in the United States please move to France. I'll help with the cost of the one-way ticket.
Have you looked at your insurance carefully. There are yearly maximums in them. That's one way they keep costs down. Every type of insurance has these maximums. You know if I got really ill and the bills racked up enough that I had to commit bankruptcy it wouldn't matter. I'd live in an apartment and work myself back up in the 7 years that bankruptcy would be on my credit record. At least I'd be alive.
Score: -2
|sure you would. The real question is why isnt the USA like the rest of the industrialized world, even including those evil communist countries, who have nationalized health care? Why does the USA with its competition based system cost so much more than other countries? Why in your greatest time of need do you need to deal with wondering how to pay the bills, losing your house, car, clothes on your back?
It is amazing how the super rich have convinced the peons they should have nothing. Next up, you will want to get rid of public education, police, fire, etc... Go back to Faux News...it is about all you can understand.
Score: 1
|who says broadband is a "right"? Oh, that's right, you did.
Score: 0
|Learn to read, fatty. Especially read what you type. Why do I even reply to you?!
Waiting for your best "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" comeback.
Score: 0
|Fatty-
Point 1. Why all of this talk about health care? I thought this was about net neutrality. Besides, if the libs treated health care like they treat the economy, they'd be taking money away from people who took care of themselves and giving it to slobs who eat sugar all day.
Point 2. I live in Cedar Rapids, IA. Middle America. Population about 150K. We have four options for broadband, ImOn (Cable modem), Mediacom (cable modem), and AT&T (DSL), and some other company that offers broadband over wireless repeaters. Oh wait, we also have Verizon's cell phone broadband. Oh, and AT&T cell phone broadband. I think that's it. Oh, wait, we also have DirecTV and Dish networks broadband options. So, I think that's at least 8 broadband options.
Phone service is similar.
Cable TV though, we only have two options - Mediacom and ImOn. Wait, I forgot that in the southern part of the city, we can get cable service through Southslope. Oh, they also provide broadband service. So, I guess we can add that to the above total.
Where do you live that you only have two options for broadband? I thought Cedar Rapids was limited because we don't have fiber to our house. Wait, parts of Cedar Rapids do. And provided by two different services. Wait, three.
The last thing I want is more government intervention. If they do the same thing to broadband access that they have done to everything else they have touched, you are gonna be screaming louder than you are now.
Score: 0
|