Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Internet Freedom Coalition Responds to Moveon.org’s Resurrected ‘Net Neutrality’ Agenda

WASHINGTON, April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Jason Wright, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Coalition, today released the following statement in response to Moveon.org and their “Save The Internet” 1st anniversary conference call with reporters:

“The inappropriately named ‘Save the Internet’ coalition is back at it, celebrating their first year of existence - a year that only has served to threaten innovation. Today’s call with reporters was more of the same. Their goal is to cripple innovation and saddle the world’s freest market - the Internet - with government regulation. Why has this group failed to get their agenda passed? Because they have dreamt up the perfect regulation in search of a complaint. They offer a solution to what is only a hypothetical problem.

“Look at their track record. They lost the federal fight to install network neutrality in 2006. Backers of net neutrality legislation in Maryland this year reversed their support and voted the bill down. The bill in California was pulled over public outcry against this onerous, unproductive call for fixing a problem that doesn’t exist.

“Consumers are winning. Access to broadband in America continues to grow as competition in the marketplace has driven prices down, making high speed broadband more affordable to a cross section of America. The number of applications utilizing these information networks has thrived: online education, telemedicine and shopping from the comfort of your own home - to name only a few. All without government meddling or intervention. If Moveon.org succeeds in regulating the Internet, it will have the effect of creating real problems - like freezing innovation in time - while ’solving’ a non-existent one.”

ABOUT IFC:

The Internet Freedom Coalition is a group of more than 30 like-minded free-market, limited government non-profit associations, individuals and think-tanks including: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Black America’s Political Action Committee, Catholic Citizenship, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizen Outreach, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cornerstone Policy Research, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Ethan Allen Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Illinois Policy Institute, Independent Women’s Forum, Institute for Liberty, Iowa Association of Scholars, Kansas Taxpayers Network, Media Freedom Project, National Taxpayers Union, Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation, Public Interest Institute, Reason Foundation, RightMarch.com, TechPolicyWatch.com, The Maine Heritage Policy Center, Tennessee Center for Policy Research

CAGW Tells Congress to Keep Their Hands off the Internet

WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW) today urged Congress to say no to a national
broadband policy and government intrusion of the Internet. After the
release of a world-wide broadband usage report, Senate and House Committees
held hearings today to examine the need for further government involvement
in broadband service in light of other countries’ policies.
“The Internet has thrived in America precisely because it has been free
from government interference. The implementation of burdensome regulations,
wasteful subsidies, and complicated tax breaks that other countries are
imposing will only stifle growth and innovation,” said CAGW President Tom
Schatz. “Competition and the free market must be allowed to continue to
work.”
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development (OECD)
Broadband Statistics to December 2006 report was released on April 23.
While finding that the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the
30 studied countries, it ranked the United States 15th in
broadband-deployment penetration. The survey does not disclose how it
obtained its numbers and does not take into account population density or
supply and demand.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is an example of an ineffective
government program charged with increasing broadband access. Besides the
more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the
program has lost its focus on serving rural America. The RUS has been
subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in suburban
neighborhoods that would have received service anyway. Instead of allowing
the free market to work, efficient private sector forces are crowded out by
government subsidies.
According to a September 2005 audit by the USDA Inspector General (IG),
“RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring
Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS’
definition of ‘rural area’ is too broad to distinguish usefully between
suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million
in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program
funds) to communities near metropolitan areas.” The IG report noted “one of
the more highly publicized cases, [where] RUS issued loans to a company
providing broadband access to affluent suburban communities a few miles
outside of Houston, Texas.”
“Instead of increasing government control, Congress should remove
barriers to the further flourishing of Internet usage and access by
rejecting net neutrality, continuing the Internet tax ban, and protecting
intellectual property,” concluded Schatz.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement in government.

SOURCE Citizens Against Government Waste

Universal Service for the 21st Century Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 711 IS 110th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 711

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 28, 2007

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand the contribution base for universal service, establish a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of broadband service in unserved areas of the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Universal Service for the 21st Century Act’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The preservation and advancement of universal service is a fundamental goal of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

(2) Access throughout the Nation to high-quality and advanced telecommunications and information services is essential to secure the many benefits of our modern society.

(3) As the Internet becomes a critical element of any economic and social growth, universal service should shift from sustaining voice grade infrastructure promoting the development of efficient and advanced networks that can sustain advanced communications services.

(4) The current structure established by the Federal Communications Commission has placed the burden of universal service support on only a limited class of carriers, causing inequities in the system, incentives to avoid contribution, and a threat to the long term sustainability of the universal service fund.

(5) Current fund contributors are paying an increasing portion of their interstate and international service revenue into the universal service fund.

(6) Any fund contribution system should be equitable, nondiscriminatory and competitively neutral, and the funding mechanism must be sufficient to ensure affordable communications services for all.

SEC. 3. UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Inclusion of Intrastate Revenues- Section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)) is amended–

(1) by striking `Every’ and inserting `Notwithstanding section 2(b) of this Act, a’;

(2) by striking `interstate’ each place it appears; and

(3) by adding at the end `Nothing in this subsection precludes a State from adopting rules or regulations to preserve and advance universal service within that State as permitted by section 2(b) and subsections (b) and (f) of this section.’.

(b) Universal Service Proceeding-

(1) PROCEEDING- The Federal Communications Commission shall initiate a proceeding, or take action pursuant to any proceeding on universal service existing on the date of enactment of this Act, to establish a permanent mechanism to support universal service, that will preserve and enhance the long term financial stability of universal service, and will promote the public interest.

(2) CRITERIA- In establishing such a permanent mechanism, the Commission may include collection methodologies such as total telecommunications revenues, the assignment of telephone numbers and any successor identifier, connections (which could include carriers with a retail connection to a customer), and any combination thereof if the methodology–

(A) promotes competitive neutrality among providers and technologies;

(B) to the greatest extent possible ensures that all communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications be included in the assessable base for universal service support;

(C) takes into account the impact on low volume users, and proportionately assesses high volume users, through a capacity analysis or some other means; and

(D) ensures that a carrier is not required to contribute more than once for the same transaction, activity, or service.

(3) EXCLUDED PROVIDERS- If a provider of communications services that are capable of supporting 2-way voice communications would not contribute under the methodology established by the Commission, the Commission shall require such a provider to contribute to universal service under an equitable alternative methodology if exclusion of the provider from the contribution base would jeopardize the preservation, enhancement, and long term sustainability of universal service.

(4) DEADLINE- The Commission shall complete the proceeding and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION.

(a) Jurisdiction- Notwithstanding section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 152(b)), the Federal Communications Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to establish rates for inter-carrier compensation payments and shall establish rules providing a comprehensive, unified system of inter-carrier compensation, including compensation for the origination and termination of intrastate telecommunications traffic.

(b) Criteria- In establishing these rules, and in conjunction with its action in its universal service proceeding under section 3, the Commission, in consultation with the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, shall–

(1) ensure that the costs associated with the provision of interstate and intrastate telecommunications services are fully recoverable;

(2) examine whether sufficient requirements exist to ensure traffic contains necessary identifiers for the purposes of inter-carrier compensation; and

(3) to the greatest extent possible, minimize opportunities for arbitrage.

(c) Sufficient Support- The Commission should, to the greatest extent possible, ensure that as a result of its universal service and inter-carrier compensation proceedings, the aggregate amount of universal service support and inter-carrier compensation provided to local exchange carriers with fewer than 2 percent of the Nation’s subscriber lines will be sufficient to meet the just and reasonable costs of such local exchange carriers.

(d) Negotiated Agreements- Nothing in this section precludes carriers from negotiating their own inter-carrier compensation agreements.

(e) Deadline- The Commission shall complete the pending Intercarrier Compensation proceeding in Docket No. 01-92 and issue a final rule not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF BROADBAND ACCOUNT WITHIN UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 254 the following:

`SEC. 254A. BROADBAND FOR UNSERVED AREAS ACCOUNT.

`(a) Account Established-

`(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be, within the universal service fund established pursuant to section 254, a separate account to be known as the `Broadband for Unserved Areas Account’.

`(2) PURPOSE- The purpose of the account is to provide financial assistance for the deployment of broadband communications services to unserved areas throughout the United States.

`(b) Implementation-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall by rule establish–

`(A) guidelines for determining which areas may be considered to be unserved areas for purposes of this section;

`(B) criteria for determining which facilities-based providers of broadband communications service, and which projects, are eligible for support from the account;

`(C) procedural guidelines for awarding assistance from the account on a merit-based and competitive basis;

`(D) guidelines for application procedures, accounting and reporting requirements, and other appropriate fiscal controls for assistance made available from the account; and

`(E) a procedure for making funds in the account available among the several States on an equitable basis.

`(2) STUDY AND ANNUAL REPORTS ON UNSERVED AREAS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall conduct a study to determine which areas of the United States may be considered to be `unserved areas’ for purposes of this section. For purposes of the study and for purposes of the guidelines to be established under subsection (a)(1), the availability of broadband communications services by satellite in an area shall not preclude designation of that area as unserved if the Commission determines that subscribership to the service in that area is de minimis.

`(B) ANNUAL UPDATES- The Commission shall update the study annually.

`(C) REPORT- The Commission shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce setting forth the findings and conclusions of the Commission for the study and each update under this paragraph and making recommendations for an increase or decrease, if necessary, in the amounts credited to the account under this section.

`(3) STATE INVOLVEMENT- The Commission may delegate the distribution of funding under this section to States subject to Commission guidelines and approval by the Commission.

`(c) Limitations-

`(1) ANNUAL AMOUNT- Amounts obligated or expended under subsection (c) for any fiscal year may not exceed $500,000,000.

`(2) USE OF FUNDS- To the extent that amounts in the account are not obligated or expended for financial assistance under this section, they shall be used to support universal service under section 254.

`(3) SUPPORT LIMITED TO FACILITIES-BASED SINGLE PROVIDER PER UNSERVED AREA- Assistance under this section may be provided only to–

`(A) facilities-based providers of broadband communications service; and

`(B) 1 facility-based provider of broadband communications service in any unserved area.

`(d) Application With Sections 214, 254, and 410-

`(1) SECTION 214(e)- Section 214(e) shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(2) SECTION 254- Section 254 shall be applied to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account–

`(A) by disregarding–

`(i) subsections (a) and (e) thereof; and

`(ii) any other provision thereof determined by the Commission to be inappropriate or inapplicable to implementation of this section; and

`(B) by reconciling, to the maximum extent feasible and in accordance with guidelines prescribed by the Commission, the implementation of this section with the provisions of subsections (h) and (l) thereof.

`(3) SECTION 410- Section 410 shall not apply to the Broadband for Unserved Areas Account.

`(e) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) BROADBAND-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `broadband’ shall be defined by the Commission in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph.

`(B) REVISION OF INITIAL DEFINITION- Within 30 days after the date of enactment of the Universal Service for the 21st Century Act, the Commission shall revise its definition of broadband to require a data rate–

`(i) greater than the 200 kilobits per second standard established in its Section 706 Report (14 FCC Rec. 2406); and

`(ii) consistent with data rates for broadband communications services generally available to the public on the date of enactment of that Act.

`(C) ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEFINITION- The Commission shall review its definition of broadband no less frequently than once each year and revise that definition as appropriate.

`(2) BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE DEFINED- The term `broadband communications service’ means a high-speed communications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video communications using any technology.’.

SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 254A.

The Federal Communications Commission shall complete a proceeding and issue a final rule to implement section 254A of the Communications Act of 1934 not more than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

The Dems favor net neutrality and the GOP does not. This sounds a little more like traditional stands of party politics. If the internet, and more specifically the blogosphere, continues to exert influence on issues at the current rate, the face of politics may evolve as an entirely new animal. Or it may only reflect a shift in the tools of the trade.

Not unlike big business, politics requires establishing a rigid structure to limit interference from outsiders. Power and influence dictates the agenda and often the outcome. This restricts innovation and impedes the flow of ideas. Innovation is generally the domain of startups and small entities unencumbered by the desire to crush competition. The internet among other things is an environment that fosters innovation. It is possible that the opponents of equal access for all are only interested in protecting their kingdoms. However, some who claim to be in favor of innovation may only support it as a mechanism to regain the power and influence. Distinguishing the two is problematic.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Neutrality On the Net Gets High ‘08 Profile

Bloggers and other Internet activists made their marks in the past two presidential elections chiefly by building networks of political enthusiasts and raising money for candidates. Now, they are pushing aggressively into policymaking — and not just over high-profile issues such as Iraq.

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Perri Nelson’s Website, basil’s blog, and Pursuing Holiness, Outside the Beltway, High Desert Wanderer, and Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, and Right Voices Blue Star Chronicles, Stuck On Stupid, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

‘Net neutrality’ — no one even knows what that means

By Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)
Ah totally don’t know what that means, but ah wont it.”
— Jessica Simpson

Maybe you heard Ms. Simpson deliver that line while poking fun at my drawl — oh, sure she was — in a recent commercial for satellite TV. Somewhat less attractive pitchmen use the same rationale for an idea they call “net neutrality.” They “wont” something, too.

Just don’t ask anybody to tell you what it is.

Rep Joe Barton does a nice job of avoiding the issue. Maybe the excerpt from Widipedia will help you.
Stanford Matthews, MoreWhat.com
from Wikepedia:
The term was coined around 2003 in political opposition to the possibility that telecom internet service providers, in the course of implementing proposed new service and content models, might impose selective (and discriminatory) controls on the Internet’s traffic and content. Telecom companies (who currently profit by providing access to the full Internet) have proposed segregating certain “high priority” traffic according to a “tiered services” (TS) model, which they claim will allow them to provide advanced functionality and higher quality for customers. The concern is that telecom companies may try to use this power to discriminate between traffic types, charging tolls on content from some content providers (i.e. websites, services, protocols). Failure to pay the tolls would result in poor service or no service for certain websites or certain types of applications.

Tiered service proponents claim that there are valid uses for a “high priority traffic” model, and that these would not impose substantial bandwidth or quality of service restrictions on the general public. Accordingly, “net neutrality” has been accused of being “a solution in search of a problem” and of eliminating incentives to build new networks and launch next generation Internet services.

So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.

Next, Congressional action is either a bill or resolution. Most of the time, resolutions are pretty much useless to the ordinary citizen. There is one example this past month that is not useless. It should not have to come to this but usually does. A joint resolution is similar to a bill. The one last month was for appropriations. You know, to keep the government operating until Congress and the President figure out what they’re doing.

So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.

On January 9, 2007, House of Representatives 1 or HR1 was passed.
This is to implement 9/11 Commission items.
On January 10, 2007, HR2 was passed.
This is for increasing minimum wage over 26 months.
On January 11, 2007, HR3 was passed.
This is to “enhance” stem cell research.
On January 12, 2007, HR4 was passed.
This allows government to negotiate medicare drug prices.
On January 17, 2007, HR5 was passed.
This lowers interest rates on government backed student loans
On January 18, 2007, HR6 was passed.
This is an act for alternative energy creation. That’s quite an act.
On January 19, 2007, HR475 was passed to revise the House Page Board.

The above items are what the House passed. The Senate passed the one joint resolution with the House. And one item became law that was posted here earlier. It is for renaming a National Recreation Area.

One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.

We would be better off paying more attention to the remainder of government. At the federal level at least, nothing productive is happening in the legislative branch. Ask anyone from the House or Senate if they care to dispute this. The new Democratic majority are developing disharmony among themselves as are the GOP members. If any of you still hold out optimism for the 110th Congress, good for you. Currently, the chances of Congress contributing to the overall good of the country are slim. That is unless they change their ways. And they will not.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Check the Beltway Traffic Jam 

Tom Tancredo wasn’t the first
to wave the flag on illegal
immigration, but he’s been among
the most relentless. (That’s
good.) Unfortunately, he’s also
been among the most unyielding.
(That’s bad.)

By his willingness to sound the alarm, the Republican who holds
Colorado’s 6th Congressional District seat has become the face of the
anti-illegal movement. Now it’s time to achieve a solution, and Tancredo
can play a leading role if he has the nerve to see it through.

To the fine voters of the Colorado 6th Congressional District this advice
is offered. Do not vote for anyone but Tom Tancredo. The reason for
this advice is the pathetic so-called endorsement by the Denver Post that
puts it all in perspective. They endorse with trepidation which is equal to
no endorsement at all It’s an incredible endorsement sham favoring Winter
who will spend you into education ruin and give amnesty to every illegal
immigrant.
If you have read or if you do read this piece by the Denver Post it will be
clear to you. It is in the best interest of any newspaper’s profit margin to
be pro amnesty and pro education spending. They will allow immigration
of any kind to extend the profit motive of corporate America who owns
the media. They will also spend us into default through education policy
that has no connection to performance or actually educating America’s
students. Once again, we urge you to vote for Tom Tancredo. If you are
wondering why a website with no obvious connection to Colorado would
take the time to promote Tom Tancredo it is because many people across
the country appreciate the efforts of Tom Tancredo to support the rule of
law and oppose uncontrolled immigration. This site is not payed for by any
political organization nor otherwise beholding to anyone. Once again, your
vote for Tom Tancredo is appreciated. We also favor James Sensenbrenner
of WI, who along with Mr Tancredo have done some good work. In addition
to immigration, they are two of eight Republicans who voted against the
COPE Act. Something we find equally compelling as reason to vote
for them. Enough said.

Stanford Matthews, MoreWhat.com

We were late getting into the most recent net neutrality debate that is
identified by the relatively quiet passing of HR 5252 in the House and
its expected quiet passage in the Senate in the lame duck session after
the mid term elections.
However, we are not seeing enough discussion on this anywhere on the
net. Internet users should not be apathetic or too lazy to participate in this
legislative matter. Going down the wrong road could ruin the internet.
Stanford Matthews, MoreWhat.com staff

Net neutrality gives equal access to Internet

By Devin Hansen, Rock Island | Sunday, October 22, 2006
Whether you are left wing or right wing, or preferably somewhere in the
middle, there is an issue of dire necessity that you must work to defeat.
Lobbyists in Congress are pushing for the end of Net neutrality, which
prevents companies like AT&T and Verizon from deciding which Web
sites upload the fastest based on who pays them the most.

Another good reason to oppose COPE Act and favor net neutrality. If the
RBOC’s (regional bell operating companies) are only in favor of the COPE
Act to increase profits and have the public and customers of their choosing
pay for their costs of doing business, that’s reason enough to oppose COPE.
C. Harris, MoreWhat.com staff

New US Congress could push ‘Net neutrality, hurt RBOCs

Jim Duffy
A Democratic victory in November could introduce IP networks to
government regulation by bringin net neutrality and other issues
back to the front burner. Democratic control of Congress, expected next year caused by unease over
the Iraq War and a Republican sex scandal, would be “negative” for the
RBOCs by “bringing the government regulation to the IP networks for the
first time” that would discourage investment and inhibit profitability, states
investment firm UBS Warburg in a research report issued Thursday.

The phrase above, “hurt RBOC’s” should not alarm you. It means hurt their
bottom line and/or profit margins. That is preferable to hurting internet users
universally and big biz controlling who gets what on the internet.
C. Harris MoreWhat.com staff

Oregon Speaks Out For Net Neutrality

MedfordNews.com, OR - Oct 19, 2006
… by creating discriminatory networks that play favorites,” said Senator Wyden, the first
member of Congress to introduce legislation protecting Net Neutrality.”. …

COPE Act, Net Neutrality & the Telecom Industry It is likely in your own best interest to pay attention to this legislation and help defeat it in the Senate since it has a version that passed the House. The roll call voting results will be provided in a subsequent post this week.
Stanford Harris
MoreWhat.com staff

First paragraph of the CRS Summary of HR 5252, as amended and passed on June 8, 2006 by the House. H.R.5252 (with blogger comments in red text)

The information below is from Congressman Ed Markey’s website and it seems he is passionately supporting legislation to oppose the COPE Act without Net Neutrality language inserted. HR5252 passed in the House and has been sent to the Senate. It is out understanding it is awaiting judgment and may or may not get shoved through in a lame duck session after the mid terms. We suggest you involve yourselves in this one if you like the net the way it is. Things may change drastically if the COPE Act is allowed to survive without net neurtrality protections in place. As we get our collective heads wrapped around this one we will do our best to keep you informed.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com staff

October 21 2006
Become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the Net Neutrality Amendment
We, the undersigned, oppose the lack of Network Neutrality protections in the the COPE Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton. We strongly urge passage of the Network Neutrality amendment sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, along with Representatives Rick Boucher, Anna Eshoo, and Jay Inslee.

Click Here to Co-sponsor!

Whereas, the free and open nature of the Internet has fostered unprecedented innovation and economic growth;Whereas, a fundamental part of the Internet’s nature is the fact that no one owns it and it is open to all comers;

Whereas, the Barton Bill would block the FCC from restoring meaningful protections for Internet consumers and entrepreneurs, and from prohibiting the imposition of bottleneck taxes and other discriminatory actions on the part of broadband network operators, such as AT&T and Verizon;

Whereas, the imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would unduly burden web-based small businesses, start-ups, as well as communications for non-commercial users, religious speech, civic involvement, and exercising our First Amendment freedoms;

Whereas, the Markey amendment will effectively thwart attempts by broadband behemoths to block, impair, or degrade a consumer’s ability to access any lawful Internet content, application, or service; will protect my right to attach any device for use with a broadband connection,; will ensure that phone and cable companies cannot favor themselves or affiliated parties to the detriment of other broadband competitors, innovators, and independent entrepreneurs; and it will prohibit the broadband Internet providers from charging extra fees and warping the web in a multi-tiered network of bandwidth haves and have-nots.

Therefore, I join as a citizen co-sponsor of the Markey Amendment to save the Internet as we know it.

Click Here to Co-sponsor!