Before we forget, let us happily note that Portia Krebs from USTA has just launched a blog, appropriately titled NextGenWeb.

Be sure to check out her first post introducing the site, and then another one from her colleague, Bill Deere, about testifying before a House small business committee yesterday, addressing the subject of rural broadband — an important issue we’ve talked about here before.

This is an exciting development. In the fight for the Internet’s future, we can always use another ally — especially one who brings institutional knowledge and technical expertise to the table.

Hands Off the Internet campaign co-chair Chris Wolf participated in an FTC workshop on broadband issues, including the debate over “net neutrality” and what to do about the onrush of rapidly developing web services now threatening our already-outdated broadband networks. Well worth reading:

Prepared Remarks of Christopher Wolf
Co-Chair, Hands Off the Internet
Federal Trade Commission Public Workshop
“Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy”
February 14, 2007
Session on “What Framework Best Promotes
Competition and Consumer Welfare”

Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Wolf. I chair the Internet law practice group at the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and I co-chair the public policy advocacy group Hands Off the Internet. Hands Off the Internet is a nationwide coalition of Internet users and companies united in the belief that a regulatory hands-off policy has allowed the Internet to flourish thus far. We also believe that unnecessary regulation in the future will adversely affect the build-out of the Internet infrastructure that is vital to the coming demands for broadband capacity.So our answer to the question of today’s session “What Framework Best Promotes Competition and Consumer Welfare” is that the existing framework, the one that encourages and promotes innovation and progress, is the best one for the future of the Internet and for consumers using the Internet.In particular, the members of my coalition believe that adoption of so-called net neutrality regulation will have adverse consequences for innovation and competition in the market for broadband access by, among other things, making it more difficult for ISPs and other network operators to recoup their needed investments in broadband networks. There is zero evidence of harm to competition or consumers to warrant such regulation. Moreover, competitive conditions in the market for broadband access will protect consumers from the hypothetical harm theorized by net neutrality proponents. Beyond that, the antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as current regulatory oversight, are sufficient to address any harms that may arise.As much as we might disagree over the need for new regulation, we agree completely with those on the other side of the regulatory question that no legal website or content should be blocked by a broadband provider. And we also share the belief that it is and should remain improper for service to be intentionally degraded. In addition, we fully support the use of existing law to pursue anti-competitive conduct if and when it occurs. The FCC, FTC, Department of Justice and state Attorneys General, as well as the private bar, all have tools at their disposal that may be used if anti-competitive or unfair tactics are engaged in by broadband providers. Existing law provides sufficient oversight, in our view, especially in light of the adverse unanticipated consequences of proposed new regulation.

For the rest of Wolf’s remarks, click the link below:

(more…)

“It’s disappointing that Sens. Snowe and Dorgan would introduce essentially the same bill to regulate the Internet that went down to such decisive defeat in Congress last June.

“As Democrats and Republicans recognized, these proposed neutrality regulations essentially create a legal loophole for large content companies such as Google, eBay and Amazon to avoid paying for the online bandwidth they use. These regulations are completely unwarranted and would ultimately force consumers to pay an increasing percentage of the huge cost to upgrade America’s vital communications networks.

“With America lagging many of our economic competitors in broadband deployment, Congress’ focus should instead be on spurring affordable high-speed deployment. And as numerous opponents of neutrality regulations, including the Communications Workers of America, have correctly noted, promoting deployment, not cumbersome new regulation, is the key to economic growth and job creation.”

Last June, the House rejected a proposed Net neutrality law 269-152. Approximately 58 Democrats joined 211 Republicans in opposition. Also last year, state legislators in Michigan rejected a bill to establish statewide neutrality regulations.

The Hands Off the Internet coalition is a Washington, DC-based coalition of companies and nonprofit organizations that believes the Internet has flourished because government has not tried to regulate it. Members include Alcatel, AT&T, the National Association of Manufacturers, FiberControl, and Cinergy Communications. Nonprofit members include Citizens Against Government Waste, the American Conservative Union and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

Chris Wolf, co-chair, Hands Off the Internet coalition

The Hands Off blog is in recess along with Congress.

Yesterday Salon.com posted an article about the ongoing net neutrality fight. While there was some to like about the piece, we were concerned that some of it gave readers the wrong impression. So here we present the letter we had posted at their site yesterday:

We are pleased that Salon points out that the United States lags in broadband access and that telecom companies are working hard to bring high-speed Internet to all Americans. However, Daniel Reilly’s article “The telecom slayers” perpetuates several misconceptions about the current debate.

Foremost among them is the assertion that online media companies “will be forced to pay the lion’s share of fees” is inaccurate and misleading. No one is forced to pay for tiered Internet service, and as a substantively different offering from standard non-tiered access, it’s only fair. Meanwhile, Google is asking the government to give them this service for free, and if they succeed, it’s the average Internet user who will pay the price.

Moreover, the idea that creating such a fast lane for “will stifle innovation and choice” is ludicrous. In fact, the opposite is true — packet prioritization means that high-quality, streaming online video service is a real possibility. It isn’t now (http://www.slate.com/id/2140930/). And Sen. Snowe’s comparison of a free market to a “Soviet Union supermarket” only underscores how little she knows about the broadband market.

Ultimately, organizations like Save The Internet have confused citizens by conflating the separate issues of content discrimination and traffic-shaping. The telecommunications industry has no interest in the former, while the latter is a necessary tool for keeping Internet traffic manageable.

We admire the initiative of the video-maker Ben Going, but that doesn’t make his argument correct. Indeed, his video is actually free of any arguments. Style over substance may play well in Hollywood, but when far-reaching new government regulations are on the horizon, facts matter more than emotion.

Add the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) to the list of independent groups puncturing holes in the logic of so-called Net neutrality. LULAC’s June 20th letter to all 100 Senators doesn’t mince words:

“LULAC does not support preemptive action on net neutrality and we do not believe the Internet should be subjected to increased and misguided regulations. It would be most unfortunate if important legislation [to update cable TV regulations] that could prove beneficial to so many consumers is delayed because of this issue.”

LULAC is one of the leading progressive advocacy groups in the nation and its interest in this issue is clear:

“Latinos are increasingly reliant on advanced communication technologies to further their education and careers, grow their businesses, and communicate with family and friends both near and far.”

So add LULAC to the list of voices opposing, what they call in their own words, a “solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

A tip of the hat to George Washington University for this morning’s discussion with Amazon lobbyist Paul Meisner on whether we’d all be better off if the federal government regulated how Internet companies treat data on their networks.

I won’t try to distill an hour’s worth of debate into a brief post. But that said, it’s a great feeling to go into a debate on high-tech regulation and its consumer cost, knowing that you’re on the same side as David Farber, the CWA, the Washington Post editorial board, two former chief economists at the FCC… the list goes on.

Incidentally, for the handouts we distributed this morning, click on the hypertext to see each: Handout 1 (PDF), Handout 2 (PDF), Handout 3 (DOC), and Handout 4 (DOC).

– Mike