Advertisement: Buy a Mac for college, and get a free iPod touch. Configure your Mac and get fast, free shipping only at the Apple Store.
Here is the letter, verbatim:
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
The deployment of broadband service is a national imperative — as important to our nation’s economic success, growth and competitiveness as the postal roads, canals, rail lines, and interstate highways of the past.
Following the D.C. Circuit Court’s Comcast decision earlier this year, the Commission’s regulatory authority with respect to this vital engine of our economy was upended. Accordingly, the initiation in May of a proceeding on Commission authority was an appropriate and tailored response to the Court’s Comcast ruling. Reclassification and clear FCC oversight as contemplated by your “Third Way” proposal is critically important for bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans and achieving the goals set forth in the landmark National Broadband Plan, including advancement of consumer welfare, energy independence and efficiency, job creation and other national priorities.
The recent proposal by Google and Verizon of an industry-centered net neutrality policy framework reinforces the need for resolution of the current open proceedings at the Commission to ensure the maintenance of an open Internet. Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested financial interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed. The public interest is served by a free and open Internet that continues to be an indispensable platform for innovation, investment, entrepreneurship, and free speech.
As the Commission’s broadband proceeding moves forward, we believe that the Commission should be guided by the following fundamental principles:
The FCC must have oversight authority for broadband access services.
The United States has fallen behind other nations in terms of broadband deployment and adoption because of the failure to properly plan for its development and support its use; however, the National Broadband Plan represents a monumental step towards increasing deployment and adoption and unleashing the power of high speed access to create jobs, improve health care delivery, upgrade public safety tools and expand educational opportunities. Without the proper authority to implement all facets of the Plan, we will not fulfill its full promise or achieve its goals. Classification of broadband access service under Title II, combined with the Commission’s forbearance authority, would provide the necessary certainty for broadband network operators, broadband users, and Internet innovators alike.
Paid prioritization would close the open Internet.
Paid prioritization is contrary to the fundamental non-discrimination principles that have made the Internet the most successful communications and commercial medium in history. Such arrangements would favor certain content providers to the detriment of other content creators, degrading the traffic of providers unable or unwilling to pay. These types of arrangements, whether they are called paid prioritization or fast lanes harm the Internet. A commonsense non-discrimination requirement without loopholes is essential for an efficient marketplace where businesses and consumers — not carriers — decide the winners and losers in the Internet ecosystem. We strongly encourage you to reject any policy proposals that would permit paid prioritization of delivery of Internet content.
Wired and wireless services should have a common regulatory framework and rules.
Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet requirements could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device. Moreover, such inconsistent principles could confuse consumers, who would have different and uneven experiences depending solely on the connection that their mobile devices might use to reach the Internet. An Internet framework excluding wireless from important consumer safeguards could impede attainment of national broadband goals, while lessening the potential for wireless platforms to serve unserved and underserved areas.
Broad “managed services” exceptions would swallow open Internet rules.
An overbroad definition of the proposed “managed services” category would sap the vitality and stunt the growth of the Internet. In fact, an overly broad interpretation of managed services would create an exception that swallows the rule. For example, managed services might be rebranded or repackaged services and applications — only with priority treatment not available to competitors. By undermining competition and the value of the open Internet, managed services could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprises.
In sum, we believe that any rules that result from the Commission’s proceedings should focus on adherence to the public interest, discourage attempts to strangle the free-flow of lawful content, applications and services for American consumers and provide certainty both for entrepreneurs and Internet users. The time for FCC action is now. We look forward to continuing to work with you and other members of the Commission to ensure that the Commission’s Open Internet proceeding moves forward to protect the public interest.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rep. Jay Inslee
Rep. Ed Markey
Rep. Anna Eshoo
Rep. Mike Doyle
Source: Jay Inslee for Congress
[Attribution: IDG News. Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Kevin N.” for the heads up.]
@Smaller Gov’t Now,
Obviously (to most), I posited satellite as an alternative to cable TV.
Presidents who retain majority job approval from Americans at the time of midterm elections are much less likely to see their party suffer heavy seat losses than are those with sub-50% approval ratings. Since 1946, when presidents are above 50% approval, their party loses an average of 14 seats in the U.S. House in the midterm elections, compared with an average loss of 36 seats when presidents are below that mark.
The clear implication is that the Democrats are vulnerable to losing a significant number of House seats this fall with Barack Obama’s approval rating averaging 45% during the last two full weeks of Gallup Daily tracking. The Republicans would need to gain 40 House seats to retake majority control.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141812/Avg-Midterm-Seat-Loss-Presidents-Below-Approval.aspx
@Republican Revolution II:
The point was not that Obama is perfect, the point was you guys think the Republican politicians are.
I’m intrigued by what seems to be a rare instance of politicians listening to their constituency – my opinion, what they should be doing. I give them a thumbs up, regardless of party affiliation.
And I see the “Greed is good”, Ra Ra Capitalism crowd is in fine form. The panacea for the world’s ills – money. Guess some of you think Judas did the right thing, I mean he did make a couple of bucks on the deal, right?
The Obama Failure,
Assuming that Barack Obama retains his current Gallup approval rate of 45%, what kind of losses can Democrats expect in November? Bill Clinton lost 53 seats in the House with a 46% rating in 1994, and LBJ lost 47 seats with a 44% rating in 1966. Anything above 39 seats gives control of the House back to the Republicans.
In 1994, Bill Clinton lost big because of his nanny-state overreach, and that was when the economy was actually adding jobs and growing steadily. This year, not only has Obama spent the entire year attempting to expand government to unprecedented levels, he’s also spent the economy into stagnation at the same time. Carter had Watergate to protect him, but Obama has nothing except the tiresome demonization of George W. Bush.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/gallup-average-loss-of-seats-for-midterms-is-36/
Now, Net Neutrality. While I prefer the Government stay out of this area as much as possible, it worries me that Google and Verizon want free rein in wireless.
jax44,
We haven’t had a real conservative in charge since Reagan – and he had the burden of having (and also the great insight) to spend the USSR into oblivion.
Imagine Reagan today without the need to win the cold war! We’d have a much healthier economy (lower taxes and consistent gov’t signals that assure business of a reasonable gov’t stance towards business in the future which would spur investment and end the recession) and we’d be going back to the moon and getting ready to go to Mars!
Obama is a neophyte who believes gov’t solves problems. It doesn’t. It creates them and hinders growth. Obama truly doesn’t get it and business owners know it.
Businesses will wait until the Obama neophyte is either out of office or effectively neutered (Republican congress) before even considering spending and propelling the country out of this malaise.
Big government is not the answer.
“Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.” – Ronald Reagan
Have you seen the image quality of satellite TV? It is so pixelated and blocky from the compression and they dare call it HD! It is for this reason that I do not subscribe to satellite or cable any longer. I get my content from iTunes when I want good image content, and Hulu when I do not care.
Imagine all the roads you travel on now subject to tolls.
Yeah. I don’t like it.
The only thing wrong with the letter was the headline that preceeded it. WTF cares if there’s a D or R or I behind the representatives’ names? Their points are valid and correct.
@ Republican Revolution II: i guess it depends on what issues you are referring to. I would not call Reagan a fiscal conservative, and he did nothing to decrease the size of government. It’s Bush 43 who actually cut military spending and initiated long-overdue military base closures (eventually carried out during the Clinton terms). Likewise, the Bushes are not what I would call socially liberal unless you count Bush 43’s passion for parachuting. The point is this: political labels are overused and pointless in polite discussion. To make a point, it’s better to address specific issues and specific positions on those issues rather than parroting attack phrases and labels. For the record, I don’t disagree with your sentiment, though I would say that your obvious dislike of Obama is misplaced. He’s done just about everything he said he was going to do, which is better than the doublespeak or complete inaction we got for the previous 30 years. Obama’s actions are NOT a surprise to anyone. Our business isn’t being blindsided by any policy shift. And while I’m disappointed that the stimulus didn’t magically get banks to lend again and that it was effectively a Wall St bailout instead of a Main St incentive to work, it is the BANKS that screwed themselves and that are continuing to screw you and me. Obama is not to fault if your bank refuses to give business loans. They are the ones who brought everything to a halt. And you know what? Banking is not a conservative/liberal game. Appropriate regulation on banks is absolutely necessary since they’ve proven repeatedly that they can’t manage their businesses for long-term prosperity.
@ Republican Revolution II:
Yeah, “Reaganomics” worked well. You give Reagan the bye with the “spend the USSR into oblivion” line, but Obama who inherited the biggest economic mess since 1929, along with two wars no slack.
During Japans “lost decade” it has been seriously debated that the cause of a “second slump” after about 3-4 years was caused by Government help being pulled back due to a false sense of “recovery”.
I don’t know the answer, and I doubt the Republicans do either.
And a final word from my Dad:
The Republicans rob from the Middle class and give to the Rich.
The Democrats rob from the Middle class and give to the Poor.
Towertone, from article you referenced
“ISPs like Comcast and Verizon are in business to sell Internet access to as many people as possible. They would not do anything that would jeopardize their subscriber retention.”
This statement is stupid and you are gullible for buying into it. Here is a taste of VZ tactics that should most certainly jeopardize customer retention.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/is-verizon-wireless-making-it-harder-to-avoid-charges/#more-2383
Wireless companies will screw the consumer at every point they can.
GBell
Talking about hardline internet, not wireless telephone at this point.
But is that your only reason for more regulation?
The way Verizon treats their wireless customers is one reason I have stayed with ATT. I do that because I have a choice.
The reason I stay with cable for internet is because it is faster, cheaper and more reliable than DSL in my area. I do that because I have a choice.
In both cases, they must compete for my business.
If one builds out fiber to the curb and offers more speed for less price, I will make that choice.
If a new method comes out that is fast and portable (4G, LTE or beyond) then I may go with that because I have a choice.
If you believe that Net Neutrality will speed up development, keep the internet ‘open’, and make baby Jesus smile, then you are the gullible one.
Jax44,
If the Republicans rob from the Middle class and give to the Rich and the Democrats rob from the Middle class and give to the Poor, then the Republicans are smarter since at least the rich have the possibility of investing that money or creating jobs with it. The amount the Dems give to the poor is too little to benefit anyone. The poor remain poor, stuck dependent on the government (good for Dem votes, at least) and nobody else gets anything from it.
Here’s a pretty good rule of thumb – whatever Ed Markey says, the right answer lies elsewhere.
@Republican Revolution II
So, the shift in wealth during the 8 Bush years is a good thing? More poor, less middle class, rich get richer, etc…
Common sense says we have to find middle ground. I think most Americans are ready for common sense (and middle ground), but neither the Democrat nor Republican parties are…
I haven’t seen anything that makes me think Republicans have any different ideas than those George W. Bush instituted.
@UeberMac:
If you believe that competition will keep the carriers and ISPs in check, then you couldn’t be more wrong.
What if they just all “independently” got the idea of screwing us over?
There are limits to what the free market can do. It is up to gov’t to set up proper constraints such that the greed of big business is kept in check (– not completely neutralized, because a healthy amount of competition is exactly what keeps those businesses going).
Thing is, is that Dumbocrats think they have the answers 50% of the time. But, truth be told, they nearly always only score 25%.
Republicrooks think they have the answers 100% of the time. But, truth be told, they nearly always only score 25%.
So. What we ALL always get is a bunch of self-interested douchebags, jocking for position on the self-entitlement tit.
Carlin was correct, GIGO.
I personally believe in the King-for-a-Day leadership.
MDN-MW: heart. How cloying.
Cowboy?
You’re wearing political blinders, and it makes you look dumb.
In the one year of the Obama administration, guess what happened? The rich got richer, the poor got poorer and there is less of the middle class.
By the end of the Obama administration, the rich will get even richer, the poor will get even poorer, and the middle class will get even smaller.
AND;
I haven’t seen anything that makes me think Democrats have any different ideas than those Barack Obama instituted.
The Democrats have to answer and address the biggest problem of all, their failure with Freddie and Fannie to the tune (so far) of over 500 billion dollars. More than all the banks, GM, AIG combined.
Their “government takes all comers” socialist approach to sub-prime mortgages is the principal cause of our ongoing economic malaise, not Greenspan’s low prime to defeat China caused deflation. Nobody wants to invest in the U.S. now knowing the government has this huge debt to settle and get smacked with all the taxes.
There is plenty of growth opportunity in China and India, due to be larger economies than the U.S. by 2020. That’s why Apple is there.
As far as net neutrality, all bandwidth, whatever it consists or comes from, should be treated equal. Let the end user decide which has higher priority.
Newsflash!
Not everyone deserves everything this life has to offer.
If you can’t afford to own a house, you can’t afford to own a house. The gov’t shouldn’t have forced lenders to make bad loans.
If you can’t pay your debts, nobody else should have to pay them for you.
People are not equal. Some are (far) smarter than others. Or stronger. Or faster. Or have a (much) better work ethic. Etc.
Charity, not government assistance, has been proven to take care of the less capable among us (a growing group, it would seem) much more effectively and efficiently than wasteful, corrupt gov’t programs.
If everyone, not just Republicans (hint, hint, “caring” Democrats), gave meaningful amounts to good, deserving charities, the government would be a quarter the size it is today and focused upon what they should be focused on: National defense, maintaining the borders, overseeing transportation and modernizing power systems, etc. vs. what they shouldn’t be: Healthcare, General Motors (union payola), artificial enforced “fairness” (socialism), etc.
The government causes far more problems than it solves because the best and the brightest in our society almost always go into private enterprise where the rewards are the greatest, not the government. Therefore most attempts at regulation have wide-ranging unintended consequences because the idiots (Pelosi, Reid) coming up with the shit can’t think even one move ahead, much less the required eight moves.
The fact that the U.S. had a shot at having someone as overqualified as Romney willing to be President, but elected Obama instead, only goes to prove that the country has been dumbed down to an extent from which there may be no reasonable return.
@ Anon Coward
The Dems have to answer for that? Really? Obama must be more powerful than I thought to cause a financial meltdown of that magnitude in just a few months.
Thanks to the military industrial complex running roughshod over our economy for decades and countless years of cutting education we now have an America that is financially in turmoil and the first generation of Americans who are less literate than the last. We are getting poorer and more stupid as a country.
So keep on ignoring the long term issues and stay focused on party politics…
“It’s what plants crave!”
@Newsflash!
A-fscking-men!
So people who are far “dumber”, like say for instance, the mentally handicapped, should be left to struggle for themselves? Poor children who contract leukemia and survive should live in poverty and be forced to attempt to pay for their treatments until they day die?
The problem with charity, is that Republicans think that pushing their own religious beliefs on everyone is “charity”. Yeah, maybe you do give “30% more”. But if I send $200 towards disaster relief in Haiti, and you send $260 towards bibles, who’s actually helped more?