Call To Action

Oppose Net Neutrality

Stop the Government from Controlling the Internet

Coalition advocating for net neutrality includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN, NOW and Planned Parenthood.

Please read the following posts on net neutrality. Net neutrality would allow the FCC to impose regulations on internet network providers - another government power grab. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FCC had no regulatory authority over the internet. Despite this ruling the FCC attempts to impose net neutrality continue. Numerous conservative groups and leaders oppose this intrusion and have signed a letter to President Obama and the FCC asking them to refrain from imposing restricitions that would come from the FCC obtaining “Title II” regulatory authority. Advocates for net-neutrality also sent a letter to the FCC - signatories included pro-abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NOW.

Please read the posts below and call or email your Congressman or Senator today to ask them to oppose so-called, "Net Neutrality" standards on the Internet. 

From StopNetRegulation.org

Over 150 Organizations, Bloggers, State Lawmakers Oppose FCC Internet Regulation

Today, 153 national and state-level think tanks, advocacy groups, state legislators, bloggers, and talk show hosts sent two letters to the Federal Communications Commission in opposition to regulating broadband Internet.  Between the two letters, signers include Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, Erick Erickson of RedState.com, Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, and Citizens Against Government Waste.  In addition, 36 state lawmakers and a number of state-level think tanks and advocacy groups joined the coalition letters.  To quote from one of the two letters:

“Despite universal acknowledgement that Americans enjoy a free, open, and vibrant Internet, the FCC is relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime that would stifle broadband expansion, create congestion, slow Internet speeds, jeopardize job retention and growth, and lead to higher prices for consumers.”

Three signers made the following statements:

“The FCC is on a reckless mission to regulate the Internet, overlooking the costs and the vast bipartisan opposition from elected officials and Americans.  These coalition letters show a large number of policy-focused non-profits, state lawmakers, activists, and bloggers strongly object to the FCC’s actions.  Despite rhetoric from radical left-wing groups, the Internet is already open and free, just as it’s always been.  Only the FCC’s regulatory ambitions would change that."
– Kelly William Cobb, Executive Director, Digital Liberty Project

“The Internet – in the absence of regulation – has flourished into a remarkable engine of economic growth, innovation, competition and free expression. Yet now the angry left – and possibly 3 members of the FCC – intend to up-end the verdict of the public, the Congress, and the courts to impose sweeping regulation that would transform the Internet into a regulated public utility.  Free-market activists are fighting back, and this letter shows how strong their opposition is.  The Obama administration and the FCC should take notice.”
– Phil Kerpen, Director, NoInternetTakeover.com

“Net neutrality is a solution running around looking for a problem.  And to justify imposing net neutrality, the FCC is overreaching further still - seeking to reclassify the Internet under the oppressive 1930s landline telephone regulatory regime.  The damage all of this would do to the wondrous free-market Web success we have enjoyed is incalculable.  The Internet represents one-sixth of our economy, and it works.  Leave it alone.” more

– Seton Motley, Editor in Chief, StopNetRegulation.org

To read the two letters, click here and here.

From the Catholic Advocate

Net Neutrality and the Tip of the Iceberg

Deal W. Hudson

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), earlier this summer, issued a Notice of Inquiry on its new “Open Internet,” proposals.  Better known as “net neutrality," FCC leadership has made it clear they intend to use the power of the federal government to regulate broadband service on the Internet.

To remind our readers, the policy of net neutrality means that internet service providers must treat all data sources equally, making it unlawful for companies to allow some content to be transmitted faster.
The FCC is moving ahead with its inquiry in spite of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia stating the Commission did not have regulatory authority over the Internet.  In their June 17 press release, the FCC states it intends to challenge the Court’s finding that the Internet is not a telecommunication service.

The press release defined a "third-way" proposal to reclassifying broadband in response to the April federal appeals court ruling. The FCC would only apply a limited number of provisions of Title II of the Communications Act to broadband, implying provisions such as direct price controls would not be implemented.

Critics of the “third way” approach argue the FCC cannot be trusted to maintain a “light touch” in its regulation.  Regulatory agencies, once empowered, inevitably move to broaden their reach. George Ford, chief economist of the Phoenix Center, has argued that, "The FCC cannot pre-commit to light touch regulation because the commission cannot bind future actions of the agency."

The effort to stop the FCC in its regulatory effort has substantial bi-partisan support. On May 24th, 73 Democrats signed a letter to the FCC asking the agency to drop its push for net neutrality. The letter stated, "The significant regulatory impact of reclassifying broadband service is not something that should be taken lightly and should not be done without additional direction from Congress."

In addition, the letter warned against loss of jobs and investment, an economic outcome corroborated by a comprehensive, independent investigation.

The myriad forces behind net neutrality are being led by an organization called Free Press, co-founded by Robert W. McChesney and Josh Silver in 2002.  Anyone who wants to know the larger strategy of massive government control of the media and journalism should read the article by Adam Thierer, “How America’s Hugo Chavez Fan Club Plans to ‘Reform’ Our Media Marketplace.”

McChesney, a neo-Marxist theorist, sets out his vision for a government controlled and government funded media in his book, Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media, co-authored with John Nichols, Free Press board member and Washington correspondent for The Nation. As Thierer describes it, the book contains a veritable Brave New World approach to American journalism. McChesney and Nichols advocate, among other things:

·        A $35 billion annual “public works” program for the press modeled after the Works Progress Administration of the New Deal era

·        “News AmeriCorps” for out-of-work journalists,

·         “Citizenship News Voucher” to funnel taxpayer support to struggling media entities,

·        A significant expansion of postal subsidies,

·        Massive new subsidies for journalism schools,

·        Corporate welfare for newspapers sufficient to pay 50 percent of the salaries of all “journalistic employees,”

·        Municipal government ownership of press and infrastructure.

And as Thierer documents, Free Press has increasing access to and influence on the Obama Administration and the FCC. Jen Howard, former press director for Free Press, is now press secretary to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. Ben Scott, former Policy Director for Free Press, now serves as “policy advisor for innovation” to the State Department.

The support for net neutrality should be seen in the context of groups like Free Press, and theorists like Robert W. McChesney, that are strongly supporting it.

As Thierer summarizes the threat:
The fight for real media freedom and a truly “free press” begins with a better understanding and documentation of the radical intentions of the opposition as the struggle over the future course of America’s media marketplace continues.

From the Heritage Foundation

Is Government-Subsidized News on the Way?

Is the Federal Communications Commission building a case for government-subsidized news? It’s not hard to imagine that will be the outcome of the Commission’s “Future of Media” inquiry. The digital age has produced a “democratic shortfall,” according to one source cited in the inquiry’s public notice. Another scholar working on the project for the FCC has said that today’s media abundance calls for “public media entities” that will serve “as both a filter to reduce information overload and a megaphone to give voice to the unheard.”

In other words, a free marketplace of ideas isn’t good enough for some. They want the government to pick winners and losers—as long as the winners express views with which they happen to agree. Care to guess which views those will be?

As Randolph May of the Free State Foundation notes, the justifications for a government role in controlling content are ever shifting. Once, alleged scarcity was the reason that the FCC could impose the fairness doctrine on radio without running afoul of the First Amendment. (See, for instance, the Supreme Court’s 1969 Red Lion decision.) Now it’s not scarcity but abundance that government is supposed to fix by acting as a filter. Meanwhile, the FCC has no problem telling private industry that filtering content is a no-no. Disallowing Internet service providers from discriminating among sources or kinds of content is the intent of the Commission’s push for net neutrality.

If you are concerned about what the FCC is up to with its “Future of Media” inquiry, then you should attend the Free State Foundation’s event this Friday at noon at the National Press Club. The event, titled “The FCC’s ‘Future of Media’ Inquiry: What Is the FCC Is Doing – And Why?” features a presentation from Steven Waldman, who is leading the FCC’s inquiry. That will be followed by a discussion from a panel of three experts on communications policy: Catholic University professor and Free State Foundation fellow Donna Coleman Gregg, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, and former FCC commissioner and current Free State Foundation fellow Deborah Taylor Tate.

From the Rush Limbaugh Show

Court: No Internet Control for FCC

RUSH: The regime is not going to be happy about this next story.  "The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. A three-judge panel in Washington, DC unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended them earlier that year," and the FCC didn't like that.  They don't want Internet providers being able to regulate any aspect of who gets to see what via their website.  There's a lot of confusion about what net neutrality is.  I remember I had a conversation not long ago with a high government official about this.  I explained on the program here what it is.  And I was bombarded with e-mail from, "You don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has nothing to do with what you're talking about."  And it does.  Basically, Internet providers are supposed to treat all Internet content equally.  

In the case of Comcast, the government didn't like the fact that they did not make BitTorrent available to their subscribers.  BitTorrent is a file transfer protocol that huge files, some of them not legal in terms of copyright and this sort of thing, are downloaded and uploaded and so forth, and it poses virus risks and a number of other things.  And so Comcast, for whatever reason, if not those, "We don't want to have BitTorrent available here," for a whole bunch of reasons.  And the FCC, "You can't do that," so they went to court over it.  The court is saying the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel ... Even though liberal advocacy groups had urged the FCC to take action against Comcast, the agency's vote to proceed was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the FCC's ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority 'is sure to doom this order on appeal.'"

Now, there are great ramifications for this.  This decision could doom something recently announced by Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, which was a national broadband policy.  Right now the FCC does not have any regulatory authority over the Internet, and they don't have any over cable TV.  They have it over broadcast.  They have it over-the-air cell phone transmissions, television and that kind of thing, but they don't have it over the Internet and yet they asserted control.  And the court said, "You don't have regulatory authority here.  There's no law granting you this."  Well, that will be taken care of pretty soon because the regime wants to control everything, particularly Internet content.  They want to make sure that what has happened here to talk radio does not happen to the Internet.  They want to make sure that their point of view doesn't get snuffed out by the marketplace, which it has here on talk radio.  Despite their best efforts, liberals simply have failed to score anything significant in talk radio on the air, and the regime is very unhappy about that.  

There have been numerous attempts by some of the most supposedly competent, superstar liberals in the history of the country, and still, they get an asterisk as a rating point.  Look at CNN.  One day a couple weeks ago in the 25 to 54 demographic, Anderson Cooper, 25,000 viewers in an hour.  Twenty-five thousand people in the whole country, that's all, were watching CNN.  My friends, I, on this program, have 25,000 viewers at the corner of 60th and Madison in New York City.  The regime does not want the same thing happening to the Internet, and the net neutrality was to make sure that Internet providers made equal content available to anybody visiting through their portal. 

From the Hill

Net-neutrality group challenged by ties to MoveOn.Org, ACORN

A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming more divisive.

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.

The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a "neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank" and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.

GOA was one of the charter members of Save the Internet, but a spokesman for the gun rights group said times have changed.

"Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues," said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.

"The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that," Pratt said.

Save The Internet had long pointed to the support of gun owners as evidence that net neutrality is a nonpartisan issue.

Net-neutrality advocates are struggling to maintain bipartisan support during an election season that has cast the issue along party lines.

Last month, 35 Tea Party groups came out against net neutrality in a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The letter accused the FCC of “relentlessly pursuing a massive regulatory regime” that would stifle the growth of the Internet.

The FCC is considering a move to boost its authority over broadband providers through a controversial process known as reclassification. The process could give federal regulators the power to impose net-neutrality rules, which would prevent Internet access providers from favoring some content and applications over others.


Tim Karr, the campaign director for Save the Internet, cited the midterm election season to explain why net neutrality is increasingly cast along partisan lines.

"Anytime you approach an election, these issues tend to be politicized," he said.

Still, Karr said Save The Internet views net neutrality as a free speech issue rather than a liberal or conservative one. He noted the group’s membership still includes a number of conservative groups, including the socially conservative Parents Television Council and the Christian Coalition.