Pro Net Competition: Op-Eds and Editorials
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
Network neutrality | Hysteria makes for bad law
December 20, 2007 - link >>Avis Yates Rivers, Seattle Times
t goes by the unremarkable and unrevealing moniker, “network neutrality.” Yet it represents one of the most important subjects brewing in the field of communications today. Network neutrality would ensure that Internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T and Verizon treat all content that goes across their networks the same. Consumer groups are pushing for a net-neutrality law that bans ISPs from degrading content and charging extra for Web sites to load as fast as possible. The issue is at the heart of a debate over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks.
The Internet revolution is one of the greatest advances in communications since the dawn of humankind. With hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the past decade to build sophisticated high-speed networks, over 95 percent of American households today have access to broadband services. In coming years, broadband will make us more educated and more productive, and will bring us unforeseen possibilities for news and entertainment.
Democrats: Taxing and Regulating the Internet
November 01, 2007 - link >>George C. Landrith
The Democratic majority in Congress is up to their old tricks—taxing and regulating. Democratic leaders are blocking legislation that would stop new and discriminatory taxes on the Internet. There has been a moratorium on such taxes on the Internet since the 1990s when the Republicans were running Congress. But Democrats like taxes and they see new taxes on the Internet as a potential gold mine. Just remember, however, the gold Democrats want to mine will come from your pockets.
Additionally, Democrats in Congress are pushing the so-called Net-Neutrality regulation of the Internet. Those supporting Net-Neutrality regulation say they simply want to make sure that the internet is available to everyone on an equal basis. But that isn’t currently a problem and it isn’t likely to become one. The Internet isn’t perfect. But there is not a problem with a lack of openness on the Internet. Thus, Net-Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.
Hands Off the ’Net
October 11, 2007 - link >>National Review
Government tends to tax any new thing under the sun. We’re lucky, then, that it hasn’t gotten its hands on the Internet yet — a fact of vital importance to growth and innovation in the online industry. Thanks goes to a temporary moratorium on Internet taxes that was last renewed by Congress in 2004. It’s up for renewal again, and state and local governments — eager to generate revenue by slapping taxes on every imaginable online service — are fighting to make sure it doesn’t become permanent. But their self-interest should not an entire industry stifle. Internet taxes should be banned, for good.
State and local governments look upon the Internet with publican mouthwatering because Internet taxes would be hidden in such places as phone bills. Wherof taxpayers take no notice, thereof they do not complain. Hikes in property and income taxes, by contrast, are hard to conceal, and tend to spark political opposition.
Understandably, state and local governments are less than forthcoming about their real motives for wanting to see Internet taxes allowed. Instead they make two specious arguments against the moratorium.
The first is that Internet-service providers could conceivably evade taxes on their non-Internet services — such as telephone and cable — by providing them in concert with Internet coverage. The logic here is that the moratorium’s prohibition on taxing the Internet would apply to other services “bundled” with it. But Congress addressed this concern when it renewed the moratorium in 2004. That bill made Internet service subject to taxation if it is bundled with other telecommunications services. It also clarified that the Internet-tax ban does not apply to telephone service over the Internet.
There’s nothing fair in Net neutrality
September 27, 2007 - link >>Scott Cleland, Philadelphia Inquirer
Craig Newmark’s twisted sense of “Internet fairness” in his Sept. 12 commentary on Net neutrality ("Heed the threat to Internet fairness") cannot go unchallenged. Newmark’s claim that Net neutrality is about “fairness” is bogus.
Is it fair to assume people are guilty until proven innocent, as the proposed legislation does in punishing all broadband providers, not based on any proof, only on hypothetical allegations?
Is it fair to take from consumers the wonderful diversity of competitive choice, customization and personalization they enjoy today, and replace it with one regulated “neutral” choice for all?
Is it fair to force the average American, who uses relatively little bandwidth, to pay higher prices to subsidize the voracious bandwidth-hogging appetites of dot-com billionaires?
Is it fair to apply monopoly regulation to free services, small companies and “persons” with no market power, as the proposed legislation does?
Finally, in the interests of fair disclosure, Newmark conveniently omitted the fact that Craig’s List is 25 percent owned by eBay, which is leading the lobbying for, and has a large financial stake in, the outcome of Net-neutrality legislation.
Scott Cleland
Chairman, Net Competition.org
President, Precursor LLC
McLean, Va.
Whiny Techies, I
September 09, 2007 - link >>Steven Pearlstein, Washington Post
A bit of advice for all those who rushed out to be the first on their block with a new iPhone and are now bellyaching because Apple reduced the price:
Get a life.
What rock have you folks been living under? Have you bought an airline ticket recently? Or have you ever haggled with a rug salesman? Or bought a case of wine on sale at the local liquor store that sold for 20 percent more the week before?
Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >
