Congressman's Excuse for killing Net Neutrality

Original Letter

Page 1

Page 2

Most of us know about the whole Net Neutrality issues. I like many others wrote to my congressman asking them to support Net Neutrality. He wrote back. It wasn't a truly personalized letter (and there are some obvious grammatical errors worthy of a B- in high school English), but the signature looks pretty real.

Here are the key reasons he gives for killing Net Neutrality.

[It took me a while to find them buried in all the text]

• “Providers have repeatedly said they have no intention of slowing access“
  “Because consumers would not continue with a provider if they were faced with any such blocked access.“
  What he fails to realize is that many consumers in America only have one choice for broadband access and you can not trust businesses on just a verbal promise.
  If they have no intention, then why do they care if it is a law?
• Net neutrality will “slow the Internet for us all“
  This is NOT a joke. Read the letter. He clearly has no clue how the Internet works and is just saying what they want him to say.

He has drunk the kool-aid. Put simply, net neutrality doesn't allow the providers to filter the Internet access for consumers. So, AT&T (or whoever) can not charge large sites (google, amazon, ebay, etc.) a large amount of money to give their traffic a priority. This is blackmail.

I run a hosting company. This will affect me as well. There is no way I could afford to pay for higher priority traffic--there is no way I would. I would move my hosting offshore before I would pay the blackmail fees.

I don't know what party he is in and I don't care [Edit: He is Republican]. But he won't be getting my vote.

Full Text Of The Letter Here:
Dear John: Thank you for your recent letter regarding your concerns as Congress begins to address issues facing the telecommunications industry. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me. The last major telecom legislation was passed in 1996. Since then we have become much more dependent on technology and as the demand for more access and quicker speeds has grown, the telecomm industry has been able to provide it for us. The 1996 legislation was focused on service- specific networks that did not compete with one another and removed unnecessary regulatory barriers to open up markets to competition. Today, we are faced with a changing market—the industry once characterized by specific networks now is characterized by more digital technologies, allowing for increased competition. The 1996 legislation is already out of date, and how to regulate the telecommunication industry has once again become a debate in Congress. Any legislation we address in today’s Congress should continue to foster a competitive environment where the telecom industry can grow and provide consumers what they demand. The 1996 telecom bill no longer addresses the major issues in today’s market. The latest proposal to address the changing needs of the telecommunication industry is the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act of 2006, introduced by my colleague, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX). This bill includes provisions that allow ample competition for cable and telephone companies. Promoting competition means lower prices for consumers and increased incentive for innovation. An increased number of cable television providers in the market leads to more choice and more control for consumers, and the COPE Act allows this by preventing over regulation of the industry. The debate over network neutrality has been brought to the forefront with the renewed energy to update the telecomm laws. Proponents of net neutrality argue that any new telecom legislation must include extensive net neutrality regulations in order to provide all equal access to the Internet and to prevent providers from controlling access or using power to slow specific services. These proponents fail to realize a couple of main points. First, providers have repeatedly said they have no intention of slowing access, especially because consumers would not continue with a provider if they were faced with any such blocked access. Rather, in an environment without excessive regulation, providers are able to get the best product to consumers. Proponents also fail to realize that over-regulation through net neutrality provisions will not provide a ‘level playing field’ as they suggest, but rather slow the Internet for us all. Unwarranted net neutrality provisions being discussed in accord with the COPE Act are solutions in search of a problem. Over regulation will end up hurting competition and innovation instead of encouraging it. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. As Congress continues to discuss updated policies regarding the telecomm industry, rest assured that I will keep your views in mind. I hope you will continue to inform me of the issues that concern you. In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my Internet website at http://www.house.ov/tancredo where you can sign up for the Capitol Update, my weekly E-mail newsletter.

Subscribe Via RSS