Internet Freedom Preservation Act: Issue Resource Guide 

(Status = Inactive*)

This portion of our Web site is a volunteer effort. Got some spare time? Why not volunteer to be an Issue Editor? It's easy and fun and no technical skills are needed (just good spelling and research skills and e-mail, that's it). Apply now with an e-mail to: volunteer (AT) patriotunion.org

Or Submit A Single Suggestion Now

PUA Position Statement

Note: Currently, Position Statements have been drafted by the PUA Staff as an initial starting point. However, in the future, PUA Position Statements will be created with the direct input of the majority of PUA Card Carrying Members (public voters) and it will reflect the majority opinion. Therefore, your input as a PUA Member can change, often dramatically, the PUA Position Statements in the near and distant future so if you do not see your ideal opinion reflected here, remember, you can work to change it--the PUA is ruled by majority vote.

Statement not formulated yet.

The following statement comes from Right March:

ALERT: For several years now, a coalition of mostly left-wing organizations, led by the wanna-be socialists at MoveOn.org, has attempted to push legislation through the U.S. House that they're calling "Net Neutrality" -- but the effect that it would have would be to impose government regulations on the Internet!

They MUST be stopped -- before it's too late.

The latest bill they're pushing, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (H.R. 5353), has been strongly opposed by advocates of free markets and a free Internet -- but it's now before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunication and the Internet, and is due to be voted on quickly. This bill would mandate eight Federal Communications Commission (FCC) hearings AND a study of applying "net neutrality" regulations to high-speed Internet access services.

Thankfully, there are some folks still willing to stand up to MoveOn and their cronies. David E. Williams, Vice President of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, announced his groups opposition to the bill, stating, "Both the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have addressed the issues that H.R. 5353 proposes to study; it is unclear what is to be gained from an expensive government study. More importantly, during the FCC and FTC deliberations, more than a quarter of a million public comments were submitted; there is no way to tell how much money will be wasted on eight summits, but what is clear is that after two years of debate the public has spoken."

Net neutrality would mandate that Internet service providers carry every single piece of content and every service available, regardless of cost or need. Content providers have expressed concern that the ISPs would either block content or create different tiers of online services. But, such differential pricing already occurs in virtually all forms of commerce, such as charging more for faster delivery of packages by UPS or Federal Express. Should "net neutrality" become law and traffic on the Internet continue to skyrocket, the delivery of important content, such as medical information, will receive the same treatment as spam!

The fact is, these types of bills are a regulator's dream, but an entrepreneur's nightmare.

Suppose, for example, that an innovative company wants to provide a new video service that requires greater bandwidth than most existing products. Suppose that a broadband provider has the capacity to provide that extra bandwidth to one company, but not to six companies. Under a "net neutrality" bill's prohibition on any discrimination in the broadband provider's terms or conditions of service, it would not be able to offer the extra bandwidth to the one innovative company because it would then be required to provide it to all.

Not only do these leftist groups like MoveOn ignore the fact that network management is key to stopping threats like viruses and spam, but preemptively legislating new regulatory burdens can also have many unintended consequences. Of particular concern are the effects on intellectual property protection.

For example, "net neutrality" says that a broadband provider cannot block access to lawful content. How does that apply when users subscribe to a peer-to-peer file-sharing network that is primarily used for infringing purposes, but may also include some lawful content?

It's also unclear how broadband providers would comply with some of the provisions. For example, "net neutrality" provides that a broadband provider must clearly and conspicuously disclose to users, in plain language, accurate information concerning the terms and conditions of its service. That is so broad and vague that you can't be sure how anyone could know what it meant as a practical matter. But if the broadband providers violate that requirement, they are subject to all the remedies of the antitrust laws, including triple damages.

As Jason Wright of the Institute for Liberty noted, "The leftist MoveOn.org coalition claims that so-called 'Net Neutrality' rules are the 'First Amendment' for the internet. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The unprecedented regulation MoveOn lobbies for limits innovation by restricting certain businesses from the option of seeking more reliable connections to support advanced services like VoIP or IPTV."

We need to STOP MoveOn.org and their liberal allies -- before they start a snowball effect of government regulations over the entire internet.

TAKE ACTION: Regulation intended to ensure "net neutrality" will actually kill internet innovation and crush an industry that has operated effectively through market forces alone. And the simple truth is, internet backbone service providers have NO economic incentive to engage in the "traffic management practices" that leftists like MoveOn.org are crying out about, because backbone service providers are fully compensated for the use of their network by their direct customers!

Now that this bill has been introduced, we need to take action quickly. Please, click "Go!" NOW to send a FREE message directly to your Representative, asking him or her to OPPOSE "net neutrality" and the misnamed "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (H.R. 5353).

NOTE: As David Williams noted, "The introduction of the bill [H.R. 5353] appears to be just another move to provide taxpayer-funded megaphones for the special interests groups promoting so-called net neutrality." And indeed, thanks to these groups like MoveOn.org, in less than 24 hours over 30,000 liberals urged their Representatives to support this destructive bill.

WE MUST FIGHT BACK! Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help STOP radical left-wing attempts to regulate the internet through so-called "net neutrality." Thank you!

##

Please go to the Right March Website to access their free online serve for contacting your representatives. (just enter your zip code at the top of the this page (and you will see how to proceed from there).