“The term “net neutrality” is once again upon the lips of lawmakers. While a find sounding concept, we believe it could translate into increasing regulation of he Internet. As we have learned with past experience with Internet regulation, this only smothers innovation and chokes out the development of new services. Instead of trying to pick who wins and who loses in the Internet battleground, we believe it best that Congress stay out of this debate and allow the competitors sort it out amongst themselves…

“The Internet has developed beyond our wildest dreams, markedly free of government interference. In the absence of the heavy hand of government regulation, the Internet has blossomed, bringing with it amazing technological advancement with increased reliability and speed.”
American Conservative Union letter to Chairman Joe Barton, dated March 10, 2006, signed by J. William Lauderback, Executive VP, ACU

“Legislation should be free of so-called “network neutrality” provisions. We strongly urge Congress to continue the “hands off” approach to Internet regulation that has allowed the Internet to flourish for over a decade. A network neutrality provision would start down the dangerous path to Internet regulation and taxation. Further, network neutrality regulation seeks to address a problem that does not currently exist, as providers have a very real market incentive not to drive customers elsewhere by blocking or slowing down popular content.”
Americans for Tax Reform and The Media Freedom Project letter to Chairman Joe Barton, dated March 16, 2006, signed by Grover Norquist, President, ATR, and Tom Readmond, Executive Director, MFP

“There has been much debate on the issue of “Network Neutrality” and I wanted to formally communicate our position to you on this very important topic. We agree with your position to “first, do no harm” and that detailed legislation is not needed at this time…

“We strongly support the principle of an open Internet that enables users to access and use legal applications and content of their choice using devices of their choosing. Network operators should not block, degrade or impair such end-user access and choice…

“Broadband Internet access service providers should remain free to engage in pro-competitive network management techniques to alleviate congestion, ameliorate capacity constraints, and enable new services.”
Cisco Systems, Inc., letter to Chairman Joe Barton, dated March 9, 2006, signed by John Chambers, President and CEO, Cisco Systems

“The notion of government imposed “network neutrality” regulation is dubious for many reasons: (i) it violates the universally agreed principal that the Internet should be free of regulation; (ii) it forces consumers to pay more for Internet access service than they otherwise would pay; and (iii) it gives a huge artificial market advantage to Internet content providers who own no network transmission facilities vis-a-vis competitors that own transmission facilities. Of most concern to the telecom manufacturing industry, however, is that network neutrality regulation would threaten to slow the massive new broadband investment that telephone and cable companies have just recently begun to make in preparation for offering a vast array of new video and data services to consumers.

“Our concern that a “network neutrality” statute could stifle investment is based on actual experience not just theory.”

Joint letter to Chairmen Barton and Upton, and Ranking Members Dingell and Markey, and all Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Telecom and the Internet — signed by Robert J. Novak, Sr. VP and COO, Charles Industries, Ltd.; Keith Weiner, CEO, DiamondWare, Ltd.; Eric A. Norland, President, Norland Products, Inc.; Brian Paul, Chief Financial Officer, Actiontec Electronics, Inc.; Joseph D. Evankow, Jr., Director, FiberControl; Robert J. Robbins, President, Electrodata, Inc.; Manfred R. Laidig, President, BTECH, Inc.; and John L. Vette, CEO, SNC Manufacturing Co. Inc.

“Net neutrality” is a solution in search of a problem. Instead of allowing network and content providers to reach business agreements in the marketplace, it would empower government to decide how those arrangements should work.” … “This is unacceptable. Since the Internet became commercially viable, it has remained largely unregulated. We have fought against taxation of the Internet, regulation of the Internet and even against foreign control, regulation and taxation of the Internet. Yet here we find ourselves facing this infringement again…” (letter to Majority Leader Boehner, dated March 24, 2006, signed by J. William Lauderback, Executive Vice President, American Conservation Union; John Berthoud, President, National Taxpayers Union; Jeffrey Mazzella, President, Center for Individual Freedom; Thomas A. Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste)

“There’s nothing virtual about the battle lines being drawn in the fast-developing Net Neutrality War … But it’s hardly a David and Goliath struggle. Its more Goliath v. Goliath. Oh, and by the way, there are non-profits and pro-consumer groups on both sides (unless you believe you have to be pro-regulation to be pro-consumer). Ultimately, the game of “who’s the underdog” simply obscures the real issues in policy debates. The real question is what is good for consumers. And, even wearing Underdog’s cape, net neutrality rules just won’t fly.” (James Gattuso, “Rag-tag band for net neutrality?” for the Technology Liberation Front, March 23, 2006)

[The Institute for Liberty president Jason] Wright noted that while he is encouraged by the sensible free-market reforms contained in the [ draft House Energy and Commerce Committee telecommunications reform ] legislation, he urged caution about efforts to insert ‘Network Neutrality’ provisions. “It would be a dangerous step backwards for Congress to begin regulating the Internet just as it opens the video services market to competition for the first time. “The last 12 years have shown that the Internet marketplace is capable of addressing problems as they occur, and it would be a mistake for Congress to include any anti-competitive provisions in this legislation.” (News Release, The Institute for Liberty, March 30, 2006)

“The Internet is a force for innovation, openness, and economic growth.That’s because government has consistently declined to tax and regulate it. This “hands-off” approach works for business and consumers alike. Whenever there have been calls for government regulation, the Internet industry has consistently stepped up to resolve the issue without the need for government intervention.” …. “Instead of letting consumers determine what services and products they want, “net neutrality” advocates want government to pick the winners and losers. This kind of regulation will only derail the deployment of high-speed networks, stymie innovation, and sink the Internet into a morass of legal battles.” (Center for Individual Freedom ad, “Government Regulation Means Less Internet Innovation; Keep the Internet Open - And Innovating”)

Aryeh Bourkoff, Managing Director And Senior Analyst At UBS:
“The consumption of video and other media services over the Internet is developing at a very rapid pace. I believe that it is too early to introduce regulation on key issues such as a la carte packaging and pricing and on net neutrality as the market is still in its early stages. Instead, I feel that at this point it is essential that market forces and consumer demand drive the economic model.” (Senate Commerce Committee Website, Accessed 3/14/06)

Kevin M. Moore, Managing Director, Telecommunications Services Equity Research, Wachovia Securities:
“We would all agree that the 1996 Telecommunications Act did not contemplate the impact of the growth of broadband and Internet applications. However, I think that it more important that we agree now that we can’t imagine what will happen technologically over the next ten years. It is then critical that any new regulatory framework takes this into account and is sufficiently flexible. This flexibility would ensure that future investment can keep pace with industry changes undeterred by constant regulatory uncertainty.” (Senate Commerce Committee Website, Accessed 3/14/06)

Craig E. Moffett, Vice President and Senior Analyst, Sanford C. Bernstein and Co., LLC:
“But the notion of ‘Net Neutrality’ as it is currently construed would, I believe, likely trigger a host of unintended consequences.

• Mandated ‘Net Neutrality’ would further sour Wall Street’s taste for broadband infrastructure investments, making it increasingly difficult to sustain the necessary capital investments.
• It would also likely mean that consumers alone would be required to foot the bill for whatever future network investments that do get made. That would result in much higher end-user prices, much steeper subsidies of heavy users by occasional ones, and, in all likelihood, a much sharper ‘digital divide.’
• By discouraging the deployment of new networks, it would also likely freeze in place the status quo cable/telco duopoly (or worse in much of the country, where we are, as previously described, on a trajectory to a near cable monopoly for genuine broadband).
• The U.S. as a whole would, in all likelihood, fall further behind other countries in broadband availability and reliability.” (Senate Commerce Committee Website, Accessed 3/14/06)

Moffet:
“Conversely, from a Wall Street perspective, allowing a ‘multiplicity of payers’ (say, advertisers, or web services providers) to support network investments would greatly bolster the business case for deploying new infrastructure, as it would offer the prospect of more attractive returns. And while current network operators would undeniably benefit in such a regime, so too would consumers, who would likely see both greater choice and lower prices. And despite their current howls at the idea of paying for such services as packet prioritization (what some have referred to as a ‘fast lane’ for data), it is likely that the Internet services community would be the biggest beneficiaries of all, inasmuch as they would be assured of an infrastructure capable of supporting innovation in new high bandwidth Internet-based services.” (Senate Commerce Committee Website, Accessed 3/14/06)

Moffet:
“The First Amendment concerns surrounding ‘Net Neutrality’ are very real. But surely these concerns they can be dealt with - say, though anti-blocking provisions, or through the carve-out of a neutral ‘basic tier’ - without triggering this laundry list of unintended consequences. Indeed, it is my belief that that network operators can feasibly meet the needs of unfettered access to any and all web-based content with by providing a ‘basic access tier’ that provides for a fixed minimum amount of bandwidth (or, alternatively, a fixed percentage of total bandwidth) in which pure neutrality would be maintained, and that the provision of resources over and above that minimum can then be left entirely to market forces.” (Senate Commerce Committee Website, Accessed 3/14/06)

“The head of the Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday said there is no immediate need for the government to adopt rules protecting consumers’ ability to surf anywhere on the Internet. ‘I’m hesitant to adopt rules that would prevent anti-competitive behavior where there hasn’t been significant evidence of a problem,’ FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said at a conference luncheon by Comptel, a group representing competitive telephone carriers. ‘That doesn’t mean people don’t have a lot of concern about potential problems, but there’s a significant difference between potential problems and problems that occur,’ Martin was quoted as saying in a report by Reuters News.” (Marilyn Geewax, “Battle Emerges On Future Of Net,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/27/05)

NCTA President Kyle McSlarrow:
“NCTA Position: Regulation and legislation are unnecessary because market failure has not been demonstrated. Broadband service providers and Web content providers should be allowed to experiment with business models at a time when Internet video and search capabilities are hardly mature products. [NCTA President Kyle] McSlarrow: ‘Anytime you start talking about government intervention in this space, that is a very dangerous proposition. It’s in our interest to let people do what they want.’” (Ted Hearn, “Primetime For Telecom Reform On Hill,” Multichannel News, 1/16/06)

BellSouth Chief Technology Officer William Smith:
“William Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth Corp., argues that competitive forces, rather than regulation, are all that’s needed to prevent the totalitarian online environment that the Web camp fears. ‘We have no intention whatsoever of saying ‘You can’t go here, you can’t go there, you can’t go somewhere else,’’ Smith said. ‘We have a very competitive situation with cable. If we start trying to restrict where our customers can go on the Internet, we would see our DSL customers defect to cable in droves.’ But, he added, ‘If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or I can buy a first class ticket from Delta. I’ve made a choice as to which experience I want.’” (Bruce Meyerson, “Phone Fracas Ends In Time For Battle Over Control Of High-Speed Internet Connections,” The Associated Press, 12/14/05)

Center For Individual Freedom:
“The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) today called on Congress to reject any temptation to impose regulation of the Internet, and reminded legislators that its growth and success as a tool for expanded commerce and the free flow of ideas can be attributed in large part to their relative resistance thus far to erect government mandated roadblocks. ‘Never before have consumers seen such explosive growth as with the Internet,’ said Jeffrey Mazzella, CFIF’s President. ‘This explosive growth is the result not just of intense consumer interest, but also of a ‘hand’s off’ approach by the government. To change course now would be a grave mistake.’ … ‘Organizations calling for ‘net neutrality’ legislation are misguided,’ said Mazzella. ‘These companies hope that, by putting the government in the position of picking winners and losers through regulation, they will end up in the winner’s circle. But whenever the government plays such a role, there are very rarely any winners. ‘There is simply no need for government regulation in a market that is driven by consumer choices,’ Mazzella said. ‘We do not need additional Congressional oversight of the Internet. Consumers — not government — should be dictating how fast their Internet service operates and how much they are willing to spend for content,’ Mazzella concluded.” (Center For Individual Freedom, “Congress Must Not Steer Regulation Of The Internet,” Press Release, 1/18/06)