“Bad for consumers, bad for the next generation of businesses and bad for democracy.” The proposal “undercuts net neutrality and would favor wealthy corporations by allowing ‘pay to play’ rules to stifle small businesses.”
The 28 House members who lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to drop net neutrality this week have received more than twice the amount in campaign contributions from the broadband sector than the average for all House members.
For decades, the FCC has regulated traditional phone service under common carrier provisions that require phone companies to connect all calls to people around the country. But in 2002, the FCC made the fateful decision to classify broadband as an “information service” not a “telecommunications service” — paving the way for Internet fast lanes and setting the stage for a decade of legal wrangling.
These lawmakers, including the top House leadership, warned the FCC that regulating broadband like a public utility “harms” providers, would be “fatal to the Internet,” and could “limit economic freedom.”
According to research provided Friday by Maplight, the 28 House members received, on average, $26,832 from the “cable & satellite TV production & distribution” sector over a two-year period ending in December. According to the data, that’s 2.3 times more than the House average of $11,651.
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. The term was coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier. Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. A “closed internet” refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.
Eric Cantor can be contacted at 202-225-2815.