Comcast Attacks Net Neutrality Along With Pennsylvania Rep.

The Sunlight Foundation reports that Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission critical of its new network neutrality policies.

Of the 72 lawmakers who signed onto the letter, Brady is the leading recipient of campaign contributions from telecom companies -- since 2007 alone he's received $91,650 just from Comcast, which is based in his district of Philadelphia.

Comcast, which has played an aggressive role in the debate over net neutrality, spent $3 million on lobbying in the third quarter of the year, according to disclosure reports.

Not surprisingly, Brady has a long history of supporting Comcast's policies. And the letter sent to FCC bears a striking resemblance to Comcast's announcement on net neutrality.

From Brady's letter to the FCC:

"...we believe in a transparent, data-driven process and stand ready to work with you on measures that will spur adoption and expand the use of broadband networks. But we remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance and policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve."

Now, read what Comcast had to say on net neutrality:

"We appreciate and support Chairman Genachowski's commitment to have a fair, fact-based, and data driven process to explore these issues. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the Commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow."

PC World reports that Rep. Marsha Blackburn moved to stymie the FCC's efforts at net neutrality, introducing the Real Stimulus Act of 2009, prohibiting the FCC from imposing more regulations on the Internet.

The congresswoman asserts that the FCC's rules "ironically would make the Internet less neutral by allowing the FCC to regulate it in the same way it regulates radio and television broadcasts."

Comments

[BerkeleyBlog]

Not everyone who opposes federal government regulation of how Internet Service Providers treat packets of information that travel over their networks is a vested interest. UC Berkeley School of Information professor Steve Weber makes the case against regulation, arguing that it is a solution in search of a problem at http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2009/11/04/it-sounds-like-a-great-idea-but/.

[christianm1973]

A few notable points about this piece which the author ignored. The source of the study, the Sunlight Foundation, receives significant funding from special interests who would profit greatly if the net neutrality regulations are written a specific way.

I posted on their blog, and to their credit Sunlight approved for moderation, a comment pointing out Sunlight's biggest funder, Pierre Omidyar, has a specific financial interest in making sure net neutrality regulations are enacted and that they only apply to ISPs, not application services or websites. Omidyar is the founder of eBay, a giant corporation which has been active in pro net neutrality lobbying. Sunlight has also received direct support from Google which has a similar financial interest.

The Telcos may be giant corporations who act arrogantly but there are two corporate sides of this issue and Sunlight gets giant checks from one of them. It creates the perception that Sunlight is a coin-operated think tank or that it is being manipulated by funders or people close to the funders.

Brady at least represents thousands of people who work at Comcast--a company headquartered in his district.

See Sunlight's funding: http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/funding/

Again, credit to them for disclosing their funding. The Huffington Post should've caught this.

[darr]

"The congresswoman asserts that the FCC's rules "ironically would make the Internet less neutral by allowing the FCC to regulate it in the same way it regulates radio and television broadcasts­."


Better than the corporate America charging outrageous prices for what we get for free now.
When did the Republican Party become the "Corporate Party"?

[000Jade000]

"When did the Republican Party become the "Corporate Party"?"

Long, long, long, long time ago.