Letter to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Letter

Isakson, Chambliss Express Opposition to "Net Neutrality' Rules
Rules "Would Dramatically Slow Pace of Innovation, Jeopardize Billions of Dollars of Future Investment into Broadband Networks'

U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today joined 27 of their Senate colleagues in sending a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski expressing their continued opposition to any "net neutrality" or "Open Internet" rules.

The full text of the letter is below:

Dear Chairman Genachowski:

You recently announced your intent to have the Federal Communications Commission impose new regulations on broadband access services at the Commission's meeting later this month. We write today to express our continued opposition to any so-called "Open Internet" rules. The Internet as an open platform for innovation is not an aspiration, it is a reality--the United States does not need new burdensome regulations to make it so. This is an unjustified and unnecessary expansion of government control over private enterprise. We strongly urge you to abandon your decision to impose new restrictions on this important and dynamic segment of our economy.

Last year when you began the Open Internet rulemaking you promised that the process would be "transparent, fact-based, and data-driven," yet the Commission to date has provided scant evidence to justify the need for your proposed intrusion into the broadband marketplace. Consumers today use and have access to more Internet services than ever before. Even during this economic downturn, tens of billions of dollars have been invested in new broadband infrastructure. Every day, Internet entrepreneurs offer new services, applications, devices, and content to users of broadband Internet networks. There is no evidence of the sort of market failure in broadband that might require expansive new powers for the Commission.

While the rules that you are proposing will have little, if any, positive impact for consumers, they will likely reduce the potential for innovation and investment in broadband networks. Your proposal would establish the Commission as the central arbiter of which new network practices are and are not reasonable, making the Commission the gatekeeper for any future broadband innovations. This will dramatically slow the pace of that innovation and jeopardize billions of dollars of future investment into broadband networks.

You and the Commission's general counsel have admitted in published statements that the legal justification for imposing these new regulations is questionable and "has a serious risk of failure in court." That is absolutely right, because it is very clear that Congress has not granted the Commission the specific statutory authority to do what you are proposing. Whether and how the Internet should be regulated is something that America's elected representatives in Congress, not the Commission, should determine.

The Internet has flourished over the last twenty years because of, not despite, a lack of government control and involvement. If the Commission does adopt your plan to impose new regulations on the Internet, the cost of that action will be measured in investments forgone, innovations stifled, and most importantly, jobs lost. With America's economy in such a fragile state, the last thing the government needs to do is burden the private sector with more ill-advised regulatory red tape. Again, we implore you to reconsider your decision to regulate broadband services.

Source