Net Neutrality not good for minorities or anyone else

by East Texas Review

An issue is bubbling in Washington that could impact anyone who uses the Internet – or hopes to.
Last month the FCC voted to move ahead with plans to regulate how Internet service providers, including wireless phone companies, manage their network operations. They would do this by imposing “Net Neutrality” rules on telecom companies.

We think this is a risky proposition at best.
The telecommunications industry has invested billions of dollars in their networks, resulting in many new services, jobs, competition and consumer choice. The Internet has flourished without government interference.

Hence, numerous groups and individuals are weighing against proposed government rules, including 72 House Democrats, chambers of commerce, technology and economic development groups and labor organizations such as the Communications Workers of America.

All are concerned that government regulation will negatively impact continued investment and economic development opportunities.

There is also a huge concern that any slowdown in network investments will widen the digital divide, and that minorities in particular may be harmed by Net Neutrality if telecom companies – suddenly under the yoke of government regulation – are forced to reduce the reach of their networks.

Joining the opposition are the NAACP, 100 Black Men, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, National Conference of Black Mayors, National Minority Supplier Development Council, LULAC, and the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, to name a few. The Texas Black Caucus and U.S. Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Sheila Jackson Lee, among others, are urging the FCC to take caution.

With all the issues Americans are struggling with today – the economy, health care, terrorism – the Internet does not rise to the level of requiring government oversight.

We urge the FCC to back off from addressing a problem that not only doesn’t exist, but could have disastrous results if pursued. Net Neutrality is one “problem” that doesn’t need correcting.

An issue is bubbling in Washington that could impact anyone who uses the Internet – or hopes to.
Last month the FCC voted to move ahead with plans to regulate how Internet service providers, including wireless phone companies, manage their network operations. They would do this by imposing “Net Neutrality” rules on telecom companies.

We think this is a risky proposition at best.
The telecommunications industry has invested billions of dollars in their networks, resulting in many new services, jobs, competition and consumer choice. The Internet has flourished without government interference.

Hence, numerous groups and individuals are weighing against proposed government rules, including 72 House Democrats, chambers of commerce, technology and economic development groups and labor organizations such as the Communications Workers of America.

All are concerned that government regulation will negatively impact continued investment and economic development opportunities.

There is also a huge concern that any slowdown in network investments will widen the digital divide, and that minorities in particular may be harmed by Net Neutrality if telecom companies – suddenly under the yoke of government regulation – are forced to reduce the reach of their networks.

Joining the opposition are the NAACP, 100 Black Men, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, National Conference of Black Mayors, National Minority Supplier Development Council, LULAC, and the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute, to name a few. The Texas Black Caucus and U.S. Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Sheila Jackson Lee, among others, are urging the FCC to take caution.

With all the issues Americans are struggling with today – the economy, health care, terrorism – the Internet does not rise to the level of requiring government oversight.

We urge the FCC to back off from addressing a problem that not only doesn’t exist, but could have disastrous results if pursued. Net Neutrality is one “problem” that doesn’t need correcting.

Email this page to a friend!

Enter recipient's e-mail:

February 09, 2010