Please Support FCC Commissioner Micheal Copps in Fight Against Fake "Net Neutrailty Rules"

[Stuart G]

Support FCC Commissioner Michael Copps in the Fight Against Fake ‘Net Neutrality’ Rules!
Proposed Rules Will Give Control of the Internet to Big Media!
FAX Commissioner Copps, Let Him Know You Stand with Him for an Open Internet and Real Net Neutrality. Click here.


http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/fcc_copps

Imagine Verizon won’t let you access Netflix so you have to pay $5 per video to watch movies from Verizon. That’s exactly what Verizon, Google, AT&T and other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are after. To do it they leveraged massive pressure on Federal Communications Commission to write new rules that let them control what wireless users can access online. And Chair Julius Genchowski has caved in. And now the FCC will vote on those rules in just one week, on Tuesday 12/21.


Fortunately, Commissioner Michael Copps has not caved in to pressures from Big Media and free marketers. Commissioner Copps is fighting the battle to block or change these anti-open Internet provisions. BUT HE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT!


Please fax Commissioner Copps and tell him that you are opposed to these provisions and that you support his efforts to stop them from going into effect.

[ananda]

1. Signed and posted on my FB wall.

nt

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Done with pleasure.

[wtmusic]

3. We don't need to worry about Michael Copps.

We need to hit free-marketers MacDowell, Baker, or fence-sitter Clyburn (look for phrases like "destructive to investment" and "government intervention").

Copps:

“It's no secret that I am looking for the strongest protections we can get to preserve an Open Internet, built on the most secure legal foundation so we don't find ourselves in court every other month. Over the next three weeks, I will work tirelessly with stake-holders—including, of course, consumers and Internet innovators—seeking to ensure real network neutrality that protects the online freedom of all Americans. Today is the beginning of an important discussion, and not the end. We have an historic opportunity to make sure this dynamic Internet technology reaches its full potential to create opportunity for every citizen. I hope we will make the most of it. At issue is who will control access to the online experiences of consumers—consumers themselves or Big Phone and Big Cable gatekeepers.”

Clyburn:

“I am anxious to begin my review of the Chairman’s agenda meeting item that seeks to preserve an open and free Internet. We have been discussing this matter for some time, and I am glad that the dialogue has developed into a draft Order so that the Commission can further deliberate and decide this important issue.

The Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the FCC to safeguard it pursuant to our duties and obligations. As noted by the Chairman in his remarks this morning, clear rules of road are absolutely necessary for consumers to be protected and for broadband providers and other users of the Internet to be able to further innovate and invest.

I look forward to working with the Chairman, my fellow Commissioners, and all stakeholders as we work toward achieving consensus in this proceeding.”

MacDowell:

“Minutes before midnight last night, Chairman Genachowski announced his intent to adopt sweeping regulations of Internet network management at the FCC’s open meeting on December 21. I strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver. Such rules would upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation.

Pushing a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a “choice” between a bad option (Title I Internet regulation) or a worse option (regulating the Internet like a monopoly phone company under Title II) smacks more of coercion than consensus or compromise. This “agreement” has been extracted in defiance of not only the courts, but a large, bipartisan majority of Congress as well. Both have admonished the FCC not to reach beyond its statutory powers to regulate Internet access. By choosing this highly interventionist course, the Commission is ignoring the will of the elected representatives of the American people.”

Baker:

"The Chairman has announced his intent for the Commission to adopt a Net Neutrality Order at our delayed December Open Meeting. He has circulated a draft that purports to be a compromise solution. This is a mistake.

We do not have authority to act. The new majority of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has asked the Commission not to circulate this Order, and a clear majority of all Members of Congress has expressed concern with our Internet policies. Whether the Internet should be regulated is a decision best left to the directly elected representatives of the American people.

I urge the Chairman to defer action on Net Neutrality until the new Congress has had an opportunity to address this issue. Until such time, it would be reckless and inappropriate for the Commission to act upon the Chairman’s controversial and partisan proposal. Moving forward would be a direct rebuke of Congress that could jeopardize unnecessarily our ability to partner with Congress on issues of great national importance.

Just because Title II is even more destructive to investment does not transform Title I into a middle ground. The American people seek sensible consensus-driven solutions, not more big government intervention.

This March, all 5 FCC commissioners joined together on a Joint Statement on Broadband. We all agreed our top priorities included broadband deployment, broadband adoption, spectrum reform, universal service policy, and public safety. Net Neutrality appears no where in that consensus agenda. Yet by today’s regrettable decision, the Chairman has elevated a partisan Net Neutrality pledge above a bipartisan commitment.

We all believe in an open Internet. It is open today, it is fast moving, and it serves as a vibrant growth engine for our economy and job creation. Let’s not rush to undermine it."