Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Another letter against net neutrality: organized by telecom PR group

The lobbying machine around net neutrality is going into high gear. Navigators Global, a public relations and consulting firm in Washington, is rounding up economists to sign onto a letter warning against new rules at the FCC.

Navigators Global’s clients include AT&T, Bell South Communications, Qualcomm and industry coalition MyWireless.org, which has advocated against net neutrality rules.

In an e-mail obtained Tuesday by The Post, Navigators’ principal, Cesar Conda, a former economic policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, said the letter would say a new net neutrality rule would hurt jobs and investments.

Signatures included former Federal Reserve Board governor Lawrence Lindsey, Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, and Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, according to the e-mail seeking more signatures.

Catie Horst, a spokeswoman for Navigators, said Conda was organizing the effort but declined to comment. Conda didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. An AT&T spokesman, when asked about the effort, referred this reporter to the organizers of the letter.

Here's an excerpt from the joint letter, which hasn't been filed:

“We are terribly concerned that proposed Internet regulations now under consideration at the Federal Communications Commission may represent a policy mistake that will undermine efforts to create jobs and rebuild prosperity. By restricting the business opportunities of operators of our nation's telecommunications and broadband networks, these so-called "net neutrality" rules would sharply reduce the incentives for new investment in network infrastructure. Curtailing investment will also curtail the ability of this sector to create new jobs and even to sustain existing employment.”

Earlier today, 21 economic experts also warned the FCC against new net neutrality rules. A report, funded by Verizon, dove into the economic analysis of why such a rule could hurt the economy. The parties that signed onto the report said there weren’t enough examples of harm to the marketplace or market failure to warrant a new rule.

In a voice-mail message, the report’s author, Jeffrey Eisenach, noted that Post Tech’s previous story appeared to focus too much on the funding of the report. He emphasized that none of the co-signatories received compensation from Verizon.

“To give as much weight as you did to the funding by Verizon and as little to the substance of the report was dismissive,” he said.

By Cecilia Kang  |  April 12, 2010; 4:37 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Economic experts warn against net neutrality rule in Verizon-funded study
Next: Video: Free Press policy chief responds to former FCC Chairman Powell

Comments

I am reminded of H.L. Mencken's remark that if all the economists in the world were placed end to end, they wouldn't reach a conclusion.

Posted by: 54Stratocaster | April 12, 2010 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. In "the lobbying machine around net neutrality," Ms. Kang conspicuously fails to include herself or her fellow boosters of Google's corporate agenda. Why? Can you say, "slanted reporting?" I knew you could. ;-)

Posted by: LBrettGlass | April 12, 2010 11:57 PM | Report abuse

I am really, sincerely dumbfounded by that excerpt from the joint letter. The telecos are advocating restrictions on our nation's telecommunications and broadband networks themselves, claiming net neutrality would sharply reduce the incentives for new investment in network infrastructure. Of course dialing down YOUR throughput from the local CO is a lot easier [and less expensive, therefore more profitable] than actually improving infrastructure. In addition, it does nothing for investment, as opposed to R&D and design, not to mention implementation, of improved network architecture. Which involves hiring people.

Posted by: GhostOfEdsgerDijkstra | April 13, 2010 1:10 AM | Report abuse

I look forward to your unveiling the motives ($$) of the pro-Title II filers as this corporate shell game continues. Yay! The future of the Internet will be decided in DC...

Posted by: Seattle_Exile | April 13, 2010 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Brett, your racism is disgusting. You give the good folks of Wyoming a bad name with such vile racism and stalking behavior. Your conspiracy theories about Google lobbyists are dumb in and of themselves, but when you throw racial slurs at people you've shown your true colors.

WaPo: Racial slurs like that in Brett's comment have no place on these boards.

Posted by: AmyBandini | April 13, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm... So none of the authors received any money for their report. Then exactly what did Verizon fund?


Also, if, as the PR flacks say, net neutrality will constrain infrastructure buildouts, how does leaving internet traffic alone mean consumer rates will automatically go up? Nonsense.


This one's trouble - witness the intense (and no doubt expensive)lobbying, report funding, PR firms on the move, etc. Would a reasonable person say this means consumers will see good pricing in the future? Not likely.

Posted by: DJW4 | April 13, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Brett,

LOL!!! "Slanted" coverage. Nice! LMFAO on that one brother! We both know who the "real" American's are!

And seriously, what's with all the liberal hippie social-fascism coming from commenters here? Don't you people listen to Glenn Beck like me and Brett and other defenders of freedom do? Don't you know that Google has secretly implanted a chip into Mrs. Kang's brain to do their bidding? All a part of their plot to take over the world and put small ISPs like Brett out of business? And please, don't even get me started on all the completely unproven allegations about Brett's behavior levied on these boards! Prove it, I say!

Posted by: Darcelle_Jones | April 13, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Oh, hey, now I'm a "racist," too. I'm waiting for this poster (Is it Cecilia? Or a confederate?) to start in on the references to Hitler.

Posted by: LBrettGlass | April 13, 2010 11:33 PM | Report abuse

"By restricting the business opportunities of operators of our nation's telecommunications and broadband networks, these so-called "net neutrality" rules would sharply reduce the incentives for new investment in network infrastructure. Curtailing investment will also curtail the ability of this sector to create new jobs and even to sustain existing employment.”


The question should be who's ability would be curtailed?

Posted by: cityguyinyorkpa | April 14, 2010 2:31 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company