Internet And Technology Industry Support Swells For Continued Non-Regulation Of Broadband Networks

As the Ninth Circuit today considers whether or not local jurisdictions have the authority to impose new regulations affecting the roll-out of broadband Internet services, a surging number of high-technology companies have joined the chorus for a ""Hands Off"" and free market oriented approach to encourage the medium's continued rapid growth.More than 120 leading Internet and technology-focused companies, including BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Broadcom Corporation, Charles Schwab, COM21, Critical Path, E*TRADE, General Instrument, MacroMedia, OnSale, and WebMD, are expressing concerns that the Portland cable access case could stifle Internet growth and innovation if it is upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court. In a letter sent to FCC Chairman Kennard today, the companies argue ""for the sake of theInternet's future and what it can offer businesses and consumers, the jurisdictional policy questions raised by the Portland case must be resolved at the federal level.""Underscoring the overwhelming solidarity among technology and Internet leaders, the 1000 member companies of the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the 27 leading computer, communications, and semiconducter members of the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), and the 60 new media companies comprising the Digital Coast Roundtable have voiced their opposition to local government regulation of broadband networks. These industry groups believe that a heavy-handed government approach will lead to delayed deployment of broadband services, fewer facilities-based broadband offerings, less innovation, and higher prices.As FCC Chairman Kennard and a majority of local municipalities have noted, the marketplace will best deliver the vibrant competition that will spur the investments and choices that will make winners out of American consumers. This is clearly the prevailing national view, because only a handful of thenation's 30,000 or so local jurisdictions have taken positions that forced access to broadband networks is in the public interest. The remainder have elected not to impose regulations or have reserved their rights to do so a later time, if market conditions warrant.Attached is a partial listing of supporters for continued non-regulation of broadband cable services.November 1, 1999Honorable William E. KennardChairmanFederal Communications Commission1919 M Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20554""Dear Chairman Kennard,""As Internet and technology focused companies, we have been following closely recent FCC papers and statements about the regulation of the Internet. Specifically, we have read the Commission's ""Unregulation of the Internet"" paper and your comments before the Northern California Communications Bar Association regarding the Commission's decision to file an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit appeal of the Portland decision.""As you know, the major issue in the broadband debate today is whether the government should intervene in the marketplace and require cable companies to allow access to their networks to other companies and under what terms and conditions. While we have different perspectives on this specific question, we all agree strongly that such questions must be answered at the federal level, not at the local or state level.""You underscored in your comments that it is important to have a national policy on broadband, rather than 30,000 local jurisdictions setting their own, often conflicting, policies. The paper on the 'Unregulation of the Internet' emphasized that rather than imposing new Internet regulations, the trend should be in the opposite direction. The paper suggests that it makes more sense to 'deregulate the old instead of regulate the new.'""We support these positions. We are also very concerned that the jurisdictional precedent set in the Portland case could have ramifications beyond broadband policy. If the court does not support the FCC's position, we believe that Internet growth will be slowed and that the Internet will face a raft of possible new regulations in the realms of taxation, privacy, quality of service, consumer protection, and other areas.""Our intention is not to criticize the role of state or local governments. State and local governments play important roles in exercising their statutory powers. But for the sake of the Internet's future and what it can offer businesses and consumers, the jurisdictional policy questions raised by the Portland case must be resolved at the federal level.""We all believe that a vibrant, rapidly growing Internet brings a host of benefits to the U.S. economy and to society more generally. If the Ninth Circuit does not overturn the lower court's decision, the Internet's rapid growth could be slowed by a raft of inconsistent local policies.""In summary, we believe that:""1. A balkanized approach to the development of broadband Internet access would subvert the goals of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, reducing competition and innovation.""2 The Ninth Circuit case revolves around whether or not local jurisdictions have the authority to impose new regulations affecting the deployment of broadband services. We hope that the court will decide that localities do not have such jurisdiction, since a national policy makes more sense.""3. The precedent set in the Ninth Circuit could spill over and adversely affect the Internet in other ways, such as new regulations being imposed on the Internet involving such matters as taxation, privacy, quality of service, and consumer protection.""We look forward to the FCC continuing to provide valuable leadership in these important debates.""Sincerely,Accelerated NetworksActive Designs LLCADAMAffinia Agency.comAnacomAngara Database SystemsArepa.com, Inc.Atomz.comAventosBancBoston Robertson StephensbCandid CorporationBe Here CorporationBeyond LogicBlue MarbleBluemountain.comBroadcom CorporationB3TVCharles Schwab and CompanyClarityCOM21, Inc.ComponentSourceConcept KitchenConstellar CorporationCorcoran & AssociatesCorporate Software and TechnologyCritical Path, Inc.Crystal GraphicsDactylDan's ChocolatesDcourierDigital Courier TechnologiesDynamic AccessEducationTalk.comElsinore TechnologiesE-Realty.comE-Stamp CorporationE*Trade CorporationETranslate, Inc.Excite@HomeExeTech, Inc.ExodusFairmarketFirewater.comFirst Regional Telecom, LLCGamexpress.comGeneral Instrument CorporationGold Leaf SystemsHarris InteractiveHomesteadHomnick SystemsHotshot.comImaginOniMall, Inc.InDepth Technology, Inc.InforocketInterproInterSurveyIshtot, Inc.I3 SolutionsJBSIJames Martin and Company (jm&co)KiZAN TechnologiesLinksys Group, Inc.LogicTierLucidityMach 2 SystemsMacromediaMagenic TechnologiesMarinerMarshad GroupMerantMoss SoftwareName.spaceNapersoftNeterpNightfire SoftwareNovo InteractiveThe Ninth House NetworkOakwood SystemsObjectSoft CorporationOnline ConsultingOnsale, Inc. (Jerry Kaplan, CEO)Organic OnlineOutside the Box InteractivePinecliff InternationalPlanetarySales.comPositive Communications, Inc.Power Conversion ProductsProflowersRDA ConsultantsRealNames CorporationReasoningRhythms NetConnections, Inc.RMR & Associates, Inc.Rocketworks, Inc.Rosenbluth InteractiveRubicon TechnologiesRxCentric.com, Inc.Samsung Global Strategist GroupSax SoftwareSegasoft, Inc.Sharewave, Inc.Sheridan SoftwareSinoMetrics International, Inc.SoftworksTalkingOnAir2WireTerayon Communication SystemsTioga Systems32xTriton SystemsTS Design, Inc.TvisionsVirasoftVisionbroadcast.comVisitalk.comWebMD, Inc.WineAccess, Inc.Xenote, Inc.Xwave Solutionscc: Hon. Susan NessHon. Harold Furchtgott-RothHon. Michael PowellHon. Gloria TristaniSource Excite@HomeWeb site: below internet contact