WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats’ claim to be ‘saving’ the internet with H.R. 1644, but a government takeover of this fundamental resource is not a solution. Under Title II regulations Americans will see their access to internet services decline and prices skyrocket as the government gains new power to excessively regulate and tax this service.
With the severe consequences of this legislation clear, a long list of groups are calling on members of Congress to stand against this federal takeover of the internet.
Key Voting NO on the Democrats’ government takeover of the internet:
“Codifying net neutrality rules into law – which the Chamber supports – does not require regulating the Internet under 1930s-era public utility laws as proposed under H.R.1644. Safeguarding a modern Internet requires modern regulations, not an approach written for the days of the rotary phone.”
“This misguided proposal would once again put bureaucrats in control of the internet by reimposing harmful rules on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) thereby raising costs and limiting accessibility for millions of consumer.”
“The ‘Save the Internet’ Act would also serve as a tax hike on everyday American. Because of legislation like the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 and the Tax Freedom Forever Act of 2016. Americans do not pay taxes on data use and information service. Reclassifying the Internet as a Title II public utility and telecommunications service would allow every American to be taxed extra for their data use. This could increase their Internet bill by up to 20 percent a month. This is unacceptable.”
“H.R. 1644 will make it increasingly costly for ISPs to meet unnecessarily stringent guidelines, and consumers will bear the burden of these restrictions. The misnamed Save the Internet Act removes incentives to innovate and invest in next generation technologies and services. Instead of focusing on a government takeover of the internet, Congress should concentrate on crafting modernized telecommunications reform and bringing an end to the regulatory back-and-forth between administrations, which would provide certainty to consumers and providers.”
“H.R. 1644 is a heavy-handed approach to telecommunications policy that would apply utility-style regulation to the Internet. If this legislation became law it would stifle innovation, create legal and economic uncertainty, and harm consumers.”
“There is a reason why Democrats are so obsessed with Title II regulations as the only path to net neutrality — taxes, and a whole lot of them.”
“…H.R. 1644 would reestablish draconian “net neutrality” regulations imposed on broadband Internet service providers (ISP) under former President Obama’s FCC.
“…This misguided 2015 rule applied 1930s-era regulations designed for telephone companies to 21st century Internet service providers in a gross overreach of federal authority.”
Groups opposing H.R. 1644:
“NRB has urged caution about new regulatory regimes that could stifle innovation or erode constitutional freedoms.
“…NRB also urges the United States to uphold and advance a position of a “light touch” toward the internet and to continue to work to ensure principles of freedom on the internet globally.”
“Unfortunately, H.R. 1644, the “Save the Internet Act of 2019,” is not bipartisan, as it merely seeks to restore the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order, which was itself politically divisive and passed 3-2 on a party-line vote. Instead of more hyperbole and sloganeering,4 Americans need genuine compromise and a fresh approach to net neutrality. That is why R Street opposed efforts to simply restore the 2015 Open Internet Order in the previous Congress,5 and it is why we oppose H.R. 1644 now.”
“…Americans don’t want Nancy Pelosi to take control of the Internet and threaten expanded access to faster broadband and new innovations like the IoT and augmented reality.
“Instead of again rehashing the previous debate, Congress needs to look to the future and forge a new bipartisan solution, so the Internet continues to drive economic growth and opportunity in today’s digital marketplace.”