You are here

Why leading the Nation in regulating the Internet harms Maryland's consumers

It looks like some national net neutrality proponents groups have suckered some well-intentioned, but unsuspecting Maryland delegates into sacraficing Maryland consumers as pawns in their national chess strategy over net neutrality. Maryland consumers deserve much better.

  • Twenty three Maryland delegates have proposed bill HB 1069, a bill which would regulate the Internet access of DSL, cable modems, wireless broadband, and BPL; would impose net neutrality only in Maryland; and would require detailed quarterly reporting of broadband deployment in Maryland.  

I'll bet the national activists that sold this fraudulent bill of goods to the unsuspecting state delegates, only told their unsubstantiated side of the story -- ill serving Maryland consumers and lawmakers in the process.

When Maryland lawmakers do their homework and examine both sides of this issue, they will learn how HB 1069 will harm Maryland consumers.

  • First, HB 1069 is a monumental waste of Marylands scarce public resources and time.
    • Any objective legal source will explain the quite obvious constitutional and legal precedent problems of this legislation.
      • This bill treds on very clear Federal jurisdiction -- that has preempted this very type of state regulation of the Internet and broadband service.
    • Not only is the state of Maryland quite clearly overstepping its legal jurisdiction, HB 1069 is so unclear and unworkable that it invites an avalanche of lawsuits.
      • That would serve the interests of noone except the lawyers fighting the cases.
    • The State of Maryland and its lawmakers owe its consumers to be good stewards of its scarce resources and not fritter away precious public resources needed elsewhere to be a disposable pawn in the national game of net neutrality.
  • Second, this legislation signals Maryland is considering being one of the most hostile states to broadband investment in the nation. The legislation as drafted is very similar to the net neutrality ideas that have failed to gain the support of the Supreme Court, the U.S. House of Reprsentatives, the US Senate, the FCC, the DoJ and the FTC.
    • The reason it was rejected by all of these Federal bodies is that the charges of net neutrality proponents are unsubstantiated, contrary to promoting competition and universal broadband deployment; and simply bad policy.
    • If Maryland lawmakers want to help Maryland consumers enjoy the economic and democratic benefits of universal broadband deployment as soon as possible, that isn't going to happen by putting up more legal landmines, regulatory interference and red tape than any other state.

In short, when Maryland lawmakers take time to get informed on this issue, they will understand Maryland consumers are ill-served by wasting public resources and regulating the Internet.

  • Common sense says you don't regulate or "neuter" something you want more of.  
  • Maryland consumers are best served by encouraging broadband competition and investent, not discouraging it.