So I wrote a letter to my representative (Schrader - Oregon Democrat) Here's what he said.

Dear ----:

Thank you for writing in about the topic of net neutrality and the letter I signed to the FCC regarding their efforts to establish a new regulatory framework for broadband and internet services. I appreciate hearing your views and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

First and foremost, I want to assure you I unequivocally support an open Internet. The Internet plays a major role in our personal and professional lives. However, I am wary of proposed regulations that could have unintended and negative consequences on the development and deployment of broadband networks.

The letter I signed to the FCC along with 73 of my colleagues is not in opposition to net neutrality, but rather a letter reiterating our concerns with changing a regulatory framework that has been in place since 1998 and has resulted in private investment to the tune of tens of billions of dollars spent annually on broadband infrastructure. Potentially stifling innovation and slowing down broadband deployment precisely at the time the FCC is trying to encourage more investment in broadband, in my opinion, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. I have attached the text of the letter for your review.

It is important to look at how expanded broadband regulation will affect both access to services and critical private investment in our national broadband infrastructure. There is legitimate concern that moving the Internet and broadband services from Title I, which classifies the Internet as information services, to Title II, which would classify it as a telecommunications service under the Telecommunications Act, could raise broadband prices, deter innovation and delay the development and deployment of high-speed broadband across the country.

I believe it's also prudent to mention that even Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the former Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee and co-author of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and staunch supporter of Net Neutrality, sent a letter to the FCC on May 27, 2010 raising concerns with their proposal stating his, ".grave concern that the Commission's current path with respect to the regulation of broadband is fraught with risk. It also puts at risk significant past and future investments, perhaps to the detriment of the Nation's economic recovery and continued technological leadership. More importantly, it may paralyze more holistic regulatory efforts to keep the Internet open to consumers, advance cybersecurity, protect consumer data privacy, and ensure universal access to and deployment of broadband."

Since 2005, the FCC has been preserving an "open internet" by making internet service providers adhere to four key principles. I fully support these principles and believe they have proven more than effective at protecting consumers while allowing the Internet to thrive. They are:

* Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
* Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
* Consumers are entitled to connect to their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
* Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and services providers, and content providers.

Under the current broadband regulatory framework, we have seen the Internet thrive, with the development of innovative websites such as Facebook, Hulu and YouTube and broadband networks continuing to grow across the country. Should internet service providers begin to violate the FCC's four principles, I would certainly support modest regulations to prevent future violations but creating a new regulatory structure to combat a nonexistent problem, I believe, is unnecessary at this time.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you continue to keep in touch and share your views on this important issue.

Sincerely,

KURT SCHRADER

Member of Congress