«
»

FCC grants government authority to regulate the Internet

Posted 21 Dec 2010 in censorship, Net Neutrality, totalitarianism

While most of America is focused on last-minute Christmas shopping, the FCC superseded its statutory authority (and circumvented opposition from Congress) by granting itself the power to control the internet.

netneutralityA divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic.

The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC’s action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC’s action “flawed” and said lawmakers would “have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations.”

…The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency’s two Republican members rejecting the measure.

“For the first time, we’ll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered “a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC’s new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.

The FCC’s action “is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure,” said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn’t support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet “because it wants to, not because it needs to.”

Sure, let’s let’s take power from the free market and hand it to unelected FCC bureaucrats in Washington, DC, allowing them formal control over the internet. What could possibly go wrong?

Net Neutrality is a deceptive oxymoron because it would replace our system of supply and demand with a government-mandated solution. This is the 21st Century version of FDR’s price controls. Net Neutrality advocates seek to impose a digital version of a classless society structured upon government ownership of the means of production (in this case, the internet). That is NOT compatible with a free society. Is it right for the government to tell a private company how to run their business? Should the government be allowed to dictate what a company can charge? Do you want the government determining when “you’ve made enough money”?

This isn’t about fairness. The term “neutrality” is simply a smokescreen for another expansion of government power.

Tim Lee advocated for “Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation” in a Cato policy analysis.

An important reason for the Internet’s remarkable growth over the last quarter century is the “end-to-end” principle that networks should confine themselves to transmitting generic packets without worrying about their contents. Not only has this made deployment of internet infrastructure cheap and efficient, but it has created fertile ground for entrepreneurship. On a network that respects the end-to-end principle, prior approval from network owners is not needed to launch new applications, services, or content.

In recent years, self-styled “network neutrality” activists have pushed for legislation to prevent network owners from undermining the end-to end principle. Although the concern is understandable, such legislation would be premature. Physical ownership of internet infrastructure does not translate into a practical ability to control its use. Regulations are unnecessary because even in the absence of robust broadband competition, network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences.

There’s that phrase again: “unintended consequences.” That may wind up being the epitaph of the Obama administration.

Andy Kessler tackled this issue back in 2008, when the idea of “net neutrality” gained renewed traction with elitist Liberals bent on a government-enforced notion of “fairness”:

Imagine a town that has all sorts of gasoline pipelines running by it but only one gas pump. Rationing is inevitable. So are price controls.

Everyone gets equal amounts, except of course first responders like police and ambulances, which should get all the gas they want. And, well, so should the mayor. And if you can make a good business case that you work 60 miles away, you can file paperwork and perhaps pull some strings for more gas. How about those kids hot-rodding around town who can’t drive 55? They get last dibs, and maybe we can sneak in some gas thinner to slow down their engines and not waste gas.

You can do all that and constantly update the gas neutrality rules — or you can just open another gas station across the street. Or one on each corner.

…The trick to an open and innovative Internet is not sneaky technical fixes nor more rules and regulations and bureaucracies to enforce them. The Internet will only expand based on competitive principles, not socialist diktat. The more we can do to clear a path, the greater our national wealth will be.”

It’s a great article, read the whole thing.

—
UPDATE: The proponents of Net Neutrality make some compelling arguments. But the basis of their assertion is specious. Internet access is not a “civil right.”

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment