First Posted: 2/26/2015
If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.
Well, not so much.
The FCC last week imposed rules on broadband Internet services, including wireless providers, that were, as Verizon put it after the vote — in a press release dated 1936, drafted using a manual typewriter font, and originally released in Morse code — “written in the era of the steam locomotive and the telegraph.”
The new rules essentially reclassify Internet service providers as public utilities, like phone companies. The belief by those who support so-called net neutrality or open Internet is that the government can somehow ensure all consumers get fair access to services through the use of restrictive government regulations. Under these anti-freedom regulations, ISPs would be banned from paid prioritization deals, unless, of course, it is for government-approved exceptions such as remote heart monitoring and other so-called “public services.”
The Verizon comment is apropos, though, because the authority for the new rules comes from Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. That’s right, 1934.
“What doesn’t make sense, and has never made sense, is to take a regulatory framework developed for Ma Bell in the 1930s and make her great-grandchildren, with technologies and options undreamed of 80 years ago, live under it,” said Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs.
Instead of creating some utopia of a free and equal Internet, Title II’s stringent rules will stifle network investment and will strangle innovation, as does all government control.
The problem is that there is no problem. This is a solution in search of a crisis that doesn’t exist.
The fact of the matter is that the Internet is perhaps the most free and open place on the planet. Indeed, the market demands a free and open Internet. And if there are deviations or innovations that serve the browsing public better, the market will not only permit them, but demand them. And it will happen at the speed of the market rather than at the speed of government.
Just look at the example of AOL and CompuServe. Their customers only had access to certain services chosen by the companies. The market rejected that approach because customers wanted to be able to access the whole Internet without intervention.
The new rules go beyond the original concept of net neutrality. The original idea was to simply prevent broadband providers from treating certain Internet traffic differently from other traffic.
This stems from companies such as Netflix, whose streaming services use massive amounts of bandwidth, not wanting to have to pay extra for that large load. Instead, users who want any of their traffic delivered at the highest speed will have to continue paying for all their traffic to be delivered at that speed, whether they need it or not.
But the FCC is not stopping there. As is always the case in government regulatory schemes there is bureaucratic mission creep. The FCC plans to oversee connection agreements between the companies. So if a content provider is unhappy with the terms offered by an ISP, the content provider can simply whine to the FCC and whichever company gave the most money to the party in power will prevail. If you don’t think government agencies would operate in such a matter, you have not been paying attention to the Obama administration.
Title II also permits things such as price controls. While FCC bureaucrats say the new rules will not do that, it is only a matter of time before they do. Government functionaries never let power go unused for very long.
The other thing driving this is more basic. It is a central tenet of modern-day leftists that the government must control as much of your lives as possible. This latest power grab by the FCC and President Barack Obama proves this once again. Every policy initiative by the Democrats in power results in more government control and less freedom for the people. This is just the latest example of why Obama is the worst president to have ever occupied the White House and that the Democratic Party is the biggest threat to personal liberty in this country.
