When bureaucrats talk about increasing our “access” to X, Y, or Z, what they’re really talking about is increasing their control over our lives. As it is with the government health-care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to “increase” Internet “access.” Call it Webcare.
By a vote of 3–2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure “net neutrality” by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet-service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices, and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The “neutrality” is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC’s scheme is widely opposed by Congress — and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.
Advertisement
Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance — and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.
In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute, and regulate the private health-insurance market to death — and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous, and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.
Undaunted, promoters of Obama FCC chairman Julius Genachowski’s “open Internet” plan have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: “Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right . . . [though] not many people have talked about it that way.” Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.
“Broadband is becoming a basic necessity,” civil-rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and number three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every “nappy-headed child” in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, “deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is.”
Calling them “nappy-headed” is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.
Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell-phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not-so-noble political goals.
The “net neutrality” mob — funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits — has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for “media justice.” Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic “rights.” Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.
The meetings of the universal-broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about “disenfranchisement” and “empowerment.” They’ve targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV, and the Internet as purveyors of “hate” who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.
As the Ford Foundation–funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement “grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.”
"Broadband" .."access to the Internet is ...a civil right for every “nappy-headed child”
Every parent knows what their kids do with internet access:
socialize
download porn/illegal music
play online games
A recent study of low income kids in North Carolina and Romania, documents that high speed internet access provided to low income households results in DECREASED academic performance.
here is the punch line: "[low income] Students who gain access to a home computer between 5th and 8th grade tend to witness a persistent decline in reading and math test scores. There is little evidence that more intensive computer use for schoolwork offsets these negative effects."
Read the entire article to see how wrong headed the Libs are.
It's ironic that governmental regulation in the form of local cable and telephone franchises helped create much of the existing "problem". The incumbent franchise holders also sell content to their subscribers; e.g., Comcast/NBC. Competitors like Netflix want access to these franchised monopolies so they can also sell content. They are not denied access, but they are charged a fee that they wanted reduced. Politicians will now use this dispute between networks over pricing to foist another government subsidized entitlement upon the taxpayer. We will soon learn whether or not the Republicans are really fiscal conservatives.
Although I am one for innovation, do you truly believe a monopoly of big Internet providers, will promote innovation. I don't think so. Just look at Microsoft, the least innovative company in software around.
Furthermore, these ISP will have the ability to deny access to content, i.e., AT&T may not like its subscribes to use Google so they deny its users to Google. How is that freedom of choice which is one of the tenets of capitalism. Small companies may be given access, but the will pay a hefty price for it. That doesn't IMHO promote free markets or innovation.
Umm, net neutrality has nothing to do with granting people a right to broadband access. It simply keeps the broadband companies, who have government-granted monopolies (like your electric company) from discriminating what you, the purchaser of the service, uses the service for.
Without net neutrality, Comcast, insight, or whatever cable internet service you have can keep you from viewing certain content(like direct TV, or other satellite or 4G broadband internet competitor's websites).
I really don't understand why people are against the premise of net neutrality.
I hope that my 8 year old does not hear that access to the internet is a civil right because his current access -- through entirely subsidized -- is extremely limited in terms of both time and websites that can be visited.
@rationalize: "I really don't understand why people are against the premise of net neutrality."
Because it is a solution to a nonexistent problem, based on a deep suspicion of the market and private industry. (And don't go "But Comcast blocked BitTorrent!" Yep. Three years ago, and settled nicely under existing law. As have been the handful of other purported "net neutrality" issues.)
Because it requires trusting the FCC not to use its bizarrely broad standard of "reasonable network management" to bring enforcement actions against corporations of which it does not approve.
Because "net neutrality" complaints will be abused by cynical companies for the sake of business advantage (see: Level 3), and by activist groups to harass corporations.
Because the FCC report and order on net neutrality was not made public before it was voted on and approved yesterday, and has still not been made public.
Because FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, Genachowski's influential wingman, has an abiding and barely veiled determination to gain content control over broadcasters, and there is no reason to believe he and his similarly inclined colleagues (Mark Lloyd, say) will view the Internet any differently.
Because the idea that anything is more free under government regulation than left to the market would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous.
"I really don't understand why people are against the premise of net neutrality."
It isn't the premise but the somewhat capricious enactment of rules and regulations by unelected individuals, rationalized, justified, or just plain prevaricated under the guise of "neutrality."
The idea of preventing companies from denying access to legal content and services simply because they conflict with offerings of their own is not bad. But how do price controls fit in? Where does it end?
If you were upset about the Bridge to Nowhere, then you should be even more upset about the gleaming, shining road to Hell that is being paved by good intentions.
@rationalize,
There hasn't been one complaint about the ISPs behaving unfairly or illegally concering content delivery. And the new rules go way beyond the ISPs. The FCC will now require that all smart-phone Apps be certified.
You really need to do your homework on the issue. There was never an abuse by the ISPs. However, as broadband usage increased, the ISPs did warn the content providers that if thier content consumed too much bandwidth, and if thier content was fee based, they would be charged accordingly. In an age when Netflix can offer paying subscribers streaming audio/video it is only fair that Netflix must pay a higher scale or tier than a tiny website that offers nothing but a few static web pages. Google, Microsoft, Apple, and other content providers did what was expected. They not only lobbied Congress, but subsidized a left wing coalition of Progressives to lobby for "net neutrality".
The telcos must spend billions in providing not only high speed fiber connections, but also in expensive switching and routing infrastructure. What the content providers want is a free lunch.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in my perusal of various op/ed pieces on this subject is the mention of the actual "Net Neutrality" that was pushed by the EFF and other online communities. The "Net Neutrality" discussed by those parties bears little semblance to what was issued by the FCC. True network neutrality deals only with the ability of a middle man to determine access to 3rd party content without the consent of the end user. This is a much simpler issue that was pushed to the sidelines. The more desirable outcome would be a statement that an ISP and/or Government is not able to purposefully block or hinder an end user of their service as currently described from accessing content that is not in violation of any sort of civil or criminal law.
I do not see how the internet would continue to function in its current form if an ISP or Government were able to make arbitrary changes in connectivity to other hosts that already pay for access to that network. AT&T should not be able to add a surcharge for visiting a competitor's site when access has already been purchased by the 3rd party through an arrangement with their own service provider.
These regulations muddy the waters of what is considered a managed service, what is considered tier service for end users, and what is considered a right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Bridey:
The sad fact is that this has already become an issue in other nations. I would rather see that we move away from what India and China are doing with their end-user services, such as charging extra to visit social networking sites, as this places an extra cost that cannot be controlled by the content provider which allows the middle man(ISP) to segment the potential market share for that content provider in an arbitrary way. While this has not occurred in any real way in the States, I don't see how it could not occur in the future without some sort of ground rules for what constitutes internet access. This sort of behavior was/is not illegal(this depends on your interpretation of a managed service)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up my thoughts on the discussion of "Network Neutrality",
I agree that internet access is not a right. If anything, it is a commodity. I also agree the current rules set in place do nothing to foster and maintain the current state of internet. Network Neutrality should only be a statement that an ISP and/or Government should not be able to determine access to content by placing extraneous fees on the end user or removing content without breach of civil or criminal law. A regulation that only enforced that idea would be a positive move towards maintaining our current service levels and openness that has allowed what was once a government skunkworks project to flourish into the powerful information and business entity that we know and love today. Calling these regulations Network Neutrality is like calling the Fairness Doctrine radio neutrality. The neutrality should be at the network level, agnostic of content, and applied as broadly as possible to ensure that all entrants into that market have the same rules of engagement.
The local eateries in my town refuse to offer lobster bisque and steak tartare. How can I expect to feed myself on a regiment of shepherd's pie and meat loaf? Not only is it inhumane, its unAmerican.
The FDA is already responsible for protecting and promoting public health. But they haven't taken the next logical step in regulating content.
Menu neutrality would simply keep the restaurant companies, who have government-granted monopolies (like a business license, sanitation rating, OSHA, EEOC, DOL) from discriminating what you, the purchaser of the service, uses the service for.
Without menu neutrality, Burger Kang, MacDowells, or whatever dining service you have can keep you from consuming certain content(like hummus, falafel or other tasty or nutritious restaurant competitor's menu items).
And if that should happen, either the market will sort it out, or, if there is genuine anti-competitive behavior, existing law -- or a very, very narrowly tailored new law -- can take care of it.
For the FCC to assume broad control of how private businesses manage their networks in response to something that MIGHT happen, and has so far showed no sign whatever of happening, is such overkill that I believe that this has very little or nothing to do with "protecting the open Internet" and everything go do with the FCC's establishing a beachhead in an area where it has no statutory authority to regulate. The two dissenting FCC commissioners flatly stated that the agency has no authority to act in this matter.
Indeed, the interpretation of the '96 Telecom Act under which the FCC says it's doing this is... imaginative. But there are legislators vowing to undo it, and it may well not stand up in court if it comes to that. In the meantime, more uncertainty in one of the few healthy economic sectors. Way to go, Chairman Genachowski.
How did Jim Clyburn's daughter get a job at the FCC?
What would have happened if a white person called a child of color - nappy headed? Heads would have rolled and it wouldn't have been nappy headed ones?
