By Douglas V. Gibbs
We are being told by the federal government, and those that support the statist ideal, that Net Neutrality keeps the internet free. Without federal regulation of internet providers, we are told, the greedy corporations will began charging for use of the internet at all opportunities, and ultimately destroy the ability of the common citizen to gain access to the service by prioritizing access based on ability to pay. Sort of like cable TV, where if you want access to premium services, you will have to pay a little extra. The theory is that providers would use this tiered system of access to ensure their subscribers see the providers content first, and must pay extra to view any content outside what the provider prefers they subscribers to access.
Net Neutrality does not keep the internet free. In fact, you already pay for it. You pay your provider for access, and you pay some websites for premium access if they charge a subscription for that service. If, hypothetically, the providers were to do as the proponents of Net Neutrality suggests, and make internet service more like cable television, with tiered access and premium packages, the consumers would properly regulate the market as needed. In other words, the consumers would use the services they best want. If they wanted tiered service, they would use those providers. If there were consumers that did not want that kind of service, and wanted their service to be more like it is now, new companies would emerge to provide that service. And, without government regulations, the providers would also be free to innovate, which in the long run would make the service better for all.
The removal of government control also enables smaller websites to innovate, and to use a wider spectrum of available services to grow and succeed.
From a constitutional manner, there is no authority granted to the federal government to regulate information systems, or communication networks, therefore, they do not have the authority.
Finally, Net Neutrality, though not constitutionally authorized anyway, was never voted on by Congress, originally. It was instituted through the FCC as a regulation. In other words, it was a law created by the executive branch, despite the representative part of the system having the sole authority to make law. This was a power grab by the executive branch that then also extended to the courts, where the federal court system took on a legislative role, as well, upholding parts of the regulation, and striking down other parts. In both cases, the representative part of government was not involved, though they debated whether or not they should participate.
Court ruling overturns Net Neutrality, threatens online access, experts warn - Fox News
Remember that epic court ruling that killed net neutrality? Well, almost everyone got it wrong - PolicyMic
Net Neutrality: Should Congress Overturn the Rules - Wall Street Journal
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
This post is a portion of a larger article titled: Killing Representative Governance
No comments:
Post a Comment