Proponents of Net Neutrality are demanding that the government get involved in regulating the internet to "keep the web free." They claim that the big bad corporations are going to make the internet inaccessible, send us back to the days of dial-up, and increase rates to such an unaffordable level that only the rich will be able to afford to be online.
Do they really believe businesses are in business to screw the consumers, and reduce their potential for profit?
Restricting service plan options is inherently anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The government intrusion will limit innovation, push prices higher, and reduce the service available to the consumers. Upstarts and Small providers will be unable to compete, so in reality the regulations protect the giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, as we saw when MetroPCS was targeted for daring to offer "Unlimited YouTube." The regulations would also target T-Mobile's Music Freedom program, which allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance. Consumers love these deals from the smaller competitors, but the FCC regulations would block those things, to protect the larger corporations.
Historically, every time the federal government has inserted its influence into a particular issue, the result has been devastating. Federal insertion into the private sector kills innovation, limits accessibility, and drives up costs. The offer of Net Neutrality will do the same.
The federal government is not telling the public what the true plans for the web are. According to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, there are 332 pages of proposed internet regulations that is not available to the public, and won't be until after the FCC votes on if to move ahead with Net Neutrality. If there is nothing to worry about, why all of the secrecy?
In interviews, Pai calls the regulatory plans a "monumental shift toward government control of how the internet works." According to Pai, the proposed regulations "micromanages virtually every aspect of how the internet operates (through the internet conduct rule), it opens the door in billions of dollars of new taxes (through fees based on the reclassification of the internet as a utility) on broadband that consumers are going to have to pay, it will lead to slower broadband speeds, it opens the door to trial lawyers filing class actions across the country, litigation isn't usually not the best way to ensure innovation, and there are a whole host of harms that are going to happen."
In interviews, Pai calls the regulatory plans a "monumental shift toward government control of how the internet works." According to Pai, the proposed regulations "micromanages virtually every aspect of how the internet operates (through the internet conduct rule), it opens the door in billions of dollars of new taxes (through fees based on the reclassification of the internet as a utility) on broadband that consumers are going to have to pay, it will lead to slower broadband speeds, it opens the door to trial lawyers filing class actions across the country, litigation isn't usually not the best way to ensure innovation, and there are a whole host of harms that are going to happen."
There is no evidence, nor does the federal government offer any, of internet service providers acting in a manner the feds allege. The regulations would allow the FCC to insert itself into issues regarding interconnection and relationships between providers, allowing the courts and the agency to second-guess decisions made in the industry. The government says their plan is driven by what is best for consumers, but what is best for consumers is not government interference. This is not about what is best for consumers, but what is in line with Barack Obama's agenda, which he began imposing on the FCC in a more obvious manner last November. This is a politically driven agenda with unnecessary rules that are not being proposed because they are best for the internet, but because they open up the opportunity for government control over the internet, and ultimately a limit of free speech on the internet.
Pai calls it a "solution in search for a problem."
Net Neutrality regulations is not best for the internet, but will ultimately reduce the internet's accessibility, and allow government to limit as they desire at will.
While those that support the Democrat Party's push to control the internet as a move to "keep the internet free," the reality is that the regulations do the opposite.
Restricting service plan options is inherently anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The government intrusion will limit innovation, push prices higher, and reduce the service available to the consumers. Upstarts and Small providers will be unable to compete, so in reality the regulations protect the giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, as we saw when MetroPCS was targeted for daring to offer "Unlimited YouTube." The regulations would also target T-Mobile's Music Freedom program, which allows consumers to stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance. Consumers love these deals from the smaller competitors, but the FCC regulations would block those things, to protect the larger corporations.
Low-price, prepaid voice plans may also go bye bye, because the innovative favorite of consumers aren't the all-you-can-eat plans endorsed by the FCC, and may violate the Internet conduct rule.
A free market is innovative because to grow profit, and compete, business models and product offerings must be good for consumers, giving them more choices and lower prices. Federal government interference through FCC regulations will put a stop to these innovative plans, killing off the smaller companies, slowing down the internet, reducing accessibility, reducing choice, and protecting the large corporations.
Nothing is wrong with the internet, so it needs no fixing. The Obama administration, however, can't stand all of the free speech going on that dares to stand in opposition to his policies, so he is taking steps to put a stop to it. He does not want the internet to be the wild west anymore. He does not approve of its free, open and thriving platform for civic and political engagement, economic growth, educational opportunity, entertainment and much more. Through government, he is determined to put a stop to all of that freedom.
That kind of freedom just cannot be tolerated.
A free market is innovative because to grow profit, and compete, business models and product offerings must be good for consumers, giving them more choices and lower prices. Federal government interference through FCC regulations will put a stop to these innovative plans, killing off the smaller companies, slowing down the internet, reducing accessibility, reducing choice, and protecting the large corporations.
Nothing is wrong with the internet, so it needs no fixing. The Obama administration, however, can't stand all of the free speech going on that dares to stand in opposition to his policies, so he is taking steps to put a stop to it. He does not want the internet to be the wild west anymore. He does not approve of its free, open and thriving platform for civic and political engagement, economic growth, educational opportunity, entertainment and much more. Through government, he is determined to put a stop to all of that freedom.
That kind of freedom just cannot be tolerated.
And with your freedoms will also go protections against government tyranny.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Why Can't the Public See Obama's Proposed Internet Regulations? - Weekly Standard
The Internet isn't broken, Obama doesn't need to fix it - Chicago Tribune
No comments:
Post a Comment