Should the Government Take Over the Internet too?

It seems there’s really no end to the industries Washington wants to run.  Today, the Wall Street Journal reports that:  “A federal appeals court ruled last month that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. No worries, mate. This week the Obama Administration chose to “reclassify” the Internet so it can regulate the Web anyway. This crowd is nothing if not
legally creative.”

I’d encourage you to read the entire article.  The question is, after autos, health care, energy, and Wall Street, do we want to government controlling the web?  In the past 5 years, companies have invested $576 billion in communications eqiupment and structures.  But will they want to continue investing in something wide open to political meddling?

It’s a valid question.  What do you think?

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 8th, 2010 at 12:06 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Concerned

    To silence criticism and free speach, any would-be dictator must first control the media.  His efforts to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine,” and now this (taking control of the net), could all be a part of a much bigger plan.  It never ceases to amaze me how our freedoms, freedoms that our soldiers fought & died for, can all be removed with the stroke of a pen.

    Before you say I’m paranoid, tell me this…. Why has Obama appointed over 30 Czars to do the work that Congress should be doing?  Keep in mind that these “Czars,” appointed by Obama without congressional consent, answer to no one BUT Obama.  Our forefathers created this nation with three branches of government.  But now, it seems, Obama has created a fourth.

  • http://www.inthatdayteachings.com Robert Winkler Burke

    Lest the above comment seem too deep, read the following post that shows how a Western Enlightened, classic-taught mind of military history, one Victor Davis Hanson, deconstructs (explains) the crazy, politically correct shenanigans of Morgan Hill. http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/shall-we-laugh-or-cry-at-morgan-hill/#comments By following such Lincolnesque or Jeffersonian trains of thought, we can fight our way out of sub-education from the shepherd wolves of public broadcast insanity who teach us our only duty is to submit to their sub-liberty, hidden-slavery trains of very, very poor thought.

  • http://www.inthatdayteachings.com Robert Winkler Burke

    The internet has done much to repair the broken pabulum-detection-thoughts of sheep and plebes, therefore Big Bro government must regulate it! The internet has done much to educate the sub-educated sheep and plebes, therefore Big Sis government must regulate it! The internet has done much to expose truly evil doctrines imposed on unquestioning sheep and plebes, therefore our god-government must regulate it! We must all be saved from becoming able to follow a Socratic argument, being able to have an examined life, to love mutual dedication to self-restraint, which is to profoundly understand liberty. For all these reasons, “Obey-me” government must regulate what and how little we may think. The less we think well, the current well of political, clerical and tribal tyranny shall continue to grow more poisonous. Except for the internet, we would still be drinking the Sweat-of-other-men’s-brow-aid…. and call it sweet. Without the internet, funds to large organizations dedicated to self-assertion and bigness for bigness’s sake…would grow to the sky, because they say they must! Shame on the internet for giving tyrants-who-sub-educate the outcome of defiant sheep and plebes who, despite the pressure from evil overlords, self-educated themselves and gained sight! The government, or religion possibly, must continue to do everything possible to stop such higher thought. Why, we all know the highest ground available is to worship the tyrants who blinds best! (Just kidding, Phil! With patience, and a free internet, the world shall be pruned of evil!)

  • http://www.lightquestmedia.com Chris

    Big companies like Google often welcome government intrusion and regulation because these companies have the financial muscle to fund campaigns and lobby Congress to influence those statutes and regulations to protect their position in the marketplace.  Like s77 mentions above, government regulation of the telecommunications business was good for the monoliths like Ma Bell, but not good at all for consumers.  Free markets, with all of their problems, are almost always more efficient in their distribution of capital and in their delivery of the best products and services at the lowest prices. 

    The Internet has been doing just fine without FCC intrusion, thank you.

  • Freethinker

    Just one thing: REMEMBER THIS IN NOVEMBER 2010!!!

  • http://www.SnokieStories.com Buzz

    From Wikipedia (tho in this case the info is reliable):

    Network neutrality in the United States is a contentious issue. Currently there is general network neutrality in the United States, meaning that telecommunications companies rarely offer different rates to broadband and dial-up Internet consumers based on Internet-based content or service type; however, there are no clear legal restrictions against this. Many broadband providers block common service ports, such as port 25 (SMTP) or port 80 (HTTP), preventing consumers (and botnets) from hosting web and email servers unless they upgrade to a “business” account. In recent years, advocates of network neutrality have sought to restrict such changes.

    In 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue spent large amounts of money lobbying Congress.[1] In 2006, representatives from several major U.S. corporations and the federal government publicly addressed U.S. Internet services in terms of the nature of free market forces, the public interest, the physical and software infrastructure of the Internet, and new high-bandwidth technologies.

    Five abortive attempts have been made at bills with certain network neutrality provisions passed by Congress. Each of these bills sought to prohibit Internet services providers from using various variable pricing models according to the user’s quality of Service levels. Described as tiered service in the industry and as price discrimination by some mainstream economists, typical provisions in the bill state “[Broadband service providers may] only prioritize…based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization”.[2] Other provisions common to the net neutrality discussion were included in the proposed legislative works.”

     

    GWB’s FCC gave up the right to prevent ISPs from blocking users & sites that weren’t paying enough and/or providing content the ISPs didn’t like.  Obama’s FCC is seeking legislation to give them the right to prevent ISPs from gouging customers, segregating lower paying customers, and blocking freedom of speech.

    There are a lot of big bu$ine$$ intere$t$ who want to dominate access to the Internet.  in effect, they want to become the new gatekeepers, deciding who can/can’t have access to the money.

     

    Oh, and s77, it was REGULATION, not deregulation that broke up Ma Bell.  The Feds realized she was a monopoly that was gouging consumers and blocking development of better, more efficient, less expensive services & technologies.  She was ordered dismantled so there could be genuine competition in the telecommunications industry.

    Don’t kid yourself:  Opposition to net neutrality laws means one wants the existing ISPs to dominate the market, drive out competitors, and censor OUR speech.

     

  • s77

    Ironic.

     

    If one adequately remembers history, the popularity of the Internet came about….

    through deregulation of the phone company and the splitting of Bell into the seperate companies and AT@T into the long distance portion. If that had never happened, then we would have never seen broadband come into fruition (the cable companies would have been shut out) because the phone company would have had such a stranglehold that we would today be paying 40.00 a month for 56K dialup.

  • Davey

    I completely agree with Buzz on this.  While there should definitely be limits on the government’s involvement in “controling” the internet.  I don’t want Comcast, AT&T and others to start charging consumers by the amount of their internet activity.

    Most of countries in the Western world have faster and more affordable internet than Americans as a whole, so I think we really need to think long and hard about what can be done better, and with some oversight.

  • http://www.inthatdayteachings.com Robert Winkler Burke

    If you travel in Europe, it costs a lot to use the internet. Same for Africa.

    The only place I know of for travelers to enjoy all-you-can-eat internet, are United States and Canadian hotels that offer it free with the cost of hotel stay.

    Capitalists in the US who run hotels, see the profit in giving us free internet with our rooms.

    Europe sees it differently for the traveler. The traveler pays by the minute.

    To heck with socialist oversight. Let competition run free in the US. Socialist oversight always comes with unintended consequences.

    In other words, the plan for socialism in the future is simply to find a need, and tax it to pay for oligarch overlords to run things further into hell. That is the plan with cap and abscond with your monies for energy. Ditto for the internet.

    Never ask for socialist government regulation. They will use it for hidden enslavement. Now is the time for men to be free, not enslaved.