I’ll bet that when all is said and done “Net neutrality” will result in a lot more than $11 billion in new taxes. The directive from the FCC constitutes a federal “virtual land grab.” Too much goes on in the free and open Internet for the government’s liking. The Feds want a piece of it and to ultimately control it. Control the Internet and the information traveling on it and one can institute things like the anti-free speech “Fairness Doctrine.” And probably, eventually much worse things.
Yet many Internet freedom folks still consider “Net neutrality” a win.
Do you really think that a proposal which comes from this White House is actually about EXPANDING the conversation? Do you really think this president wants FREER information?
If you do, no offense, you haven’t been paying attention for a long time. This president has gone after whistle blowers and journalists like no other president ever. Nixon doesn’t compare. Obama is not interested in open debate and the free flow of information.
Net neutrality is about Net control. But it may take a few years for many current advocates to realize it. It will probably be too late then though.
The ISPs are crony companies, particularly on the local level, but at least there was some market pressure for them to innovate before the coming rules. As a “utility” innovation in Internet delivery may very well stagnate. Hopefully that’s the worst which will happen. But I doubt it.
But keep celebrating folks.*
(From Congressman Bob Goodlatte’s office)
The order will undoubtedly raise Internet service costs, discourage investment, and slow broadband speeds. It’s currently estimated that we will see $11 billion in new taxes and fees. It will reduce consumer choice as well. A group of 142 wireless Internet service providers, 24 of the country’s smallest ISPs, and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council all urged the FCC not to issue this regulation because it would “erode investment and innovation,” and “badly strain our limited resources.” These are the types of companies that serve small and rural communities, like many in the Sixth District, and the FCC’s regulations threaten their very livelihood. Forcing companies out of business rarely results in more consumer choice.
Recently, I held a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee to examine the net neutrality rule. At the hearing, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the rule, asked what problem it fixes. The FCC has presented no proof that there isn’t competitive access to the Internet right now. The FCC’s rule is in search of a problem that does not exist, and I’m concerned that it is just opening the door to future regulations on the Internet.
*By the way, it’s not like I have any skin in this game or anything. It’s not like I earn my livelihood on the Internet.