By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--November 11, 2014
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
These rules weren’t at the cutting edge of innovation even in the 1930s. As former FCC attorney Randolph May notes, this regulatory framework was written into the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 to oversee monopoly railroads. The Communications Act drafters then copied the 1887 law, replaced the references to railroads and clarified that the new regulations would apply to telephones as well as telegraphs. Eighty years later Mr. Obama has decided, in his market wisdom, that these rules should apply to the Internet.
When the FCC floated this idea in May, we called it “ObamaCare for the Web,” but that was too kind. The Obama Internet plan would treat cable, telephone and wireless broadband networks as common carriers subject to federal price controls and myriad other regulatory restrictions. Like the telephone companies of old, broadband providers would be required to “file a tariff” at the commission, meaning they would submit mountains of paperwork and ask the government to approve the prices they intend to charge for services. The bureaucrats would then consider whether the prices are fair. FCC bureaucrats would also hold sway over plans to expand or build digital networks. Under such conditions, who would invest to build the next generation of broadband technologies? In his breezy video, Mr. Obama said he is promoting such regulation to preserve “the idea of Net neutrality,” which he claimed has “unleashed the power of the Internet and given innovators the chance to thrive.” This is upside down logic. The Internet has thrived in large part because policy makers and judges have rejected nearly every attempt to enforce “Net neutrality.” That is the hazy concept generally defined as preventing network operators from discriminating against particular online content but—for its most zealous advocates—amounting to a ban on differentiated services, such as express delivery of information.Liberals have been pushing the idea of net neutrality for years, hoping they can get government on their side in an effort to dictate not only prices but also content. Now, there are legitimate concerns when it comes to the outsized influence of certain companies in controlling content on the Internet. But typical of the left, they make the monumental mistake of thinking this calls for and justifies massive federal regulation of an entity that's doing quite well left to its own devices, and is serving the public much more efficiently than government. This looks to me like an opening salvo in an attempt by Obama to spend his last two years defying Congress at every turn in pursuit of left-wing policy dreams. Why? Well obviously because he completely believes in the agenda, but also because he'll still be a relatively young man when he leaves office, and this gives him a chance to spend his post-presidency as a left-wing hero, galavanting around the globe on other people's dimes and pretty much doing whatever he wants. His apparent attention to use executive orders on immigration smacks of the same thinking. He could try to work with the Republican Congress, but that would require him to care about governing. He doesn't. He cares about left-wing ideology, and he cares about himself. That's pretty much it. I don't even think he cares who succeeds him. Let a Republican win the White House in 2016, and Obama becomes the left's leading global hero for who-knows-how-long. So that's why, while the nation is clamoring for growth and jobs, we're getting net neutrality shoved down our throats instead.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.