Posts in "Net Neutrality"

By Brian Underwood at 10:10AM

Dec 22, 2010

Superconstitutional: The FCC and Net Neutrality

For months now, rumors have fluttered around the blogosphere that the FCC, an old remnant of FDR's alphabet soup, would use its authority to enforce a doctrine of "net neutrality." Similar to the old Fairness Doctrine, which forced radio stations to air as much liberal content as conservative across the airwaves, Net Neutrality forbids private internet service providers from blocking access to websites and applications. Furthermore, the internet providers cannot treat any website, regardless of traffic, differently (e.g. Google should not be given special privilege over unheard of blogs just because much more traffic).

While intended to promote some sort of "social good," as most misguided programs are, the fact is that Net Neutrality simply is not constintutional. The Federal Communications Commission, already an unconstitutional organization by its very existence, uses its authority to supersede the constitution and, once again, tell private businesses how to direct themselves. Why should ISPs be compelled to redirect resources and effort to support websites that its users would otherwise not care about or pay for? Why should they be forced to provide greater service without first expecting greater pay from their customers?

Free Speech Takes Another Shot...Maybe

Rumors are flying all over the Internet that the FCC may regulate Internet lines days before Christmas!

The FCC

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a Christmas gift in store for the phone and cable industry: it may move ahead on its controversial net-neutrality regulations three days before Christmas.
An FCC source confirmed on Friday that the commission plans to push its December meeting back by a week, meaning it will fall on the 22nd of the month. That's the same meeting in which analysts say the agency may move forward on its controversial net-neutrality proposal.
Though the FCC has not confirmed that it will vote on net neutrality this year, rumors are swirling that it will.
....
[Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)] said "it appears that Chairman [Julius] Genachowski is trying to slip it under the radar and hope no one notices."

In case you're rusty on the idea of Net Neutrality, here's Steven Kinsella from the Mises Institute with "A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality".

I leave you with a quote from Cass Sunstein, admin of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:

The word 'voluntary' is a little complicated. And sometimes people don't do what's best for our society.

Yes, Cass. People don't always do what's best for our society, do they?

Posted in:

Add new comment

By Adam Fowler at 9:10PM

Apr 11, 2010

FCC Intent on Regulating Net

Just like when the mediums of radio and television were new technologies, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is power-hungry once again to regulate a new medium. And it is moving full-steam ahead, despite a recent court ruling limiting the ability of the Commission to regulate.

At question is the FCC's goal to ensure so-called "network neutrality." The Commission has been concerned with actions by internet service providers (ISPs) to limit or block the ability of users to access certain services or content over their networks. It had proposed implementing new rules restricting the ability of ISPs to do so. The only problem: According to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the FCC has no statutory basis to justify such regulation.

But, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is still pursuing the Commission's larger broadband internet plan. The likely results of such added meddling in the free market by a government regulatory agency will be less competition and more government control. This has always been the case with the FCC, whose statutory authority under the Communications Act has been to regulate in the name of the nebulous "public interest" -- however that may be defined by regulators at any given time.

Victory for Freedom: FCC Cannot Regulate Internet Traffic

A federal appeals court just ruled that the Federal Communications Commission does not have the power to regulate internet traffic:

A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law. The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.

I've heard it be said that the FCC needs to enforce "net neutrality" in order to maintain an open internet. But what really is the best way to maintain a free and open internet? Is it through the heavy hand of government regulation, or through the voluntary interactions of internet providers and their customers?

It's true that this ruler means that internet providers can basically do whatever they want in relation to net neutrality without legal percussions. But remember that any power and profits internet providers have is derived from its customers, the people. In this way, private companies are more accountable to us than government. If your internet provider decides to violate the concept of net neutrality, you're free to switch to another provider, and companies will provide net neutrality if the people want it.

Posted in:

4 comments

By Matt Ciepielowski at 6:14PM

Feb 25, 2010

The Problems with Net Neutrality

Here's a good video by Reason.tv about "net neutrality." How giving the government the power to regulate something makes it neutral is beyond me...

Posted in:

5 comments

By Bonnie Kristian at 7:38PM

Oct 21, 2009

Tomorrow the FCC will vote on regulating the internet...

...but we can still take action. Watch this new video from Shelly Roche and read her full article to find out what you can do to stop this further encroachment of oppressive government.

Posted in: