FCC Expands Internet Takeover, Adds Bailouts and Price Controls

From: American Thinker

While the House of Representatives was debating HJ-37, a resolution to return internet policy decisions to Congress, the FCC was implementing the next phase of its regulatory imposition upon the internet. That latest FCC move extends internet regulation to wireless while creating a crony capitalist system of regulatory bailouts and price controls.

Buttressing the FCC, the Free Press lobby group held a gala event in Boston to promote internet operation by the FCC. Speaking at the gala, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi attacked the House resolution to exercise congressional oversight of the FCC. "I don't think this bill is going anyplace," Pelosi said. "No one should be guarding the gate on the internet."

Meanwhile, Joe Newby at the Spokane Examiner reports on an appearance by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) at another venue. Newby reports that Markey said, "Republicans are trying to pass legislation destroying the World Wide Web," Markey whined, adding "and they're also trying to pass legislation to help destroy the whole wide world."

What brought us to this point? First, the initial FCC internet regulatory takeover covered broadband -- such as fiber, cable, and DSL -- but not wireless. Next, the courts became involved when Verizon and MetroPCS sued the FCC in January. Those lawsuits have been dismissed on a technicality: "Legal action can only be filed in the 30 days following the publishing of the policies in the Federal Register." Verizon has indicated its intention to re-file; MetroPCS has not announced its intentions.

The FCC remained on offense with its latest expansion of internet regulations into wireless under the guise of consumer protection. From Bloomberg Businessweek:

Data-roaming agreements let wireless customers use their devices to connect with internet sites and e-mail outside their home areas... Data services are growing in importance as customers increasingly turn to Web-enabled smartphones and tablet devices, such as Apple Inc.'s iPad.

Wireless companies routinely negotiate agreements with other wireless companies to provide fill-in coverage. The Daily Caller reports:

Currently, mobile broadband carriers enter into contractual agreements to, in the case of small companies, "rent" network space; and in the case of large carriers, "lease" available network space. [...]

The new FCC rule disregards the current system, and not only mandates that large carriers offer network access to smaller companies, but that they do so at "reasonable" rates. Effectively, the FCC created a new price control for mobile companies.

The FCC has inserted itself, as a government agency, into the roaming contract negotiations between private-sector companies. It does so by compelling an agreement and setting "reasonable rates." That move was not well-received in some quarters, as reported by Yahoo News:

Congress vote against FCC’s net neutrality

From: HTLounge.net

A few days ago, Republicans, in a symbolic Congressional vote, nullified the order of net neutrality issued by the FCC. A resolution for disapproval has been voted 241-178 and the House claimed that rules banning application blocking and some cases of unfair network management should be deprived of force or “effect”. Rob Woodall, Georgia Congressman, said that although the FCC needed permission to issue rules for the Internet, the House needed to reject any rules coming form the FCC.

The resolution was opposed by Democrats who argued that such a decision would threaten both innovative technologies in the United States and real jobs. By proposing the order, the FC had argued that a chance was needed for young Internet-only companies to be able to provide new voice and video services without being menaced by carriers that use blocks and throttling in order to discourage competition.

The measure still needs Senate approval, but the Republican gesture supporting large corporations is mostly symbolic and has no chance since the Obama administration had declared it would veto this resolution if it passed.

In judging whether the resolution has any weight or not, a few elements are to be considered. The FCC has cited unambiguous Congressional statements that gave it responsibility concerning certain aspects of the Internet, but Republicans have mentioned that several quoted clauses were not forms of authorization.
Regulations issued by the FCC are usually light and deliberately skirt around common carrier rules that are meant to regulate landline phones, which would require fair treatment and potential price regulation.

ABOLISH THE FCC

Net Neutrality has received insufficient coverage sadly, but in a nutshell it means the Federal Government, through the FCC now has the power to regulate the flow of information on the Internet through the various providers. This blatantly obscene power grab has been falsely advanced on the premise that ISP's will discriminate against some web sites in favor of others, thereby creating a competitive imbalance. The FCC, by a partisan 3-2 vote took what it considers a preemptive strike. I say preemptive because there is no record of such discrimination.

For the sake of argument let us consider the frivolous decision. The fear is that providers might seek to charge some websites for access. Example: Netflix is a popular website and a huge site at that. The objection is that a provider might justify a charge given the high bandwidth they need to provide their service as opposed to smaller websites. There is no such shakedown on record, but so what? Why, in a free country would any company providing a service at a cost be denied the ability to charge those who access that service? Especially, if a larger online site impedes their customers from better and more efficient Internet access? Why shouldn't sites like Netflix have to pay additional fees as directed if their service affects additional maintenance? Allowing ISP's to charge would permit the respective providers to compete with each other. Many people like myself opt for satellite instead of cable because the cable network does not have the NFL Network. Why shouldn't consumers be able to choose ISP's based on their inter relationship with specific websites?

The FCC is poised incrementally to regress the greatest instrument to advance the cause of freedom since the printing press. It has set in motion an effort to treat the Internet as a utility, a public forum that all must be able to access as a right, rather than as a choice driven by individual priorities. The Internet, like television and radio is now viewed as a public necessity, thereby, progressively regulated so it may be fairly accessed by all. The inevitable result, I suspect is some form of subsidy for those who cannot afford it themselves, but that is speculative at best.

So why do we have an FCC at all? It exists because of the preposterous view that the "airwaves" are "public". Why preposterous? Because no one owns the air or anything that traverses it. It is neither publicly owned nor privately purchased. Shouldn't we have broadcast standards? Shouldn't the public be shielded from what is considered obscene or indecent? In a word, no. Isn't the idea of no broadcast standards radical? It's only radical if you wish to limit individual freedom and desire to inhibit a corresponding sense of responsibility that accompanies maximized individual liberty. A free man or woman shuns what they find offensive without imposing it broadly upon others. If a free man, living in a free country is offended by the content on radio,television or the Internet, then he (or she) is free to divest themselves of the means by which the service is accessed. You don't have a right to own a television, a radio or to surf the net. These are privileges that we earn from our labor, but such privileges accessed by the fruits of our labor have all too often served to establish broad and ultimately artificial standards of  "decency". You can change the channel, set up the V-Chip or just throw it out. 

It isn't easy deciding how to spend your hard earned dough, but most decisions come with positives and negatives. The easy way out is to impose universal standards and strip away choice. Ultimately, the choice regarding content and the means by which it enters your home is for the homeowner to determine, not a hegemonic government agency like the FCC.

The debate over "Net Neutrality" should conclude with the abolition of the FCC. Ultimately, everything that is regulated by the FCC is material we access in private settings. We access radio,television and the Internet at home or in the car and is therefore a matter of personal choice and privacy. The new regulations on the Internet like the existing regulations on television and radio are an invasion of privacy and therefore infringes on personal freedom.By regulating these industries we are passing the buck regarding personal responsibility. We have for generations permitted the FEDS to define "decency", rather than accord it the individual attention it demands. By empowering the likes of the FCC, we have sought to absolve ourselves from hard choices. If the FCC can define "decency", it can redefine it at its leisure.

There is sufficient reason to abolish the FCC on the merits. The Net Neutrality vote is a clear violation of the courts and Congress. I'm confident it will be undone. If we are serious it won't end there. It will end when we abolish the FCC.