The Internet has made all of our lives better, in part because there’s been an accidental policy of benign neglect from Washington.
But that’s about to change.
Even though our economy already is burdened by record amounts of regulation and red tape, the FCC is pushing forward with a plan to turn the Internet into a moss-covered public utility.
This almost leaves me at a loss for words. It’s truly remarkable – in a bad way – that the bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission think that the Internet can be improved by a big dose of 1930s-era regulation and control.
My Cato colleague, Jim Harper, summarized the issue last month.
Do you want your Internet service provider to operate like the water company or the electric company?… the FCC has sought for years now to regulate broadband Internet service providers…like it used to regulate AT&T, with government mandated terms of service if not tariffs and price controls. This doesn’t fit the technical environment of the Internet, which allows for diverse business models. Companies that experiment with network management, pricing, internal subsidy, and so on can find the configurations that serve widely varying consumers and their differing Internet needs the best.
But the FCC apparently doesn’t like innovation, diversity, and experimentation and instead wants to impose centralized rules. And to justify its power grab, FCC regulators are reclassifying the Internet as “telecommunications carriers” rather than an “information service.”
Title II, which applies to “telecommunications carriers,” allows common carrier regulation of the type the FCC is trying to impose….This is so it can have more control over the business decisions made by Internet service providers. …”Net neutrality” is a good engineering principle, but it shouldn’t be a legal mandate. Technology and markets surpassed any need for command-and-control regulation in this area long ago. But regulators don’t give up power without a fight.
But maybe mockery is the best way to win this issue.
Here’s a new video from the folks at Protect Internet Freedom (the some people who put together the second video in this post).
If you’ve ever been at hold at the Department of Motor Vehicles or some other bureaucracy, this may cause uncomfortable and painful flashbacks.
And here’s another video, put together by Senator Cruz’s office.
Very well done, just like the humor Cruz’s office has deployed against Obamacare.
And speaking of humor, here are some new cartoons on the topic.
Though this next cartoon is my favorite because it so effectively captures my feelings.
The Internet has been a huge success, so why on earth would anybody think it will be better if a bunch of regulators can second-guess the free market?!?
If you want more cartoons on Internet regulation, here’s a collection that I shared last year.
P.S. Shifting to another topic, here’s a story that belongs in the category of “great moments in lobbying.”
Here are some excerpts from a story published by the Raleigh News and Observer.
Sex between lobbyists and government officials who are covered under North Carolina’s ethics laws does not constitute a gift that must be listed in disclosure reports, the State Ethics Commission said Friday. …The opinion was in a response to an inquiry from the Secretary of State’s lobbying compliance director, Joal H. Broun, in a letter on Dec. 15. …Broun’s request also wanted to know if that activity falls within the definition of “goodwill lobbying,” which is an indirect attempt to influence legislation or executive action, such as the building of relationships, according to state law, and is also considered lobbying.
I’m sure there are some serious points to be made, but I confess that my immediate reaction was to think about this cartoon.
Whether any “goodwill” is being created is a topic for another day.
That being said, you’ll be happy to know that actually procuring hookers is against the rules.
However, providing a prostitute to a legislator or other covered official would constitute a gift or item of value and would have to be reported on disclosure forms – which, of course, would also be evidence of a crime, the opinion says.
The good news is that this rule, if properly enforced, will protect a vulnerable group people from being morally corrupted.
But enough about the need to protect prostitutes from being contaminated by close proximity to politicians.
I want to close on a serious point. As I wrote the other day, the best way to reduce lobbying is to reduce the size and scope of government.
P.P.S. Actually, hookers and politicians have something in common.
P.P.P.S. If you liked my quip about protecting prostitutes from politicians, you’ll appreciate this Craig Ferguson joke.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member