Net Neutrality is the government’s takeover of the internet. The government says the regulations are needed to make the internet fair. When was the internet unfair? This is nothing more than a power grab by the government to tax and add unnecessary fees and regulations to internet providers, who in turn will pass those costs onto the consumer.
The internet is not a utility, and neither should it be treated like a utility. The liberal progressives and Obama want to regulate the internet like a utility. What it means for anyone using the internet: Higher Costs!
Have you ever looked closely at your phone bill? Have you ever wondered what are all those little charges at the end of your bill?
- Access Recovery Charge
- Federal Excise Tax
- Federal Universal Service Fee
- Intrastate Surcharge
- Public Service Company Tax
- PUC Tax
- Subscriber Line Charge
- Telecommunications Relay Service
These are just some of the extra fees and taxes that are added to your phone bill. If your phone company is your internet provider, then these are just some of the utility charges tacked onto your monthly billing.
Currently, the internet is open and free. So why does the government think that rules need to be applied? Answer: Control. Once the government starts making rules as to the accessibility to the internet content, then it will be like an electronic curtain that will descend and restrict access to certain sites. It’s a pay to play scheme by the government to extort fairness at a cost. A corporate protection racket that uses government as the muscle.
The government will use the straw-man argument that providers regulate network speeds, but network speeds have been getting faster year after year. Broadband speeds are faster now, than they were 5 years ago. The free market has been encouraging innovation and competition by internet service providers (ISP). Yet, the government makes the argument that network providers are not fair.
That’s where the free market comes into play. There’s not a lack of service providers, and people who are dissatisfied with their ISP can find another provider. What it really is corporations trying to protect their monopoly over their competition. Basically, larger companies trying to block out smaller companies with better ideas.
Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.
So why is the document a secret? It’s because the government wants to regulate all websites and apps to force providers into unfair regulatory burdens based on what the government calls “fairness”. If you are app developer, then the FCC will put regulations on your intellectual property. If you run a website for your business, then the FCC will regulate who can access your website based on their regulatory rules.
It essentially means the end of the internet. This has got to stop. What the FCC is doing is the same thing as what China does to its people on the internet. Restricting access to a open and free internet. It is what Obamacare is to healthcare services. It just increases the cost of doing business and destroys development innovation.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Under Title II, regulators will have the power to invalidate many Internet practices that deliver enormous value to consumers. Today, Amazon has a deal with Sprint enabling Kindle’s rapid downloads of e-books, which competing e-book sellers could claim was “unjust.” The WhatsApp messaging system acquired by Facebook lets people text for free, which traditional mobile phone companies might well consider “unreasonable.” Netflix will regret lobbying for Title II if its competitors object to its special deals that enable its smooth delivery of bandwidth-intensive video.
Under Title II, almost all Web operations will be subject to bureaucratic control. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court warned that if the FCC treated the Internet as a telecommunications service, it “would subject to mandatory common carrier regulation all information service providers that use telecommunications as an input to provide information service to the public”—in other words, almost all websites and apps would be subject to regulation.
This means the FCC will be able to decide the “reasonableness” of many websites and services: Regulators could micromanage Google search results on the ground that the company uses “telecommunications” to link to other sites. The FCC could oversee news publishers that link to other news sites or have online advertisements connecting to advertiser websites. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter involve telecommunication services, as do email services from Google and Yahoo .
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, hurts innovation and protects corporate monopolies. The “Fairness Doctrine” forced AM radio stations to provide equal content on the airways. Content that most people don’t find of any value, but it has to be done out of fairness, and not out of competitiveness. National Public Radio (NPR), a taxpayer funded radio station, wouldn’t survive in an open market today. Even though NPR gets a majority of its funding from taxpayer monies, it still has to perform public fund raising. Begging for more money.
When Ronald Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine regulation, it gave rise to the popular Conservative Talk Radio. This new medium literally saved AM radio stations, which were diminishing to FM radio. The popularity of Conservative Talk Radio has been the envy of leftist liberals. They don’t like Conservative Talk Radio because it doesn’t fit their socialist narrative. It cannot be controlled for equal content. Conservative Talk Radio survives because it provides content consumers want.
If leftist liberals had control of the AM airwaves to force equal content, it would be similar to Michelle Obama’s school lunches, where the government will dictate what information you will be fed. That does not feed Free Thinking with nutritional content.
Competition in the free markets created companies like Apple, Google and Twitter. These technologies would have never existed using the 1934 regulations. This innovation will now be regulated by a technology inept government that will be subjected by corporate lobbyists to monopolize their markets. Companies will either survive, or die, based on what the consumer finds of value. The government regulations will stifle innovations and new technologies that consumers will find of value will be prohibited from growing.
There would be no Apple today if these regulations were in place. What the government is doing is going back to the days when AT&T controlled the phone lines and restricted who could plug into their network. Innovation would revert back to a black corded phones hanging on the wall with a rotary dial. Because the government will consider this technology protected, and it would be protected by lobbyist buying off politicians to protect their monopoly.
This has Obama and the democrats written all around this. This government intrusion is neither needed nor wanted.
What’s For Dinner?
Pan Seared Ahi Tuna over Jasmine Rice and Vegetable Melange