The Department of the Internet

The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 10, 2014 | Andy Kessler

[abb]

Get ready for the Department of Broadband. On Monday, President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify the Internet as a public utility—like water or electricity—under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The goal: “to protect net neutrality,” Mr. Obama said in a White House YouTube video, an ironic venue for announcing a monumentally bad idea that could strangle the Internet.

For years the FCC has been inching toward imposing net-neutrality rules, which are sold as a way to ban Internet service providers from discriminating against content providers. In reality such rules would dictate what ISPs like Comcast and Verizon can charge for their services.

But the Internet cannot function as a public utility. First, public utilities don’t serve the public; they serve themselves, usually by maneuvering through Byzantine regulations that they helped craft. Utilities are about tariffs, rate bases, price caps and other chokeholds that kill real price discovery and almost guarantee the misallocation of resources.

The beauty of competition is that you get network neutrality for free. AT&T cut long-distance rates in the 1980s when MCI and Sprint started competing fiercely. Calling from San Francisco to New York became cheaper than calling from San Francisco to San Jose, because California tariff prices were still highly regulated. The same thing happened to international rates once Skype offered voice and video connections free online. And it is no surprise that AT&T hurried to offer its own gigabit Internet connection in Austin, Texas, as soon as Google Fiber showed up.

With no competition to stimulate investment, capabilities will wither. Eventually a federal bureaucracy will be needed to help allocate the scarce broadband resources. In that vaguely neutral world, everybody gets access to the same resources. Well, except for the government—it of course will need special, superfast access.

[abb]

Net Neutrality in the newspaper business would be if publishers were told by government that anyone could have access to their printing presses and distribution system.

[Crazieman]

I suppose the Department of the Internet is where they can shove all the government paid porn surfers.

[abb]

Truth be known, much of the push for “Net Neutrality” is from those who want unlimited download capability for their pr0n.

[Joe Boucher]

give the internet control to this DAMNED gubmint cause they F every other thing up, might as well let em screw this too.

[foreverfree]

Paywall on article.

[Diogenesis]

Obola-the-UNdocumented wants the Internet to bless
his crimes as have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, and AP.

[Biggirl]

This will all land up in the fed courts.

[abb]

It shouldn’t even get that far. Shut off the FCC’s money.

[Biggirl]

BINGO! We have a WINNER!

[Alberta's Child]

The author uses a bad example when he cites a case involving AT&T, Sprint and MCI. Those companies were inextricably linked to an industry that functioned as a "public utility" in every respect: local phone service. If there was no such thing as "phone service neutrality" back in those days, then local phone companies would be permitted to cut different deals with long-distance carriers regarding service, access, etc.

There are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue, but history suggests that what is being proposed in terms of "net neutrality" is not necessarily a bad thing.

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

You might ask what is in it for the gov’t. Control and a sweet 16% tax.

FCC Plans Stealth Internet Tax Increase
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3225658/posts

[abb]

Baloney. Here’s what they want. Human nature never changes, nor does tyranny. Remember, it was the Holy Roman Church that forbade Martin Luther from publishing the 99 Theses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.

The Act was originally limited to two years. The provisions as to importation of books, the appointment of licensers, and the number of printers and founders were practically re-enactments of the similar provisions in an order of the Star Chamber of 1637.

Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The act was successively renewed up to 1679.

[Flag_This]

" history suggests that what is being proposed in terms of "net neutrality" is not necessarily a bad thing."

Will it be "neutral" like the EPA, IRS and the Just-Us Dept.? Give the dims 5 minutes and it will necessarily become a bad thing.

[Mouton]

Sen Cruz had the perfect definition: Obamacare for the internet.

[abb]

Here’s some more history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_service

[abb]

More.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment

[Iron Munro]

Liberals, tyrants, totalitarians, tin-horn dictators (like Barack Obama), and other enemies of the US Constitution fear free speech almost as much as they hate the second amendment

[Pietro]

"net neutrality" is not necessarily a bad thing...

The bad thing is the gov. getting their greedy, filthy paws on the controls.

And make no mistake; that's what net neutrality is ALL about.

[ronnie raygun]

They want control like china has on the net plain and simple

[Alberta's Child]

Can you cite me any examples of how “tyranny” has impacted a public utility such as landline phone service that already operates under a “net neutral” model?