Why Obama is Wrong about Net Neutrality and His Scheme Must Be Defeated
by Jim LakelyAs Capitol Confidential noted the other day, net neutrality is an issue that that is dear to the left, but has flown under the radar of most Americans. It’s a rather technical and arcane subject, but can be summed up rather simply: Net neutrality rules enforced by the Federal Communications Commission would allow government bureaucrats to micromanage the Internet — thus sucking out the lifeblood of the digital economy and threatening the dynamism and freedom we’ve come to take for granted online.
Proponents of net neutrality claim that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) abuse their position as “gatekeepers” to the Web, and the public needs government to establish strict “rules of the road” to protect us from their scheming. Trouble is, the evidence of abusive practices by ISPs is anecdotal and thinner than an iPod mini. The digital economy is currently so dynamic and cutthroat that free-market forces work quickly to correct any undesirable hiccups that arise — all without any micro-managing of the tech industry by government.
Net neutrality advocates insist we need government to preserve an “open” and “free” Internet and claim the market has failed. But they cannot point to any market failures that make the Internet less open or free. In short, the Internet isn’t broken. And it doesn’t need a government fix. No matter. The left presses ahead, because the facts are irrelevant. The goal is to put government in charge of digital policy, taking away your freedom as a consumer to shape the Internet with your own choices.
This would stifle the enormous private investment and innovation that has created the modern Internet — in part, because industries would be relegated to playing “Mother May I?” with the FCC before releasing its latest innovation. And that’s the best-case scenario. The Reason Foundation’s Steve Titch argues that if government-enforced net neutrality rules were in place five years ago, the iPhone as we know it wouldn’t exist. But on a more basic level, only a committed leftist could believe that more government involvement in … well … anything results is more economic dynamism and gains in personal freedom.
As noted in the video below, produced by The Heartland Institute, government isn’t in the business of preserving freedom, but of exercising power to regulate industries and control people. And this is an important thing to keep in mind — especially since President Obama recently reiterated his commitment to have government enforce a net neutrality regime on your Internet.
The video takes apart Obama’s statements on the subject in his Feb. 1 YouTube interview, and attempts to take the broader view so what’s at stake can be better understood by non-techies.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
66 Comments
Uh, what has Obama done that is RIGHT?
NOTHING! He's a megalomaniacal SOCIALIST/MARXIST.
I'm not being cute. I'm being literal. He/They want government to RUN YOUR LIFE.
To do that, THEY NEED YOUR MONEY! See a pettern?
Everything these people want to do is about control. They are the antithesis of the our founders, and they must be defeated. I just hope the country can survive their reign long enough to set things right.
Anekdotal your ass! Comcast throttling bittorent! Wireless operators blocking skype! You've clearly been paid by telecoms!
This isn't strictly a government initiative. The biggest private-sector advocates of Net Neutrality are Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft who intend to become the "Abusive Gatekeepers" of the internet. This is an unholy alliance between crony capitalism and socialism.
I see a "pettern" between the incidence of CAPs and the retardedness of the poster
NO! NO! NO! NO! HELL NO!
Not going to happen, OBAMA!
TYRANNY IS KNOCKING AT OUR FRONT DOOR
Obama is a confirmed marxist — beware all — or we'll end up like the Iranian or Chinese people.
Socialist / Marxists seek to change the operating freedom paradigm on all things from —
Freedom: "Everything is assumed to be permitted unless specifically excluded" to —
Socialism: "Everything is assumed to be excluded unless explicit government permission is granted".
Beware of this and never let them change the paradigm on anything. That's how they take your freedom.
.
Immigration Reform….Health Care Reform…..Net Neutrality……Pet Rocks
It's all in the label and it sells like hot cakes.
The only good thing is that Obama's credibility has eroded to the point that (hopefully) most Americans have come to the realization that……
This man not only can't walk on water….hell he can't even swim.
Anytime a DEM/Progressive/Socialist/Marxists say anything turn it 180 degrees and you have the truth! Net Neutrality means all the little companies go out of business and the large ones increase market share, and blame government regulations for all of their faults. Government can then control the flow of information as they only have to deal with a few international companies with the threat of pulling their license.
So, we will have the FCC of the internet telling us what we can or cannot say on the internet….If one political party hates the other so much, how can any party trust the government with this much power? The pendulim swings boths ways. Do not grant the government the power to police the free exchange of ideas, or the free exchange of ideas will no longer be free.
I see a correlation between the utter lack of intelligence and inability to spell correctly or use spellcheck (retardedness is not a word) when weakly attempting to correct someone else for the same offense, and the smug self assuredness that comes with being a dogmatic AGW 'useful idiot' who obviously doesn't understand it's unwise to cast stones from the keyboard in the basement of it's mother's glass house.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it, keep your hands off the net.
The media is generally in the bag for the commies. They and we know that the internet is a strong source of competition (no, I don't mean convergence and impressions and all that advertising crap)… I mean competition for their main stream media lock down on the flow of ideas. This must not be allowed to progress or defending our constitution and liberties will be much more difficult.
Thanks for the article, Mr. Lakely! It points out everything that is right and good about Adam Smith's view of free market capitalism. As you mentioned indirectly in your article, nowhere do we see more clearly the "invisible hand" of the market policing itself and providing the best products and services at the lowest prices…all without any "help" from government.
This is precisely why it can not be allowed to continue! People might discover that the government has never "fixed" anything if this example is allowed to remain on display. Smith was right, Keynes was wrong and government is never the answer to a market problem.
The Internet is open and fair….and they can not stand it….they have no control…….They want to get the claws in to get tax $,
Touche' and kudos!
When has any Bill done what the title says. It is always the opposite of what it says. If you do not like your ISP get another one. Keep Government out of the way. If you regulate it is not open or neutral anymore. The Internet as it exists today would not have been possible if government had tried to regulate it.
Obama and democrat interest in the internet has nothing to do with Comcast or bittorent or Skype. In Obama land these companies will pay an extortion fee to the DNC and continue as usually. What Obie and the dems want is control of political speech on the net. In other words their voice only…no one else.
Your advice is wasted on this ignorant troglodyte. Let him wallow in the misery of dial-up for all eternity. He obviously knows nothing about how free markets are supposed to work and his place in that market.
Oh, and Chuck? "Free markets" does NOT mean Obama will give you free high speed internet!
Thanks for your excellent reply. Keep spreadin' the good word.
Net neutrality is about control of the internet by thought police. It has nothing to do with commerce. Why wouldn't Microsoft, Yahoo and Google get on board. They would then be the sanctioned government companies.
What's being proposed has NOTHING to do with your downloading music/movies/pron and everything to do with controlling CONTENT. You do realize the blogosphere has neutered your government controlling the message do you not? For the first time EVER we are able to see history as it happens and at levels of detail Woodward and Bernstein could never have imagined possible. This is exactly what is behind YOUR government wanting to resume the level of control once enjoyed by the American military. Read the history of the internet itself.
Oh and as for your downloads, Mr Biden is very much the RIAA/MPAA bought and paid for politico. Care to venture a guess as to exactly where that lands him on shedding tears for your download hobby?
Corporatism is a failure of capatlists to succeed on merit. It is the most immoral thing a capatalist can do. Success should never come by legislating various sectors of a market to allow your company to succeed while another's fails.
Good article, Jim, concise and to the point. Keep up the good work. You still have fans in Fred.
Everything about them is queer.
Net neutrality. Fairness Doctrine. Cash For (Recalls) Clunkers. Cass. Jennings. That Hungarian guy. Yosi. Buffy. Damn I could go on all day.
P.S. Blago Babes. Mr. Governor. I'm with you 100%. Play ALL THE TAPES. Listening to Rahm Emanual try to rip everyone new ones in what most us already know was an Auction For Offices stint. (Not queer….crooked)
The end game is to void freedom of speech.
A marxist is a marxist is a marxist.
See new interview on newzealblogspot.com with former fellow student from Occidental. (thanks Trevor)
A raving Marxist is a raving Marxist is a raving Marxist.
So far today on BIgGov we have addressed our first and second ammendment rights
which our Marxist president would flush and flush and flush.
With net neutrality, the Gov't actually gets a "twofer". They can control speech AND reinforce the idea of Keynesian economics, which is a patent failure. Both of these "benefits" are goals of a socialist regime. Control the press and control the economy. All that's left is to control the means of production…and they're working on that as fast as they can. It should be obvious to everyone at this point how much danger we are actually in right now.
This is such a tired argument, they say one thing to gain support, then they do another to accomplish their goal, this is the way of the leftist politician. Wrap a lie in a shallow half truth in the hopes that the public is too stupid to figure it out.,
This is all about censorship, plaina and simple. There are useful idiots on the proponent side that have good intentions, and they will happily skip down the road to hell following them.
Amen Rich. Government intervention in any area always results in, at least, a boondoggle of immense proportions or an outright power grab, resulting in a loss of rights.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Another article about Net Neutrality from someone who has no understanding of how the internet works… Great. Net Neutrality, as it has existed prior to politicization is absolutely necessary for the continuance of the internet as the open and free platform that we know it. Corporate lobbyist are working to poison what technology experts call Net Neutrality in an effort to paint it as an FCC takeover of the internet, which some politicians on both sides of the aisle might like.
Without Net Neutrality ISPs will be able to charge businesses multiple times for internet access. As it stands now you pay 1 person, your ISP for internet access and from that point on the traffic from one source or of one type is not to be discriminated against, i.e blocked, throttled, etc.
ISPs and other corporations are pushing to have Net Neutrality killed so that they can erect a barrier to for new internet business. They want you to have to pay your ISP, then go pay every other private network on that your traffic may pass through another fee for priority. This fundamentally breaks the way the internet has worked and will give large corporate a great amount of power over small companies trying to enter the market.
Think of all of the great internet start-ups over the years. Do you think they would have all come about if they had had to pay Google, Akamai, Comcast, AOL, AT&T, etc etc etc each for access and priority on their networks. Remember that the foundation of the internet is built on technology developed by DARPA and the major ISP infrastructure has been subsidized by the American taxpayer over the years.
This is a major issue, if you want to read about it please get your information from technology people and not politicians/media/lobbyist groups who don't understand how it works.
http://www.eff.org has great coverage of Net Neutrality, both of why Net Neutrality is needed and how our politicians are being paid of by corporate lobbyist to neuter Net Neutrality or bastardize it into so FCC takeover.
The progressives have turned print media into Pravda and have a strangle hold on most television. Government is trying to pick off the internet, talk radio, and FOX to complete the control of information which must be done to advance the Marxist lunacy. Resist.
Yet another reminder of the terrible mistake we made electing No lie Nobama. Too many tax users allowed to vote (for more welfare).
Nice list of potentially bad things happening you've got there, Scott. How about we see if any of them happen — and if current regulations and market forces don't correct them — before giving the FCC broad power to micromanage the Internet?
Net Neutrality is another vile plan the the Obama administration is supporting to fundamentally transform the FCC into the White House Propaganda Ministry. Check out the comments of two key players in the FCC, the infamous Mark Lloyd, and former FCC Chairman, now Commissioner Michael Copps, there are the foxes in the hen house for sure. If they succeed in this we are all doomed.
Exactly right. They will stop at nothing to silence opposition. Since our nation has laws protecting freedom of speech their only option is to limit their ability to reach the masses by intimating and regulating the media.
Just look how the left manipulated the health insurers! The left exempted them from anti-trust laws allowing them to fix pricing and in turn the continued to threaten to revoke the exemption if they didn't comply. They used the profits as a means of control much like a pimp would use crack or some other drug to keep their prostitutes dependent on them. It's the same with government subsidies and social programs. They create and encourage dependence as a means of control yet all the while they pretend to care what those people want. It is very much like caging wild pigs one fence at a time. Before you know it the gate is shut and the pigs are ready for slaughter.
I normally agree with Republicans in general, and conservatives overall, but in this case, I have to disagree. Abuses by ISPs are not anectdotal. There have been lawsuits against Verizon, and others over them shutting down or greatly restricting the access of some users. My understanding of Net Neutrality, is that it would prevent these companies from blocking users access, or more importantly, restricting them so they can only use a small amount of bandwidth. Thus, I'm in favor of Net Neutrality, at least until I hear some decent reasons why I should oppose it.
Scott, you should submit a counter-piece to Big Government.
Obamunism poses the biggest threat to the future of the USA since the Civil War.
If you like what Hugo Chavez has done to the freedom of the press in Venezuela,
You'll absolutely love what ObaMarx has planned for the USA.
I, NBC, promise to cross promote, product place, placate and propagate Comcast/AT&T's propaganda. And, that's not all. We promise to do it with a shiny smile while skipping to Bri-tunes, waving red, white and blue pom-poms and singing the Star-Spangled Banner.
We at NBC have shown that we are a compliant partner, proven to have and hold tightly all unsightly corporate secrets. You see we have been married before. During that marriage, we learned loose lips sink ships-the military kind-with engines made by our first corporate betrothed, GE.
Scott while you have it all wrong on net neutrality, I thank you for the great link eff, by the way, they completely oppose youn views…
LOL
Nearly everything he says or does is wrong, but I will give him credit for pressing the war in Pakistan. Drone attacks are frequent, and effective.
Thing is everyone, Simply put: You can't believe a word he says!!!. Name one thing he has said in the mirriad of speaches that he has said, that he has actually done(Unless it involved spening our $). To be honest when I see him talk, It reminds me of the teacher in the Charlie Brown cartoons. Alot of talk, Can't understand a thing!!!!! Nothing but lies!!!
Your evidence is lacking. I still get fantastic speeds on torrents with Comcast.
Also, there is a free-market solution to the problem you describe, there are dozens of ISPs out there that you can use who promise to throttle nothing.
I suggest you do some research on the alternatives to big name ISPs. Open your eyes.
More of the 'ubiquitous' nature of the Obama administration trying to be all things to all people.
How politically incorrect of you, Yellow snow!
It's amazing JM Keynes is even mentioned in this day and age, much less adherents to his faux policies abound in government. But of course, as you pointed out, the politicians use Keynes as an excuse, especially in economic times of duress, to spend even more and grow deficits to unmanagable heights.Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek should be required reading in all High Schools today.
BTW, I'm having problems with my outbox, I'll get the problem fixed today and fire an e-m to you.ttyl
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hanzo
Ok, I take it back. I just reread the proposed net neutrality rules, and the way it reads to me, it would allow allow the same practices that net neutrality was first proposed to prevent. With this in mind, I have to ask, how is handing over control of the internet, better then what we have today.
Obama is wrong about everything. Like the Clintons, there is always a hidden agenda and nothing that these National Socialists do can be trusted. They are like bad magicians who try to use subterfuge and misdirection, but with the internet and talk radio and even educated citizens, they are no longer fooling anyone.
It's like using a high-speed camera and then watching the playback in slow motion. We see everything that they are doing. We see that card up their sleeve, the trap doors, the mirrors, and we see through the smoke they are blowing.
Just as global warmongering has been exposed, so to everything Obama and his buds are doing is quickly being exposed and we see it stinks on dry ice.
Everyone should read or watch Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" When Vonnegut wrote it, he was semiserious. But today we really do have a US Handicapper General whose job it is to make all outcomes and all people equal.
While all men are "created" equal, that does not mean that they remain that way, and we should not let a National Socialist government to try to make it happen.
Oh I wish my fellow conservatives would wake up on this issue! Don't you realize that there are lots of conservatives who strongly support net neutrality too? For example the Christian Coalition has long been a strong supporter of net neutrality regulation because they recognize that neutral treatment of internet content by ISPs is essential to maintaining freedom of speech on the web. Net neutrality is nothing more than a stand against corporate censorship of the web, which is every bit as dangerous as government censorship.
The only reason we have the benefits of the internet the way it is now is because it currently IS neutral, but that neutrality has only been preserved by the vigilance of consumers who protest any effort by ISPs to block or favor certain websites over others. With an industry that is in most locations at best a duopoly and no real competition exists, there is a point where consumer protest is simply not enough. That is why we need laws to enforce the currently existing de facto state of net neutrality before ISPs have a chance to change it (and they DO want to). We must oppose censorship and concentration of power over the internet into the hands of a few, regardless of whether they are government or corporations.
I am an ardent conservative just like anyone else here, and if you really understood what net neutrality means you would realize that net neutrality is a conservative issue! Please read this blog post I wrote a while ago, explaining why conservatives should support net neutrality.
Conservative = net neutrality? Impossible mutually exclusive. does not compute
A true conservative trusts the Market not the Government, plain and simple if you don't feel that way then you only think you are a conservative.
Do you know the players involved in the FCC? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you.don't. If that assumption is correct I respectfully suggest you look at my previous post and find out just who's hands it is you are putting our precious first amendment rights in, if you are the conservative you say you are. you will change your mind I'm sure …
ok, one more time, people: The main problem is that Obama's Ministry of Truth has redefined the original meaning of Net Neutrality: Net neutrality, as originally conceived, was the notion that ISPs ought not be allowed to shape packets or otherwise filter traffic in such a way that certain protocols (BitTorrent, Skype, etc) are given lower priority as compared with other protocols (your ISP's own voice-over-IP service), and that ISPs ought not be allowed to preferentially direct traffic to preferred search engines (Bing vs Google vs Yahoo, etc), and other similar, "neutral" concepts. In other words, all net traffic is to be treated as ones and zeroes–ISPs are to be allowed to charge more as a customer uses more bandwidth, but the ISP would NOT be allowed to charge more as the customer uses more of his free will to decide which search engine, or voice-over-IP technology to use, or "abuses the privilege" of using BitTorrent (could be charged more for greater usage, but not for using the protocol).
In ObamaNation, Net Neutrality has been redefined as some sort of "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet, with the FCC playing the role of determining what manner and type of usage of the 'net is within bounds ("all usages of the 'net are neutral, but some are more neutral than others").
This whole debate has become a buzzword thing–whenever someone tells me that they are for/against "Net Neutrality", I have to ask a bunch of questions before I really have any idea what that person is advocating.
That should be "smug self-assuredness" with a hyphen, I think you will find.
Also, "it's" in the last line is grammatically incorrect, and your metaphor is so stretched it barely makes sense.
Furthermore, "it's" should in any case be "his" or "her", and you might want to think about breaking up your long, ranting sentences with periods and commas, as a courtesy to your readers.
Here, have your stones back.
This is the best article I have found to date that explains net neutrality for every guy, even us techno-newbs. I have linked your article and video in my blog post today. Well done, brother.
"Smug self-assurance" would certainly be a lot more smug than self-assuredness.
"wireless operators blocking skype"? You must be unfamiliar with Verizon offering skype for several of its smartphones starting in March. Skype to skype calls, thru Verizon, won't use your plans minutes. International calls will be billed @ 2.1 cents per minute, much less than verizon's rate. Care to tell us exactly how wireless companies are blocking skype, or how about actual evidence of your other claims, instead of vague accusations?
ISPs are given monopolies in many areas and as such do NOT deserve to have free reign. Either allow free competition by allowing more than one cable company in a city or use net neutrality to ensure they do not abuse their powers. At the moment we have the worse of both worlds.
This would work if ISPs weren't monopolies. I only have two options for internet, cable or dialup. I would be forced to whatever censorship that ISP has decided on. I don't want large tech companies (like Google) telling me what to read or not.
Coffeemakers…
[...]Listed below are links from authority web sites that have been used as a source to this article [...]…
French Coffee Maker…
[...]Listed below are links from authority web sites that have been used as a source to this post [...]…
As much as I hate Obozo and everything he stands for I have to say this is the only thing he has right at least on the surface.Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning of the internet and losing it to corporate interests would be horrible in my opinion. Enforcing net neutrality isnt a government take over in itself but rather maintaining the status quo. Granted knowing Obozos past actions he is likely to go to far in regulation of other aspects but as much as I distrust government I dont trust corporate greed much either. Keep net neutrality for a free and fair access users and developers.
Friends don't let friends vote Communist. Defeat ALL Democrats in November and send Comrade Barry packing in 2012.
[...] is ‘Net Neutrality?’ Jim Lakely at Big Government writes: Proponents of net neutrality claim that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) abuse their position as [...]
Recent Blogroll Additions……
[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……
puppy breeders The example of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the need of limitations and easiness of that allows developers to finish loaded knowledge and ‘skin’ the computer in such a way that with less endeavor one would never remark w…
The example of these blogging engines and CMS platforms is the need of limitations and easiness of that allows developers to finish loaded knowledge and ‘skin’ the computer in such a way that with less endeavor one would never remark what it is making …
You must be logged in to post a comment.