As we’ve mentioned before, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has begun an unprecedented foray into a hitherto untouched area: Internet regulation. The socialist organizations Free Press and Public Knowledge, along with new FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, have long waged a campaign for “Net Neutrality,” which would lay the foundations for government regulation of the Net and how information travels through the lines to your home. Now realizing the FCC might not have the legal authority to do so, these groups have proposed completely redefining how the FCC treats the Internet to pursue this ambitious power grab.

 

For years, the FCC has determined that the Internet be regulated as an “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act (see here, here, here, and here). But since this classification only gives the FCC ancillary and tenuous jurisdiction to regulate the Net, there is now talk of simply reclassifying it as a Title II service – placing it under the same regulatory structure as traditional phone lines that dates back one hundred years.

 

So, what would this mean? Say goodbye to free markets and competition that has brought Internet to over 95% of Americans and developed at least six current choices of Internet service (from cable to wireless broadband).  Say hello to vague and unprecedented legal authority that would turn the Net into a series of dumb, government controlled pipes and permit the FCC to virtually regulate how fast your Internet is, how your Internet is priced, and even whether you would have to pay the same ridiculous taxes and universal service fund charges currently levied on your landline phone bill. The justification for the change? An “open” Internet. Yes, that same terrific and open Internet you already enjoy.

 

As FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell stated so eloquently, “innovation and investment in broadband did not come about due to a government mandate.”  We couldn’t agree more. The Internet has become the marvel it is today by keeping the FCC’s hands off it entirely.

I want my Internet Service Provider to regulate the speed of certain sites. If my provider is owned by CBS, I want that provider to ensure that CBS television shows stream amazingly well on my PC. NBC shows? Let 'em stream in drips and drags. That's the free market, baby. The government should not be able to lightly regulate a relatively new market. That's just wrong!
>> Phil Munz Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:26 PM Report Comment

THEY SHOULDN'T THINK OF ALL THE AMAZING THINGS THE INTERNET HAS TO OFFER AND IT WAS ALL DONE THROUGH SPONTANEOUS ORDER RATHER THAN SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT REGULATION
>> George Hutchins Tuesday, February 16, 2010 4:34 PM Report Comment

One remarkable aspect of the internet revolution of the past 2 decades is that it has produced a sprawling, rapidly-developing, technologically groundbreaking communications network that has flourished with generally minimal government intrusion - let's keep it that way.
>> Joel, NH Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:02 PM Report Comment

@ Joel - I couldn't agree more. The beauty of the internet is that virtually anyone can access it from anytime, anywhere, and on the cheap. Government regulations do nothing but inhibit civilian access to good, free market concepts. And it's not as though the FCC doesn't already have enough to regulate!
>> Tea Partier Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:28 AM Report Comment

Phil - Luckily in your conspiracy theory hypothetical world, if any ISP ever tried to filter content consumers would swiftly switch to a new provider. Yours is a socialist argument reserved for those who don't understand that individual consumers, not government, regulate businesses. If anyone is going to slow my overall Internet speed and sort through data packets I download, I certainly wouldn't prefer it to be a monopolistic regulatory agency with little oversight.
>> Kelly William Cobb Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:44 PM Report Comment

I'd hardly put the US out as an exemplar of competition. The US has one of the least competitive broadband markets in the world, where most houses have no more than 2 providers, and some 30% have one or none. Meanwhile, "socialist" Europe has higher speeds, lower prices, and better penetration, because of government policies that promote line-sharing and other forms of competition.
>> ask Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:30 PM Report Comment

The first wave of ISPs could not have existed without non-discrimination regulation. The Bells hated that you could dial into other companies and use other services over their lines. The FCC barred them from doing anything about it. If the policy you advocate was in place in the 1990s, we'd have a bunch of telco-controlled walled gardens a la Prodigy and AOL, not a network of networks based on the principle of interconnection.
>> ask Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:42 PM Report Comment

Wow, somebody actually noticed that this fraud at the FCC is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong? He has no authority to regulate the internet, FCC only has regulatory authority over THE SPECTRUM...What's next, he wants to regulate newspapers? This is the kind of socialist creep you get from these leftist crooks...
>> jeff Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:33 PM Report Comment

This administration has already proven it cannot be trusted. I cannot get behind anything it proposes that would give the Federal government MORE power in ANY sphere. What's wrong with them simply sticking to the powers delegated in the Constitution anyway?
>> onceproudamerican Friday, February 19, 2010 9:20 PM Report Comment