Obama: We Need to Regulate the Internet, for Freedom!
“Net neutrality” is government’s name for getting the FCC maximally involved in regulating the Internet. Sound like a great idea? Obama thinks so.
At the L.A. Times, David Lazarus frames the issue this way: Do you trust telecom industry? That’s why we need open Internet.
At Patterico.com, we frame the issue this way: Do you trust the federal government? That’s why we need no regulation by the FCC.
I trust the market to discipline telecoms to the extent such is possible (which, I submit, is considerable given the rate of technological innovation, elasticity of demand, and cross-penetration of markets).
I trust the government as little as I must, and never on issues like this one.
That’s not to say I think such laws or regulations would necessarily be unconstitutional. They might or might not, depending on how written and how applied.
But there are many, many, many things that would be constitutional that are profoundly unwise, and giving any more power over the internet to a government regulatory agency is a dreadful idea.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:47 pmBased on Obama’s track record alone, you’d want to jettison the idea.
Every bloomin’ thing our Choomer-in-Chief touches turns to dreck.
A_Nonny_Mouse (fe30e7) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:49 pmDo any of the president’s wealthy and influential Silicon Valley friends and supporters agree with this? I should think not.
elissa (3b4cf5) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:50 pmTed Cruz: “Net Neutrality” is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
Dana (8e74ce) — 11/10/2014 @ 7:53 pmHeh, elissa. I just heard Sergey Brin’s, Tim Cook’s, and Mark Zuckerberg’s checkbooks snapping shut too.
nk (dbc370) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:01 pmDidn’t the FCC already get slapped around by the Courts for trying this?
JD (285732) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:02 pmJD: They don’t need no stinkin’ badges, and they don’t care about no stinkin’ precedents.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:07 pmDid that hack Lazarus actually move from the Bay Area down to SoCal? to revive his moribund career? He’s beyond resuscitation.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:10 pmMouse is correct. Obama has the Fecal Touch.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:12 pmelissa: Actually the coalitions are very strange and disturbingly a-partisan on this. There are lots of different groups that have very strong viewpoints, but they’re odd bed-fellows at best, and even allies quite often have mutually inconsistent lists of priorities. There are Dems and Republicans, high-tech venture capitalists and old-school boldholders all finding themselves on both sides of some legislation. It’s a mess.
There have actually been a lot of hearings in the last couple of Congresses even though they didn’t result in consequential legislation.
My immediate concern, though, is that one of the groups of sharks is the group that is focused on control above everything else. They’re the Bolsheviks. They’re the ones who will adapt whatever position is politically expedient during this 15-minute interval so long as they can grab ongoing regulatory authority over it.
Sound like anyone we know?
It’s a perfect example of the kind of stuff that definitely ought not even be allowed a House floor vote in the lame duck, and while there are potentially deals to be made and legislative improvements that are pro-competitive to be negotiated, it’s something we ought do when the GOP has both chambers and isn’t in a big hurry. Maybe it should wait until 2017.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:14 pmFreedom’s just another word for nothing left to regulate,
not Janis (4fdf98) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:16 pmFreedom don’t mean nothing honey if it ain’t regulated, now now.
And feeling good is easy, Lord, when you regulate the blues,
You know feeling good is good enough for me,
Good enough for me and Obama McGee.
I know the left has this somewhat strange desire to regulate everything except exterminating fetuses, but markets always react. Information is not electricity or fuel oil. Trying to regulate market forces to create an equal playing field in the market of exchanging free ideas is akin to Prohibition. Sure, it can be done, but it will not be successful.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/10/2014 @ 8:56 pmth goal isn’t success, but control.
redc1c4 (b340a6) — 11/10/2014 @ 10:28 pm“We must cage freedom to preserve freedom.”
That sort of statement can only be made by one who either doesn’t understand the meaning of “freedom” or who gives only lip service to freedom.
I’m really not sure which is the case here. I do know a lot of people would prefer freedom to be exhibited in a zoo only, however.
Dan (00fc90) — 11/11/2014 @ 3:50 amI would prefer to frame the question thus; The justification for allowing the FCC to meddle extensively in free speech was that broadcast bands were a severely limited resource. That does not in any way apply to internet communication. Limited? Yes. All things are limited, except hubris. Severely limited? No.
That being moderately obvious, Obama’s motivation for calling for heavy regulation comes down to A) He wants to stifle free speech because it doesn’t run to his advantage or B) He is the kind of Big Government prat who never saw a situation that he though adding a bunch of bean counters to wouldn’t improve. So he’s either a scoundrel or a fool.
But we knew that.
C. S. P. Schofield (848299) — 11/11/2014 @ 5:57 amhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/11/stock-market-is-overvalued-by-100-says.html
DNF (4c9418) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:07 amCO2 not considered: Climate history the father of current climate
DNF (4c9418) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:13 amhttp://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/11/climate-model-predicts-very-cold-winter.html
DNF (4c9418) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:14 amation is being proposed, but instead a FCC regulation (or reclassification of ISPS as common carriers)
The FCC is 3-2 Democrat, but theer are legal problems with the FCC doing just what it wanst to, and no more. No setting rates, of course, but there may be other things it might have to do.
Obama wanted to weigh in as a means of pressuring the commissioners he had appointed to
find a way to do it. (and to satisfy lobbyists, I would assume)
His message is that his Department of Justice will defend in court what the FCC does if at all possible..
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:19 am*No legislation on net neutrality is being proposed.
Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 11/11/2014 @ 8:19 amHow so? Net Neutrality is the idea that no one can regulate who accesses what content on the internet, for profit motive or otherwise. Classification of ISPs as a common carrier recognizes that the internet is public infrastructure, which the ISPs maintain under federal license (as opposed to being owners of the internet conduits). Sure, you could also portray telephony and interstate highways to be “maximally regulated”, but who is arguing for those things to be turned over the phone lines and the highways to be privatized?
biwah (6e79e5) — 11/11/2014 @ 9:23 amI agree that the net should be neutral. However, I also believe that putting the government in charge of it, especially the FCC which has practiced real censorship is not the right way to implement it. The government is rarely successful, especially the FCC who is guilty of censorship. They would add fees to your internet bill. There has to be another way without the government. Maybe if we had choice of whom our internet provider could be?
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 11/11/2014 @ 11:33 amWhat are your examples of FCC censorship? I have no love for David Wheeler or the FCC, but if anything the agency is married to industry – you want to see legalized corruption, the FCC is a good example. Also, we in the U.S. have some of the most expensive internet access in the world and the companies want to limit our access even further, then sell it back to us for more fees. And we already pay taxes on it.
Classify internet access as a utility and call the companies common carriers, so the companies are just managing the network and selling access, as opposed to rent-seeking and picking content. What added power does this actually give the federal government? It seems that people are afraid a bunch of things are going to happen that have nothing to do with net neutrality one way or the other.
biwah (6e79e5) — 11/11/2014 @ 1:23 pmWhat are your examples of FCC censorship?
The Super Bowl Janet Janet wardrobe malfunction? No more porn on the internet? Forget you, man.
nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2014 @ 1:33 pmJanet Jackson
nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2014 @ 1:33 pmWho’s up for a new government Department of Broadband?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/11/2014 @ 1:47 pmKeep your ink-stained hands off my bare-breasted Liberty, FCC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Leading_the_People#mediaviewer/File:Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_La_libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg
nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2014 @ 1:52 pmlayers of editors,
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-11/meet-the-mildmannered-investment-advisor-whos-humiliating-the-administration-over-obamacare
how is this stew, different from the last bunch,
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/11/2014 @ 2:01 pmNet neutrality is not some new liberal invention to interfere with the internet. What we have now (and have always had since the birth of the internet) is net neutrality. What the FCC is trying to is remove this neutrality. This removal of net neutrality would be a government overreach, abysmally unsound policy, and contrary to the will of the people. Net neutrality enjoys broad support from voters across the political spectrum.
The removal of net neutrality would give internet service providers (ISPs) the greenlight to extort content providers. Internet users would have their speeds throttled when visiting sites that failed to pay (the new) fees to ISPs. This isn’t some conspiracy theory either – Comcast has already used throttling to extort additional money out of Netflix in a blatantly illegal move. With the removal of net neutrality this would be perfectly legal and every ISP would make this standard policy.
Eric (9bc338) — 11/11/2014 @ 2:28 pmhttp://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
time123@gmail.com (03e182) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:06 amThe FCC has the power to regulate speech. Just look up the “fairness doctrine” which was far from fair.
Also The FCC and Freedom of Speech.
We do not want the FCC regulating speech on the internet which they will do, because they are a government entity and that’s what they do, because they can’t help themselves.
Tanny O'Haley (c674c7) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:40 amWe are never so free as when every aspect of our lives is regulated by the central planning committee of the Democratic party.
I’m feeling freer already, just knowing they’ve targeted the internet.
I am so tired of being enslaved by the drudgery of having to think for myself and weed out all the unapproved thought that mars the interwebs. I prefer my interwebs pre-weeded, just like in that Garden of Eden that Tom Friedman and the rest of the NYT editorial board tells me exists in communist China.
Steve57 (c1c90e) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:13 amit’s like THX 1138 is their favorite film
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/goodbye-dalai-obama-throws-tibet-under-the-bus-as-he-grovels-before-chicoms/
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:21 amChart pR0n:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-11/just-15-wtf-charts
DNF (d34af1) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:03 am