FCC's 'net neutrality' is nonsense
CHEYENNE, Wyom. — “Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge or effort, should be private property — by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” — Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves,” 1964
Originally established through the Communications Act of 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the mission of “regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available … a rapid, efficient, nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”
“Adequate” and “reasonable — as defined by whom? Why, the FCC, which immediately assumed the task of assigning FCC broadcast licenses, renewed yearly, provided such broadcasters met the FCC’s criteria of serving the “public interest”— such “public interest” being defined, of course, by … the FCC.
Today, 76 years later, the FCC intends to modernize its operations: “The chairman of the FCC last week called for a reclassification of broadband from an information service to a telecommunications service, a reordering that would bring Internet service providers more clearly within the agency’s regulatory authority.”
“FCC wants more control over broadband transmission,” IT ChannelPlanet, May 9.
The FCC, having just lost a ruling by a federal court of appeals (Comcast vs. FCC, April 6) in its attempt to regulate the manner in which Comcast controls its network traffic, is now seeking to redefine broadband Internet provision so that it falls within its clutches. Nifty, huh?
The push for that redefinition is the FCC’s declaration of the (alleged) virtues of “net neutrality,” a policy by which all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat all Internet services equally. The FCC, you see, has a problem with ISPs actually controlling their own networks according to bandwidth demand, for it deems that practice to be “uncompetitive.”
At a recent FCC workshop held in Seattle on April 28, for instance, Bill Schrier, Seattle’s Chief Information Officer, said that “the ISP market is largely uncompetitive” and that “‘in the Emerald City, Internet users have two choices: Comcast or Broadstripe for cable Internet, or Qwest for DSL.’ Uncompetitive industries, panelists said, need regulation.” — Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 29.
What are these proponents of “net neutrality” failing to tell you? That, in most areas of the country it is local government franchise regulations that control who supplies broadband Internet services, which means: “net neutrality” advocates are using the failures of previous anti-competitive market regulation as the basis for new regulation. How’s that for giving the patient more of what ailed him to begin with?
If you’re concerned about the FCC attempting to enlarge its desired role from merely regulating Internet pipelines to controlling Internet content? Have no fear, for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, as the original IT ChannelPlanet article states, has said that “FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content.”
How about the next commissioner, who might very well have a different opinion?
The root problem here is not “unfair” business practices on the part of ISPs; no, that’s just the window-dressing, the short-term means of getting the camel’s nose under the tent. The true problem is the existence of the FCC itself: by legally permitting this entity the “right” to regulate and license any broadcast or telecommunications media on the basis of what constitutes the “public interest,” the federal government has actually violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, and will stay in violation until the FCC is abolished for good.
Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyom.