Net Neutrality

. . . has been a big headline on Drudge lately. You don't actually have to know anything about the issues to know the Democrats on the FCC are wrong. How do I know? Congress never granted the FCC the legal authority to regulate the internet. It's that simple, there should be no other argument. If Congress wants to pass a net neutrality law, they can surely do so, without a whimper from the Supremes no doubt. But the extra-constitutional power grab by the Obama administration is exactly what the left always complained about Bush. To be fair, I complained as well. But you don't see them protesting now.

From an article on the Comcast decision last April, whereby the FCC was smacked down by the D.C. Court of Appeals:

But Comcast argued that the FCC order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce mere policy principles, which don't have the force of regulations or law. That's one reason that Genachowski is now trying to formalize those rules.

The cable company had also argued the FCC lacks authority to mandate Net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband under the Bush administration, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.

The FCC defines broadband as a lightly regulated information service. That means it is not subject to the obligations traditional telecommunications services have to share their networks with competitors and treat all traffic equally. The FCC maintains that existing law gives it authority to set rules for information services, including Net neutrality rules.

Tuesday's court decision rejected that reasoning, concluding that Congress has not given the FCC "untrammeled freedom" to regulate without explicit legal authority.

With so much at stake, the FCC now has several options. It could ask Congress to give it explicit authority to regulate broadband. Or it could appeal Tuesday's decision.

Hopefully, the Supremes will take this up and conclude, again, that the FCC is on tyrannical bender.

Biggest Loser? Net Neutrality

L. Gordon Crovitz reports in today's WSJ "that 95 candidates for Congress had signed a pledge to support 'net neutrality.' The candidates promised: 'In Congress, I'll fight to protect Net Neutrality for the entire Internet—wired and wireless—and make sure big corporations aren't allowed to take control of free speech online.'" In the last election cycle every one of those candidates lost.

Crovitz doesn't analyze why all 95 candidates lost, but I have my suspicions. "Net neutrality" is one of those shibboleths of the left about which you see impassioned discussions on DailyKos and MyDD. The only candidates who would sign such a pledge are far lefties who felt it necessary to pay homage to nutroots nation. To say this wasn't their year is an understatement.

On the issue itself, I have a hard time getting incensed one way or another, even though I find the idea of the FCC regulating the internet to be a bad one. But the the major cable companies made this particular bed for themselves by lobbying local governments for monopoly status. Amazingly enough, the issue isn't that big in Europe. Why?

Indeed, there is little discussion of net neutrality in Europe or Asia, where there is real competition among broadband providers. U.S. politicians and regulators would be better off focusing on ways to increase competition on the Internet—not looking for new ways to regulate it.

Net Neutrality

OK class, repeat after me, what is the free market antidote to evil businesses doing harm to consumers? Competition, competition, competition! Our latest exhibit is "net neutrality" regulations coming out of the FCC. For some reason this issue really lights up the Daily Kooks. A quick primer, net neutrality says that your internet provider has to treat all traffic equally. Sounds great right? What about SPAM vs web browsing? What if some new application like Skype is hogging all the bandwidth and other users suffer? Under net neutrality, tough beans. It's sort of like socialism for the private sector, (answering previous question.) (Also the Kooks always think they know best what shape the economy should take.)

Google wants net neutrality because they can deliver all sorts of new services and don't risk building out any infrastructure. (As an IT professional, I know the big expenses come with putting boots on the ground, which your cable company or DSL provider must do.) Interestingly, though Google Voice doesn't obey the rules they want the carriers to live by. Google Voice allows you to have all of your phones ring simultaneously. EXCEPT... if your phone is in a rural area or it is a conference line or if they just charge Google too darn much for the service.

So what if evil carrier Time-Warner let's you watch Warner Bros movies but blocks offerings from Universal, what's a poor consumer to do? If you were paying attention you know that Captain Competition is on the way to save you. Go with AT&T U-verse or DSL or satellite or ... you get the picture.

I wonder if any of this logic applies to health insurance.