When I read that the Obama Administration wants to regulate the Internet by having the Federal Communications Commission impose “net neutrality” rules, my immediate response is to be opposed.
Does my opposition to more regulation and red tape make me a knee-jerk ideologue?
I suppose so, though I think it’s simply a common-sense instinct.
After all, it’s very difficult to come up with a list of successful interventions by government. So I think my automatic aversion to regulation is akin to my automatic aversion to touching a hot stove. Simply stated, I can’t imagine a positive outcome.
But let’s be “open minded” and consider whether there’s some compelling reason to give politicians and bureaucrats power over the Internet.
This video from Reason TV is a very good introduction to the issue.
And since we’re citing Reason, here’s some of what Nick Gillespie wrote on the issue of so-called net neutrality.
The FCC specifically and governments generally have never been great at managing innovation. It works better when they stand aside and let it happen, as mostly happened with regard to the internet and web in the 1990s. …Net Neutrality and Title II reclassification are solutions to problems (blocking of sites! fast lanes that prevent new services from coming to market!) that don’t yet exist. Each “solution” gives the same government that is godawful at respecting privacy rights more power over the most revolutionary means of communication since the printing press. Really not a good idea from just about any perspective.
And Grant Babcock from Reason warns that more regulation will give government more power and control over society.
…the federal government is attempting to use the Internet to build a global Panopticon, capable of accessing everyone’s personal information at any time for any reason or no reason. We also know that one way the government is trying to accomplish this is by securing the cooperation of private companies. …What we risk doing by ramping up the government’s regulatory authority over the Internet is to make it easier for the government to pressure ISPs, many of which are data custodians, to get what they want. …The threat to Internet freedom is government control. That means that if you care about liberty, you should oppose Net neutrality and Title II reclassification.
But there are reasons to oppose net neutrality even if you’re not a government-phobic libertarian.
Simply stated, more regulation will throw sand in the gears of innovation.
For instance, the prospect of more government control is leading companies to reconsider whether they should be investing more money in the sector.
The Wall Street Journal opines on the issue.
Randall Stephenson , the CEO of AT&T , …said this week that he’ll “pause” his company’s buildout of fiber networks to carry high-speed Internet to 100 or so cities. The reason: Uncertainty over whether the Federal Communications Commission will follow President Obama ’s public direction this week to regulate Internet service as a utility. …For his candor, Mr. Stephenson was attacked by the lobbyist for the Computer & Communications Industry Association that supports such regulation. …Even after six years of slow growth, the Obama crowd hasn’t figured out that punitive regulation reduces the incentive to invest.
If you’re looking for the obvious lesson to be learned, J.D. Tuccille of Reason may have the best answer.
The best use of the FCC in the modern world—or, indeed, the world of decades past—is to hold a pillow over its face until it stops twitching. Once gone, it won’t be available as a bludgeon for ignorant (or opportunistic) politicians to use to inflict damage on a world they don’t understand (or don’t respect).
Indeed.
As this famous poster suggests, more government is only the answer if you’ve asked a very strange question.
