Neutrality’s Reality: The End…of the Internet?

This is the fifteenth and final installment in our series on the proposed Net Neutrality regulations. If you haven’t followed “Neutrality’s Reality” from the beginning, the introduction is in the Arizona Daily Independent at here..

“To hell with thee, thy Leader shall look out for himself first.” [I Barack 1:1]

The Commission had to pass the regulations so we could see what was in them, apparently. A few weeks—and a good deal of writing—later, and we still do not know exactly what the 325 pages of burdensome regulations hold. Nor do we know how grave the impact of the new regulations will be upon the internet. All we know for certain is that the Commission and the administration have blatantly lied to the American public.

The FCC began by drumming up false worries that internet providers would create “fast lanes” and increase charges (despite providers acknowledging that model wouldn’t work); in response, they created new regulation that won’t actually stop fast lines and that will give to consumers the cost of compliance (which will be unavoidable). Then, the Commission looked back at the crushing regulations under Title II that molded the telephone networks, as they conveniently forgot that such useful features as caller ID, voicemail, and owning the telephones in your own home didn’t exist until after deregulation in 1984. And while the Commission was glossing over history and fantasizing about quantum leaps of innovation that never occurred under regulation, they trotted out the Telecommunications Act of 1934 as being applicable to internet connectivity, and somehow failed to mention that pesky “of 1934” tidbit.

The Commission solicited comments publicly and termed something between 0.62% and 0.75% of the American population an “overwhelming majority”. This willful dismissal of ninety-nine percent of the country comes at the behest of the same administration that elevated the Occupy movement’s “99%” to a mighty cause.

The “overwhelming majority” of American citizens, in reality, have very few choices for broadband internet providers. Part of this is because telecommunications networks never had a fair chance at organic growth: Government regulation suppressed market forces from the first phone lines. The networks did not build out in a manner that could allow them to thrive in a competitive environment, because of government interference. Instead of enabling competition, the Commission opted to add more regulation. Instead of expanding new wireless frequencies (“spectrum”, in the parlance), the Commission actually set new barriers to entry for companies that would want to offer internet services competitively.

The Commission certainly didn’t bother to mention that the new trend of “cord-cutting” has lowered tax revenues to the Universal Service Fund; but one can see plainly that the Commission is positioning itself with these new rules to assess and to collect new taxes. In fact, the Commission has other new rules under consideration that would immediately add new taxes to internet bills. Worse, on the same day the Commission voted for these disastrous “Net Neutrality” rules, the unelected bureaucrats of the Commission also voted to allow two municipalities to compete for new customers’ internet service by overruling state laws. And both of these votes came down party lines, three Democrats to two Republicans.

The Commission’s own descriptions of their new rules leave clear indications that some consumers will end up subsidizing connectivity for others, never address the fact that costs to service providers will increase, and ignore the reality that service providers will pass those costs and new taxes along to consumers. Nowhere does the Commission even hint that it will act to separate customers’ last-mile connectivity from their internet service, which would give all service providers an equal opportunity to compete for your business. And nowhere does the Commission acknowledge that, if they created that competition, providers who tried to charge more for fast lanes would price themselves out of business; the leftist appointees on the Commission cannot acknowledge that the free market could permanently avert the not-yet-existent problems they intend to solve with “net neutrality”.

Make no mistake: “Net neutrality” is the latest beltway euphemism for “power grab”. If Congress does not strike down this overreach, if you and I and all rational citizens do not help inform the citizenry of neutrality’s reality, and if the Judiciary does not step in for the protection of your freedom, we will all lose:

● Costs will increase,

● Service levels will stagnate or decrease,

● Innovation will suffer,

● “Managed services” will create “fast lanes” by a different name, and

● Government may well become your (nosy, prying, spying) internet service provider.

The DC spin machines have sold many citizens on a great fantasy. Now you know the reality. Now you have the knowledge to act, to call Congress, to tell your friends and family: Neutrality’s reality is actually partisan dystopia.