The End of Net Neutrality Means Less Than Nothing

by Steve MacDonald

The Internet http://

Image credit: cnet

Originally posted at The New Media Militia.com

The FCC just tossed Obama’s attempt to regulate the Internet. When my daughter asked my opinion I told her, “remember back in antiquity (circa 2015) before New Neutrality? When the internet was a thriving, growing, thing looking for every way possible to get as many eyeballs on its corner of the world wide web? 

“It’ll be just like that, and it will keep getting better.” 

I reminded her that the Internet boom has been advancing on its own, without any help from ruling class busy-bodies in the nation’s capital for the entire century. And that whenever the biggest players in any endeavor get together with ruling class busy-bodies and try to tell you that they’re going to impose some rules, and they will be good for “everyone” get cynical real fast and prepare to fight them tooth and nail.

One recent example of this is Health Care reform.

ObamaCare’s only goal was to up-end the institutions of health care on the way to a system run entirely by the government. They said and did everything to pretend it would make things better. In the end, it accomplished none of the promised goals but did manage all the real ones.

We still have just as many uninsured. Costs didn’t go down, they went up. Premiums didn’t go down, the went up. Access didn’t stay the same, it declined. People lost their plans their doctors, competition vanished, but the government grew as did the spending to sustain that.

As costs and rates skyrocketed and competition dwindled, more and more people were crowded into existing state-backed coverage. More and more people became reliant on the state, the regulators, and their decisions about what would be covered and how much that should cost, driving providers out and quality down.

No one promoting the reforms promised any of that, while naysayers were pilloried but still right in the end.

If ObamaCare isn’t repealed, it will metastasize and consume the entire market, giving the government and its regulators complete control of your health-care, and by extension you.

That was always the plan.

ObamaCare was sold as a solution, but it was designed to make things worse and government bigger. To give the state more control.

Net Neutrality is no different. Like ObamaCare, it was never meant to improve costs or increase access. It was always about control. But unlike ObamaCare it was never forced through Congress on a partisan party-line vote, it was imposed by bureaucratic sleight of hand.

Just think about this for a moment. President Obama took the internet, which blossomed between 2000 and 2015, creating an environment where people could do almost anything online and do it with super fast speeds at relatively low prices. Along comes the government savior, telling us the best thing for consumers is to subject the internet to rules under a law from 1934, created at a time when people couldn’t make a phone call without the use of two hands.

How many times have you heard the progressives complain about ancient laws that failed to take into consideration advances in technology? More than you can count? Well, not when it comes to the internet. They reached back 70 years for a morsel of ancient regulatory “might” to start the process of Federal control of the internet.

Regulatory control, and with any luck, more revenue to feed the Federal beast.

Oh, and it’s also polluted with first amendment exercises that place a burden on the state’s ability to go about the business of consuming every aspect of our lives. It represents the most significant single threat to authoritarian rule. Unregulated expression.

The government hates unregulated anything.

But left to its own devices content providers will continue to look for faster, cheaper, efficient and easier ways to get the content to consumers of it. A battle that forces existing players to compete with agile new innovators.

Governments have no competition which is why big established players like regulations that protect their market-share.

So what will happen if Net Neutrality goes away? Nothing, because,

The rules were put in place to solve a problem that didn’t exist. 

That is the bottom line. People cannot tell you why the rules were necessary. They can only offer hypotheticals as to why the rules are necessary. But that’s like a cop pulling over a person with a new sports car and writing them a ticket because they might drive 125 mph in a 70 mph zone two weeks from that moment.

The internet didn’t require the nanny state before 2015. The system thrived in a competitive environment. People have so many choices in determining what content they want to watch and how they want it delivered. Everybody benefits. Everybody will continue to benefit once the rules get lifted.

If the ISP’s do what the fearmongers claim, then the government can deal with it if necessary. Until then, sit back, relax and enjoy.

You heard the man.

 

 Join the new media militia. Sign up with email or get updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Leave a Comment

  • sb

    Or, just look at which side the wailing and howling “celebrities” fall on and choose the opposite.

  • Bruce Currie

    There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Eventually you’ll be hoist on your own petard.

    “The debate over net neutrality isn’t whether people are literally going to be unable to upload photos of cute puppies to the internet, but whether they’re going to be able to do so on fair terms or arcane, extortionate ones dictated entirely by a handful of ultra-wealthy service providers.”
    https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-thinks-youre-stupid-enough-to-buy-this-crap-1821277398

    “When the Republican FCC commissioners slip and actually say what they mean, it’s clear that they actually want the things the public fears: Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said during today’s hearing that he sees clear benefits to paid prioritization, and that he doesn’t support net neutrality legislation in Congress or at the state level.

    “The public hates the repeal of net neutrality: 83 percent of people in this Washington Post poll support net neutrality when it’s explained to them, including 3 out of 4 Republicans. Republican members of Congress issued letters over the past two days imploring Pai to delay his vote and have suggested their own net neutrality legislation.”
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/14/16777500/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-republican-politics-whoops

    • Ed Naile

      Another Obama scheme bites the big one!!
      Hey, how’s that “Cash for Clunkers” deal going?
      Why don’t we send more arms to Mexican cartels?
      Have you spent your $2,500 Obama tax return yet?
      I have a $220,000.00 bridge in Hillsboro I want to sell you for $1.00 – it has no entrance or exit.
      Get your shovels ready – Bruce is blogging!!!!!

      • 175jfs

        You can bet Currie drives and Obamamobile and got someone else to pay for it.

    • sb

      Heh “83 percent of people in this Washington Post poll support net neutrality when its explained to them…”

      So basically, left-leaning Washington Post readers who would vote for anything against Trump. And I wonder who “explained it to them” and how it was explained…Somehow I imagine it was explained as accurately as obamacare was.

  • Jim Johnson

    Bruce, never regurgitate from the disreputable Washington Post please note;
    “The public hates the repeal of net neutrality: 83 percent of people in this Washington Post poll support net neutrality when it’s explained to them, including 3 out of 4 Republicans”. You just Validate Steve’s point that ending of net neutrality is a big NOTHING. “…83% of the public support net neutrality” is ridiculous it was only after net neutrality was explained by Trump hating Washington Post flunkies.

  • Bruce Currie

    If net neutrality goes away, it becomes possible that blogs like GG will someday be relegated to a “slow lane” by an ISP. In that event, you’ll have been hoist on your own petard, as I said above. Ideology before reality.
    “Net neutrality has been a part of the internet since its inception, and didn’t become an issue until under the first Bush administration … Excuse me, the second Bush administration, George W. Bush’s administration, they began moving to undo and change the rules to benefit the cable industry. We’ve been having a big political fight since 2005 over what those rules should look like. The internet has been thriving in a world in which net neutrality has been largely protected, and where we had an FCC that was usually willing to step in when they saw a problem. They lost some of those efforts in court when they were challenged by the big companies, but net neutrality has been the rules of the road for the internet forever. This idea that the 2015 decision was some break from what came before is completely false.

    “What the Obama administration ended up doing, and let’s be clear, Obama and the FCC only did it after immense public pressure, was to just codify those rules and just build in all those expectations that people had, and make sure that the FCC actually had the authority to step in when there was a problem. That’s what was in dispute. Not whether we should have net neutrality, but whether the FCC could do anything about it when these companies started acting badly. What Ajit Pai is saying is, we’re not going to do anything about it anymore, and that’s the change here.

    “[Pai] likes to talk about these Clinton era of bipartisanship, but what happened during that era was they passed a bill in 1996 that updated the Communications Act, and of course, that contains Title 2of the Communications Act, the thing he’s trying to strip. So that very legislation is what set out the legal structure that we’re trying to protect. It’s very clear if you look at that legislative history, if you look at how the internet actually developed, it was because we had a neutral network, that knew competitors could emerge.

    “Whether it’s Google in a garage, or Facebook in a dorm room, they could only succeed initially because they could get on that internet that was an even playing field. That’s why the companies that care most about something like net neutrality aren’t the big guys who can afford to buy themselves out now. It’s the upstarts, it’s the little guys, it’s the independent content producers, it’s the independent musicians, because they know that that’s their only chance. Otherwise, you have to go and beg AT&T, or Comcast or Verizon for permission for a spot on their network, for a spot in their fast lane, for their permission to innovate.”
    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/12/fight-net-neutrality-isnt.html

Previous post:

Next post: