Video: 3 reasons to keep the FCC out of the Internet
posted at 10:25 am on June 19, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
If one had to select one sector of the economy that has continued to improve and expand despite the cyclical ups and downs of the macro economy, the Internet would be the obvious pick. Access and speed continue to arc upward on an exponential path, as Nick Gillespie of Reason TV shows in this short video. The wide-open access allows for competition without pre-emption of other competitors, unlike the broadcast radio and television markets; in other words, one website doesn’t preclude another from operating. Consumers have choice in providers, either by hardwire or wireless. If the Internet continues to succeed and to grow and competition continues to multiply in service and content, why do we need a bureaucracy designed 60 years before the birth of the Internet to suddenly start regulating it? Nick gives us three reasons why the FCC needs to keep its hands off of the Internet:
For more on this, please see my post from yesterday about the FCC’s efforts to make the Internet a “public utility” such as local telephone service. Only a government that fears open-source communication would see the Internet as a failing enterprise in need of top-down government control.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
So politicians can get kick backs, duh. Graft and bribery are as old as commerce.
Rode Werk on June 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM
And don’t forget the bill that gives Obama the Internet shut-off switch.
Disturb the Universe on June 19, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Get government out of my home; out of my church; out of our schools; out of my business; and most certainly, keep these thugs away from my internet!!!
Keemo on June 19, 2010 at 10:35 AM
I love all the Reason TV videos. Great soundtrack on this one. I have no “faith” in the FCC.
Woody on June 19, 2010 at 10:40 AM
It is NOT about money! It is about CONTROL! Control the information, control the populaces.
IowaWoman on June 19, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Dinosaur Media is not amused. The newspaper and the buggy whip must never be allowed to disappear.
Bishop on June 19, 2010 at 10:44 AM
So this government can do what it does best, tax the cr@p out of it.
dirtseller on June 19, 2010 at 10:45 AM
One problem is the FCC trying to solve?
Content, content, content…
Dhuka on June 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM
What the FCC wants to do is quiet all of you. Unless your a lefty then you’re fine. Just like they want to silence talk radio. How soon before we have “free” (taxpayer funded) internet service for all that includes PBS style browsers, sites, etc.?
Alfresco on June 19, 2010 at 10:51 AM
The internet is one of the biggest threats to Lefty/Dem dominance. They’d love to control it into impotence for the Right while retaining it for themselves.
SurferDoc on June 19, 2010 at 10:53 AM
The elephant stepped lightly on freedoms fingers, rendering the keyboard as a means to openly communicate… useless.
RalphyBoy on June 19, 2010 at 10:54 AM
First you get CONTROL, then you get MONEY, and then you get the CHICKS
J_Crater on June 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Come on now people. Let’s take a look at what we already know.
1) Everyone hired to work for this government is way smarter than anyone in the private sector. (I mean geez, they got people with Nobel prizes hanging out there.)
2) For the past 10 years, all that’s happened with the Internet is people are making way too much money and getting access to way too much usless and probably seditious information. (For example, you probably didn’t know that there are some people that write internet blogs that DISAGREE with this current administration.)
3) We Americans are too unreliable to be able to wisely use the money we make.
4) We are also too unitelligent to discern the proper meaning of unfiltered information.
Therefore it’s only natural and right for the smarter people among us to spend our money wisely and mete out information that we should hear and read.
Makes perfect sense to me.
dirtseller on June 19, 2010 at 10:57 AM
Because if the Internet is allowed to demonstrate the success of private industry, it undermines the ObamaCare narrative and helps the behemoth be overturned after November 2010.
MadisonConservative on June 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM
So, the FCC sees no government roll in regulating content. So what’s the problem? Oh! The folks that brought us McCain-Feingold, and DISCLOSE might think otherwise!
We need to make government constitutional! Oaths of office aren’t enough.
cartooner on June 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM
I don’t take Libertarians seriously.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Nor do they, or anyone else, take you seriously.
MadisonConservative on June 19, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Tyranny…..plain and simple.
Softer tyranny now…….Harder coming soon.
PappyD61 on June 19, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Weak and obvious response. Next.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Yet another term that is ripe for hijacking.
Originally, Net Neutrality meant that the pipes would be treated as “dumb”, allowing for no content to be interfered with – except that which is clearly criminal.
This was the reason why the SC shot down Comcast over its attempts to shape torrents, giving favour to other users.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Øbama follows Hugo Chavez: You have to control the media to control the people.
FCC, stay the hell away from the internet, cable and satellite.
petefrt on June 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I can think of one really good reason..Anything and everything the government touches turns to $hit and is ruined beyond repair.
BigWyo on June 19, 2010 at 11:09 AM
After your initial post on this thread -this comment is priceless and ironic. I see a trend.
CWforFreedom on June 19, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Ham Radio, get one. When the collapse occurs I’ll contact all of you and we can coordinate resistance activities. Not you fools in Minnesota though, you idiots couldn’t operate a toaster much less a shortwave radio.
Bishop on June 19, 2010 at 11:11 AM
That money and power.
CWforFreedom on June 19, 2010 at 11:11 AM
The internet was a government funded program.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM
* Not just funded, but created. Since the department responsible is apart of the US government.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 11:15 AM
As a person engaged in one of the few areas the FCC does manage to get right — amateur radio — by allowing we hams to police ourselves and the spectrum we are granted. But I still think that this is a power grab, pure and simple.
The contrast between their laissez faire attitude with hams (“We’re too busy; you administer your own exams and forward us the results.”) and their “light touch” attitude towards ISPs strikes me as having malevolent undertones.
The War Planner on June 19, 2010 at 11:19 AM
So what’s your point, other than the one you wear your hat on??
Or are you just being a snarky dick?
BigWyo on June 19, 2010 at 11:22 AM
It was created at MIT and UCLA in the late ’50s. DARPA was a Defence project to interconnect Cheyenne Mountain, originally.
ARPANET followed, which was also developed by Various Universities – for their own research use.
The Internet grew out of that.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Were you just pointed that out…..or was that supposed to refute what I said?
DARPA. ARPANET. Both government programs.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Just wait until some fat fiber gets chopped out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and starts spilling bits uncontrollably. Then you’re gonna wish you had government regulators to interfere with the cleanup, refuse assistance from experts, and put the boot to someone’s neck. Think of the Planet.
Kenosha Kid on June 19, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Nothing long cat™ can’t fix.
Inanemergencydial on June 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Restricted in scope to suit Defence only.
The software, invented by Universities, continued to be developed by them, building upon the work done for Defence.
The Internet was never a govt project – they merely made use of it.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Some people have questioned why the president and his Democrat friends govern as if they’re not worried about November. Once they have stifled all dissent, their power grab is absolute and final.
And as much as I like the idea of a short wave radio, when you understand that the goal is not to regulate the ‘net, but rather to regulate ANY dissension on the ‘net, you’ll understand that this act is not the end. I just checked the site http://hamuniverse.com/. The following is from that site.
“Ham radio/Amateur radio is a high-tech hobby sanctioned by the U.S. Federal Government that’s got something fun for everyone. Ham Radio is well known as the most important communications backup for our Federal Government, that‘s why they are behind us!
The Ham Radio Operator License Classes:
In the US, there are 3 license levels, or “license classes.”
These licenses are granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).”
Do you REALLY think that the FCC will granting new licenses after have gone through the effort to muzzle dissent? To paraphrase Sir Winston, it is only the beginning of the end.
oldleprechaun on June 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Made use of it? They worked alongside the very team that was making sharing information between computers possible.
“DARPA’s (or ARPA’s) involvement in the creation of the Internet began with an idea to link time-sharing computers into a national system.” – from their website
We better email them and tell them to stop their lies.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 12:11 PM
What a great argument!
Akzed on June 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM
“Where’s the fire?”
Sites like HA and others that don’t ‘toe the line’ on the Obama agenda.
Got to put *that* stuff out *real* quick – this kind of conservative thought and discussion is a threat to the regime, you see.
Midas on June 19, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Yep – and it ‘took off’ and blossomed, becoming more prolific and creative, expanded, improved, fundamentally changing much of life and commerce… when the private sector got ahold of it.
Government taking control of it as we know it today will not result in improvements, lol.
Midas on June 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Those were successive phases in the development process. The original idea came from universities wanting to share their research as quickly as possible. The fact that they had very few hosts is irrelevant – they invented it. The military merely saw its potential, and got involved with its further development.
To say that the Internet was a govt project, is an insult to those private individuals who created the original framework. Don’t confuse a national system – which is merely expansion, with an invention.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 12:28 PM
The 0′s are easy to clean up, but the 1′s are really nasty.
gregbert on June 19, 2010 at 12:28 PM
I guess the govt should be in charge of Tang, then too.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Akzed on June 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Libertarians don’t take Narutoboy seriously, either.
So the feeling is mutual.
Disturb the Universe on June 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM
“Licklider formulated the earliest ideas of a global computer network in August 1962 at BBN, in a series of memos discussing the “Intergalactic Computer Network” concept. These ideas contained almost everything that the Internet is today.”
Key word is “ideas.” He was hired by the Defense department barely a month later (making him a government employee, making this a government project and creation), and that’s where his ideas were actually brought to life.
They obviously didn’t just expand on the idea. They brought on the very guy who came up with many of the core principles for the Internet, and yes, funded Universities as well. It is definitely fair to say the internet was a government project.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Thanks so much for sharing that.
Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Pot. Nanny state. Military Industrial Complex.
Those are the three main libertarian talking points. It gets old.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 12:41 PM
the first Internet connection may not have involved TCP/IP or government funding at all
Inanemergencydial on June 19, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Thanks so much for sharing that. Can I have some pot?
Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
So do you.
Disturb the Universe on June 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Licklider created the idea, not govt. His ideas on a global system, came from his work on a limited inter-university network (intranet). What we are discussing here, is expansion of an original idea. The fact that Defence funded a project to put a wider infrastructure in place does not give them any right to claim ownership of the Internet itself – beyond some hardware, and IP rights to some software.
I simply reject the idea that any govt can lay claim to the Internet, simply because they may have put money into it at some point.
The Internet would have developed, regardless of govt funding, thereby putting the govt in the same boat as any other investor/shareholder who decides to get on the bandwagon.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Inanemergencydial on June 19, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Further, until recently, Bell had more to do with the spread of the Internet infrastructure than the govt.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Exactly!
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Funny how the Net Neutrality types are scared of big business but comfy with big gov’t, and see no harm with allowing government control. Although I think the recent “kill switch on the Internet power for the president” has some of them worried.
darii on June 19, 2010 at 1:07 PM
They.didn’t.just.put.money.into.it. The man mentioned became a government employee shortly after having the idea. He was brought on to make his idea a reality. If someone comes up with an idea for something and joins a group that wants to assist AND fund, the group itself can claim to be a creator. For two reasons: 1. The individual is now apart of the group. 2. Other members in the group, I assume, had hands on involvement. I don’t think you would start up a group just as a way to funnel money into somebody else’s project. You’re going to have your own guys in the group making contributions and doing work to bring the product to life.
Narutoboy on June 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM
I should add:- unless the govt initiated the core product request, and paid others to do the research. Then it would own the IP.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 1:10 PM
It’ snot as if it’s obvious what is going on. An off switch for free speech.
The most dangerous of the bunch is that Soros commie group laughably labeled “Free Press”.
tarpon on June 19, 2010 at 1:12 PM
I think we are talking at cross purposes. The govt helped to develop the Internet, but they did not create it. Also, they did this to suit their own purposes, not the general public – who they are now trying to regulate.
OldEnglish on June 19, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Your comprehension skills suck.
katy the mean old lady on June 19, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Al Gore invented it. He was part of the government. End of story.
iurockhead on June 19, 2010 at 1:45 PM
BBN? Wait a minute, Narutoboy . You mean the whole internet was the idea of the Bible Broadcasting Network?
oldleprechaun on June 19, 2010 at 1:48 PM
So what? Does this somehow give the government to right to control what free enterprise has created from DARPA’s initial work? You can’t possibly say that they hold some sort of IP rights to this. It would be like saying Henry Ford could now regulate robotic manufacturing.
JeffVader on June 19, 2010 at 2:23 PM
I wonder how many of you would think differently if this was under George Bush in the name of the WoT?
Especially following the cyber attacks from Russia and China. It’s not the man behind the power, it’s the power itself we should keep out of reach.
Free Constitution on June 19, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Just imagine if Bush had pulled this stunt… ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKEN LOOSE!
CynicalOptimist on June 19, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Obama is Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, on a good day, and Jeremiah Wright on a bad one.
Schadenfreude on June 19, 2010 at 3:33 PM
I look forward to repeatedly contacting my Democratic representatives and asking why they are forcing pornogrpahy and spam on me. Not to mention the Nigerian banking schemes.
If they want to own the internet… I’ll treat them as owning it.
malclave on June 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM
Honestly. Is there anyone on the right, or left, or in the middle, who would trust Obama to decide what can, and cannot, be accesed or posted on the internet?
I wonder if the DailyKos folks, or the Huffington puffington crowd would like Obama editing their stuff?
percysunshine on June 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Notice that Gillespie’s 3 reason don’t directly address the issue: would the internet be better or worse off if the government were to treat it like a common carrier. He mentions common carrier, and then goes on to talk about the problems with government interference with broadcast TV. How about making the comparison to an industry that the government is treating as a common carrier; the communications (telephone) industry. Does the fact the the telcos are classed as common carriers mean that government is creating problems in that industry? What are those problems, and are they indicative of problems that we would see if the internet had common carrier status?
Gillespie’s arguments are lame, and Morrissey’s post from yesterday also is an apples to oranges comparison. Let’s look at what the government is actually proposing to do, and then argue for or against that instead of making generalized arguments about government.
Anon Y. Mous on June 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Utter Fact of Life:
A “light touch” by the hand of any federal government always always always always always always always always always always always always always becomes a harder touch.
foucaultsvac on June 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM
The problem with that is that government doesn’t currently control the internet. If the FCC is going to regulate internet usage on the basis of common carrier-hood, then looking at how the FCC has regulated other telecom common carriers it the only thing we have to go by.
The technology is changing, sure, but the underlying concepts have remained largely unchanged since the early 70′s and the advent of TCP/IP protocols. What has changed has been largely fueled by two factors”
A) Badnwidth is cheap, and has been getting cheaper since 1969 and the start of packet-switching network protocols. The sheer volume of information available has exploded over the last 15 years.
B) Government actually gave up control of the internet at about the same time Tim Berners-Lee made “worldwide web” a household term. What started as an ARPA project quickly outpaced government’s ability to control it, which I’m sure galls Julius and Barack Obama to no end.
So, what’s the point of all this inane rambling? Simply this: There is not a single thing that government has gotten its hands on that has been made better because of it. NOTHING. The whole purpose of common carrier-ship is to define which indsutries companies are allowed to function as monopolies in, and there are no fewer than three options for internet providers just in my hometown.
It’s a power grab, plain and simple. As a conservative, I don’t like power grabs. The internet will continue with or without government support, though I suspect government intervention might hasten (if not cause) its decline.
gryphon202 on June 19, 2010 at 5:50 PM
That’s not a feature, it’s a bug!
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 19, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Technically, the government didn’t create the internet. Various companies and universities — mostly universities — created and developed it for the purposes of collaboration on DOD projects. But since it was created for use in government projects, the fact that the government was involved did become significant, in that the project could not become the sole property of a few corporations.
If you’re at all familiar with how internet protocols are developed, they are done by the proposing of RFCs, Requests For Comment, where some person or group publicly releases a text document that lays out a suggested protocol, inviting others to comment, find fault, suggest enhancements, etc. More complicated protocols eventually wind up in the hands of a committee, which usually involves individuals from universities, corporations, non-profit groups, governments, and some with no organizational backing, who collaborate to form a new standard.
You can’t dismiss the fact that government plays a role at times, but neither can you claim that it’s all developed by the government.
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 19, 2010 at 7:47 PM
The video is correct: the Internet is NOT broken and DOES NOT need “fixing”!!!
FCC involvement with the Internet can only degrade it. Foreign governments, as well as users worldwide, WILL NOT TRUST the FCC to keep hands off their data (they are already suspicious now) and their Internet service. And without universal trust, the Internet becomes much less useful.
If the FCC is allowed to get involved, the development of new protocols is too rich a target for them to ignore. We would soon have FCC-mandated protocols which cannot be used because they are stupidly designed with obvious built-in flaws. The FCC will then respond by trying to more tightly control the process, and will soon destroy all innovation and improvements which would otherwise happen naturally IF THEY KEEP THEIR GRUBBY, TECHNICALLY IGNORANT, POWER-GRABBING, BUREAUCRATIC HANDS OFF!!!
So instead of expanding an already-dysfunctional agency, how about requiring the FCC to eliminate all of the regulations which cannot be published within 100 pages (10 point type), and then sunset the FCC and return the money they waste to the taxpayers?
landlines on June 19, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Buy a fully-functioning short wave radio now.
CC
CapedConservative on June 20, 2010 at 7:23 AM
Really!
“Where’s the fire?”
Where’s the firestorm of protests ala anti-George Bush that asserts they’re spying on and trying to control innocent Americans?
THE.FREAKING.COUNTRY.HAS.LOST.IT’S.COLLECTIVE.FREAKING.MIND!!!
hawkdriver on June 20, 2010 at 8:42 AM