Net Neutrality Is A Big-Government Scam


In a 3-2 vote, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to undo the Obama-era regulation known as “Net Neutrality.” Misguided and uninformed proponents of the Orwellian-name plan, which was enacted in 2015, say it would prevent big corporations from basically taking control of the internet and snuffing out competition. The rest of us know that such absurd claims are false propaganda being spread by people who favor more government control over every last inch of society and the economy.

As the Washington Examine reports, the basis for Net Neutrality was built on fear and lies, a common technique of those looking for a power grab:

The truth is nowhere near the media’s scaremongering. In a competitive market, Internet service providers, or ISPs, are guided by the invisible hand to provide quality service that customers demand, just like any other good or service. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order will allow ISPs the freedom to innovate for humanity’s future.

Contrary to popular belief, the FCC’s actions would not plunge the Internet back to some regulatory dark age. Rather, the current net neutrality rules, dubbed the “Open Internet Order,” were adopted by the FCC in 2015 — hardly a Wild West age for the Internet.

The historical reality is that ISPs have respected the open Internet for decades almost without exception, allowing customers unfettered access to the entire World Wide Web at an affordable price.

The Examiner points out that since the internet isn’t “broke,” then why would we allow the government to “fix” it for us? There is no need for such a power grab by government bureaucracy. Do we really want to let federal government regulate our internet service the way they regulated us into a housing collapse, or created ObamaCare? I think not.

Here’s an even more compelling argument from the Examiner story. Net Neutrality actually hurts your internet experience, and it happens without you even noticing:

The central flaw with net neutrality is its premise that all traffic should be treated equally. Like all idealistic aspirations of egalitarianism, some traffic is more equal than others … and it should be that way. Video streaming services and Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, technology takes up more bandwidth than other types of traffic.

Have you ever had trouble streaming Netflix on a Sunday night? If so, you have been the victim of net neutrality. ISPs should be allowed to experiment with appropriate traffic shaping to ensure that customers receive the best service for their streaming needs.

If you continue to give them the chance, as you’ve done for years, your internet service provider will figure out how to bring you the content you want in the most efficient manner. Bandwidth is finite, and the free market can manage it better than a bureaucrat behind a desk in Washington, DC.

Forbes expands even more on the big lie that we need the government to save us from a problem that doesn’t exist:

In their net neutrality fairy tale, internet service providers (ISPs) are the ‘big bad wolf,’ bent on creating paid ‘fast lanes’ and blocking the websites of entrepreneurs (who invariably work out of their garages). It sounds like a frightful tale, except that ISPs have never offered paid fast lanes or blocked small business owners’ web sites (run out of garages or otherwise). Meanwhile, the biggest baddest wolf the world has ever known — Google — swallowed the internet ecosystem whole and spit out its bones.

Forbes also points out, rightfully so, that internet service providers are the least of your concerns if you’re a small business. Your ISP doesn’t control where your small business website lands on a Google search page. That, of course, is controlled by Google, which will be completely unaffected by Net Neutrality rules, and they like it that way.

More from Forbes:

None of these Google practices are consistent with the Left’s net neutrality principles or fair competition. In 2012, staff at the Federal Trade Commission concluded that Google’s anticompetitive conduct had strengthened its monopolies and caused “real harm to consumers and to innovation” that “will have lasting negative effects on consumer welfare.” Yet the Obama administration decided to focus its energy on ISPs while letting Google run wild. Obama appointees at the FTC gave short shrift to the findings of the agency’s professional staff while the Obama-led Federal Communications Commission exempted Google’s monopolies from the current net neutrality rules.

Google was extremely cozy with the Obama administration so it’s no surprise they were given a pass by the FCC under Obama. Instead, the Obama-controlled FCC went after a non-existent problem and created fear that one day, your ISP will shutdown your business and block your website.

Finally, RealClearPolicy explains what Net Neutrality is really about:

The current iteration of the net-neutrality debate is not really about an “Open Internet” or free speech or even apple pie; it’s about whether government should be permitted to expand its power and encroach on private actors’ due process protections. At stake, in other words, is whether an administrative agency should be permitted to re-write the law — especially when it does so simply to fit a political agenda.

You won’t lose your access to make Skype calls, and you won’t be losing your ability to stream Netflix. Actually, the opposite is true if we simply allow the internet, and all it encompasses, to thrive and grow meeting the demands of consumers. There is no need for the government to stifle what which is freely growing.

President Ronald Reagan said it best, and this quote applies perfectly to the Net Neutrality debate of today:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” – President Ronald Reagan

We’ve already reached the taxation stage. Let’s stop the regulation stage before we end up at the subsidizing stage.

So please, educate yourself on what Net Neutrality is and what it isn’t. There is no need for it, the entire framework should be scrapped on the trash heap of big-government regulatory schemes intended to “fix” something that’s working better than anyone could have possibly fathomed.