Congressman John Sarbanes Favors FCC Takeover of the Internet

In response to my e-mail in opposition to the FCC subjecting the Internet to its ancient and bureaucratic controls, the Democrat Congressman of my unbelievably gerrymandered district in Maryland replied today:

Mr. Anderson,

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to net neutrality. I always appreciate hearing from individuals who carefully follow the legislative proceedings of Congress.  On February 4, 2015, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Wheeler proposed a set of rules to safeguard net neutrality. These rules include reclassifying broadband service as a public utility under Title II to allow for greater oversight and consumer protection; prohibiting the blocking of lawful websites, the impairing of lawful Internet traffic, and the prioritization of certain traffic for a fee; requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to protect customers' private information; and providing widespread access to Internet service. February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to approve the proposed rules.

 I strongly believe that technology-including broadband, digital communications and other information technology - is an important tool for the economic and social advancement of individuals and communities. Going forward, I also believe that we must put in place a regulatory framework that ensures the relationships between consumers and providers are fair and equitable. As a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over telecommunications issues, I will be certain to keep your views in mind when the House of Representatives considers any relevant legislation.

Again, thank you for your input on this important issue. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

John P. Sarbanes
Member of Congress

To which I replied:

John,

Government does not make the affairs of man fair and equitable. It simply replaces voluntary acts of cooperation in the private sector with coercion to achieve political, rather than individual, purposes. With government so big that the People do not understand what it is doing, let alone the effects of its actions, those political purposes become the purposes of special interests. The takeover of the free Internet by the FCC only means that my individual choices will be replaced by the government's enforcement of special interests' will. All of the verbiage about protecting individuals is just the usual smokescreen behind which government once again wrests individual value choices out of our hands. It is a false front so that government can further expand its ignorant micromanagement of our individual lives.

You have to admit that you do not know me, so it is not plausible when you claim to be protecting my interests, about which you know nothing. What is more, it is highly pretentious of you to assume that you know better how to manage my life than I do. Because I know this, I much prefer making the voluntary associations with others in the private sector of my choice, compared to being the subject of government coercion in my associations.

Charles

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D.

http://www.AndersonMaterials.com
http://AndersonMaterials.blogspot.com
http://ObjectivistIndividualist.blogspot.com/

Of course the Big Government proponents have a biased viewpoint that government is benevolent, while companies operating in the private sector are largely malevolent. It is assumed by many that the profit motive pushes companies to behave immorally and without regard to the interests of their customers. How odd it is that the profit motive which is exactly what mostly motivates companies to behave morally and with a great regard for the interests of their customers is assumed by so many to have the opposite effects. Meanwhile, governments which have the power motive are assumed to be benevolent!

To be sure, when governments are small and effectively managed by the People with the intelligent use of their votes, government has a substantial interest in the best interest of the People. But as I have so frequently argued, when government becomes big enough, the People are no longer able to effectively manage it. While with the occasional company that comes along and has little interest in its customer's welfare, it can usually be avoided by taking one's business elsewhere, except when government has given that company a monopoly. The action to deny a government coercive control over us is usually more drastic. It requires us to uproot ourselves, our families, and our businesses to move out of the jurisdiction of that government. This is a sufficiently drastic remedy that its avoidance is a powerful argument for highly limited government.

FCC Upset with Verizon and Google Private Agreement on Internet

The FCC has been holding closed-door talks with lobbyists to reach agreement on ways to regulate Internet traffic without making major changes to existing laws.  However, Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. reached an agreement of their own on Internet traffic rules that would allow Verizon to move some broadband traffic at higher speeds at premium prices.  This has angered the FCC, which is seeking the power to dictate how Internet providers manage traffic on the networks they have built at great expense themselves.

The FCC was under attack about the closed-door meetings as another of many violations of the Obama pledge for transparency in government.  The FCC called off these talks upon the announcement of the Verizon-Google agreement.  The FCC very much wants the power to enforce what it calls Net Neutrality, which supposedly means that all broadband traffic must be carried at the same speed at the same price.  This does not allow the investors in the broadband networks as much flexibility in pricing their services and as much opportunity to make a good return on their investments as they might have under other negotiated terms with customers.  Net Neutrality would result in slower networks, lower volume handling capabilities, and if operated through a political gateway such as the FCC, almost certain restrictions on content, probably based upon a lowest common denominator viewpoint of morality and based upon the political viewpoints of the party in power.

Some inter-company private agreements may seem inconvenient to some of us at one time or another, but that inconvenience has historically proven minor compared to the inconvenience of government regulation.  A good case in point is the regulation of the railroads because many people did not think it was "fair" for the railroads to charge less to large-volume shippers and to long-distance shippers.  Regulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the railroads did much to bring on the long-term decline of the railroads.  The result was a decrease in the growth of track mileage, a slowdown as regulations increased in the rate at which freight rates had been dropping under competition, a decrease in innovation, and the growth of a few very large rail systems because the ICC did not allow existing smaller railroads to pool their resources to handle a shipper's needs with agreed upon rates over longer distances on the tracks of multiple railroads.  The long-term growth and the competitive nature of the railroads was stunted by the ICC.  This is the usual pattern for industries regulated by government.  For the moment, the Verizon-Google agreement may be a bump in the road for the FCC attempt to similarly manage the Internet.

It is also a victory for property rights, albeit momentarily.  The government does not have the right to impose duties upon property owners which require them to offer services using that property which they do not voluntarily wish to perform, as things are customarily done in the free market.  The government does not have the right to push investors and their operations managers into involuntary servitude either.  Freedom in the market place is essential so that we will have as many personal choices as possible.

Another FCC Power Grab Attempt Over the Internet

For a decade, the Internet was classified by the FCC as an information service.  Following the declaration on 6 April 2010 by the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. that the FCC had failed to show that it has the authority under Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 to tell broadband Internet providers how they could manage their finite bandwidth issues, the FCC has now reclassified the Internet's broadband lines so they can regulate them under rules written in the 1930s for telephone lines.  FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski claims this will "allow the agency to move forward with broadband initiatives that empower consumers and enhance economic growth, while also avoiding regulatory overreach."  He claims that the broadband companies will only be subject to a few of the phone regulations.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial notes, this is not reassuring.  This administration has a unique voraciousness for power and never limits itself with less than it thinks it can get away with at any given time.  The point here is to establish by hook or by crook that the FCC can regulate the Internet.  Once it can, it will, Chicago gangland politics style, get to pick the winners and the losers in business and by having that power, politicians will be able to extort money from those companies at risk for campaign donations, future jobs, and present jobs for friends and family.  The claim is always made that such regulations are needed for the general public, but the actual advantage always winds up in the hands of the politicians and the few large companies that are most savvy at buying their influence.

There is no valid reason for the FCC to regulate the Internet.  It is doing just fine.  Certainly it is doing much better than it will once the FCC regulates it.  The Supreme Court ruled in a 2005 Brand X decision that cable broadband was properly classified as an information service.  The FCC reclassification will recreate business uncertainty for years as this FCC action is challenged in court. 

This puts huge investments at risk and will have the effect of making further investments more risky.  In the last 5 years, U. S. companies have invested $576 billion in communications equipment and structures.  Overall U.S. spending on information technology since 2005 is $2.2 trillion.  Communications and electronic and optical information exchange investment is 47% of all non-structure investment in the U.S.

If the FCC gets away with this power grab, it will not be long before we see government campaigns against political viewpoints it does not like.  The left will act to squelch any viewpoints it claims are racist, or bigoted.  Given that it claims that Fox News and the Tea Party movement induce violence and prejudice, it is clear that those with such opinions as voiced on Fox News and at Tea Party protests are likely to be suppressed in the future.  The socialists will act to suppress the sale of foods it does not like, such as beverages with sugar in them or fast foods with too much fat.  Only those organizations which force enough employees to contribute their time to leftist causes will be favored.  When the Right gains controls, they will be tempted to suppress the sex on the Internet.  They may also mount campaigns against those who claim a woman's right to an abortion.

The Internet has been a remarkably free market of ideas, goods, and services.  It is hardly surprising, given our last 100 years of history, that the government wants to gain regulatory control of this huge market, which offers too much to individuals and too little to politicians and the friends they choose on the basis of their support financially and at the polls.  This is why the FCC, which looked to be willing to live with the recent April court ruling, suddenly changed its mind after a host of liberal lobby groups made a fuss about that ruling.  Overnight, the FCC came up with this new reclassification tactic to satisfy these lobby groups.

This is the way excessive government becomes yet more excessive.  The result is always the same:  The People lose their equal individual rights to vicious politicians and large special interest groups.  The politicians reward those who pay them the most and damn the General Welfare of the People.

Net Neutrality Enforcement by the FCC and Free Speech

Net Neutrality is a term that brings back memories of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requiring that conservative as well as liberal viewpoints had to be aired on television networks, local TV stations, and radio stations after the events of the late 1960s led many to believe the country was about to fall into the hands of socialists.  Ayn Rand, perhaps due to her early experience with a country having been taken over by socialists when she was a child in the Soviet Union, was in favor of this requirement as a last gasp attempt to prevent a socialist takeover in the United States.  This was one of the few major issues that I disagreed with her on.  While the socialists were hurting the country, I did not think they were on the verge of taking the USA over and putting it under their control.  I thought that Americans who believed in the principle of individual rights still had sufficient means to make use of their free speech rights.  I thought it was dangerous to do anything that would interfere with free speech and set a precedent for such interference in the future.  This turned out to be the case.

Moving to the present and the recent past, we have heard a great many complaints from the socialists associated with Obama and the Democrat Congress about people with viewpoints in opposition to theirs.  This atmosphere of control over speech by the left has long been the rule on most college campuses.  An intricate matrix of politically correct viewpoints are allowed and those with viewpoints outside this matrix are called bigots, rednecks, NASCAR people, trailer trash, and racists.  Students not on board are threatened with expulsion and faculty with a failure to gain tenure.  The socialists clearly do want this same politically correct culture of restricted free speech to be transferred into every American's life.  In many companies, particularly large ones with considerable government business, political correctness rules the day.  Obama's and his comrade's comments about Fox News have not only expressed dislike of that organization's multivariate viewpoints, but have sometimes suggested a desire to limit what it can say with regulations and controls.  Other of his friends have expressed a desire to control what is said on the Internet.  This is hardly surprising given that the left, wherever it has free reign, as it does on most college campuses, has always lost its interest in free speech.  In fact, no socialist country ever tolerates free speech in the way we have traditionally in the United States.

With this as background, let us consider what Glenn Beck has to say in the video clip of a part of his program here.

While much of what he says is true, some perspective is needed.  First, the primary issue of Net Neutrality is whether the companies that operate the lines that provide us with our Internet information should continue to be able to manage the flow of data to optimize the overall service.  As is the case with all resources, bandwidth on these Internet lines is finite.  It is not always the case that everyone hooked up to such a line can upload and download as much data as they wish.  The lines sometimes become overloaded.  The most vociferous and determined company opposing Net Neutrality is Comcast.  This is probably because Comcast has less bandwidth than, say, does Verizon in many areas.  They have no choice but to limit user access in some way.  Allegations have been made that they limited that access in ways that gave their own content an advantage over the content of others.  This may be true, but it is not clear that the issue was one of their trying to cut off socialist or conservative viewpoints from their subscribers.  Some companies, especially those who dealt with large files that they want to send to their customers and who take in large files sent to them from their customers, do not like the fact that Comcast sometimes did not allow a large file to be uploaded at a particular time when they had too little bandwidth to meet the demand.  All the other major Internet line providers also assert that they need to manage their bandwidth also, since all of them have finite bandwidth.  The Net Neutrality proponents do not want any special restrictions aimed at them, despite the fact that they produce many large files that rapidly fill the finite bandwidth of the Internet provider's lines.

Some socialist organizations have banded together with the large file handling point-to-point companies in favor of Net Neutrality.  Why?  Probably because they simply want to get the power of the FCC expanded to give them the power to regulate the Internet.  And yes, they no doubt do want the FCC to later use this power to regulate the Internet to control the viewpoints expressed on the Internet.  That is not the immediate issue being addressed at this time, however.  These socialist organizations are also trying to establish their expertise on such Internet matters and gain publicity.

Of course, we should remain alert to any increase in the powers of the FCC in any case.  It has much too much power now and it does have a lot of potential for the future misuse of that power specifically to allow those in power to squelch viewpoints at variance with their own.  The FCC has always tended to act in restraint of the free markets and this has never been a good thing.

Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. ruled on 6 April 2010 that the FCC has failed to show that it has the authority under Title 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 to tell broadband Internet providers how they could manage their finite bandwidth issues.  At least, the FCC could not do it the way they were attempting to do it.  Being a grasping federal agency always looking to expand its power, the FCC will try and try again to gain control over the Internet, but it has not yet found the formula for doing so.

Mark Lloyd - Obama's Diversity Officer at the FCC

Not infrequently, a politician pretends to be someone he is not. Politicians are actors who do not act a role for a movie or a TV plot, but live their roles most of the hours of their lives. Nonetheless, they generally need some down time and they seek that among their friends, with whom they have permission to be themselves. Obama chose the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Valerie Jarrett as friends for many years and they tell us much about whose company makes him comfortable. His friends are commonly committed socialists, bitter critics of America's past history, friends of organized labor unions, and enemies of wealth in the abstract, but frequently inclined to grasp for wealth through the exercise of special interest politics.

One of Obama's recent appointees was Van Jones, the ex-Green Jobs Czar, who was a self-professed Communist and who believed that President Bush had purposely allowed the destruction of the Twin Towers. He did say that he signed the petition saying that Bush was responsible for allowing the Twin Towers' destruction without reading it, but this would seem unlikely on the part of a graduate of Yale Law School.

No....Let me reconsider that. What I just said would be true given the premise that no rational and responsible man would sign a petition without knowing what it said. I must remember that we have come to understand that it is a characteristic of socialists that they do not read the legislative bills they vote for in Congress, so I suppose it is likely that a socialist will not read the petitions he signs either! But, this is also disturbing. It says that Obama put a very irrational and irresponsible man in a position of some considerable power. We also should ask what motivated him to sign the petition he had not read, if this is not a lie. Is he a man who just has to please and say yes to anything a fellow socialist asks him to do? Would this not tell us more about the socialist mindset? And also of that of the man who appointed him to his position?

This brings me back to Mark Lloyd, with a law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), heavily funded by George Soros. While at CAP, he criticized the free market for allowing conservative talk radio shows to become too popular. He suggested a number of schemes for reducing the power of conservative talk show hosts by taxing their radio stations heavily and by forcing more local ownership and ownership diversity. In other words, use the power of government to keep the People from choosing who they listen to! This same man has praised Hugo Chavez and the way in which he realized the power of the broadcast media and then took it over in Venezuela. Clearly, these are just the qualifications Obama was looking for. Obama appointed him Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission. Where better to put him to carry out the program he developed at CAP to squelch conservative talk radio hosts? We know Obama by the company he keeps and by his judgment of who should be given control of power in the government. Over and over, he has turned to a cadre of highly committed socialists for such positions.

Over and over, we hear that Obama is a nice guy. He has a nice family we are told. Why how could a man with a wife, children, and a dog be bad or even evil? Hmmm....Didn't Stalin have a wife (at least two), children (at least 3), and a dog (a black Terrier)? To be sure, Stalin was not the loving father that Obama appears to be. Still, loving your family is no guarantee that a politician is genuinely motivated by a desire to seek the General Welfare of the People.

When a politician truly cares about the General Welfare of the People, he cares to severely limit the power of government in recognition of the sovereign right of each individual American to his own life, his own liberty, and his own pursuit of happiness. In Obama's case, he has made it very clear that he is a determined enemy of the rights of the individual. He is constantly talking about Americans serving others and advocating the use of government power to make them do just that. Obama is not a nice guy. We must recognize that fact so we can redouble our determination to fight for the embattled rights of the individual in this fight which the socialists recognize as a desperate fight. We must be as passionate in defense of freedom as they are in taking control of the People.