Daily News header

The Absurdity of Net Neutrality

By

Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) recently endorsed the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to impose network neutrality on private-sector Internet service providers. Doyle says the plan serves the FCC's "congressionally mandated role to protect consumers and promote the public interest."

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) goes a step further, suggesting net neutrality regulations are the only way "the Internet will remain open and free for everyone who uses it." Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have made similar statements.

Little wonder so many politicians support net neutrality: It opens the door for them to control the world's single-largest source of information, entertainment, and ideas. And if that's not frightening enough, net neutrality is fundamentally anti-consumer, anti-competition, and anti-market.

Net neutrality would require an ISP to offer its service-bandwidth for Internet access-at a single price, regardless of how much a customer uses. Heavy bandwidth users-people streaming high-definition video or downloading software and movies, for example-would pay no more for the service than customers simply browsing the Web or accessing email. The heavy users would be allowed to slow things down for all other users, without paying more for the privilege.

The absurdity of net neutrality is apparent when you apply it to other businesses:

  • Instead of allowing Old Navy to charge for each piece of clothing it sells, the federal government should require it to charge a flat fee for admission to the store. Ticketholders would be allowed to take as much as they wanted throughout the day.

  • Rather than offering individual entrees at varying prices, or reduced-price menus for kids and seniors, Perkins restaurants should be required to offer only single-price buffets. Diners would be required to pay the same price regardless of how much they eat.

  • DirecTV should be required to offer all channels to all subscribers, for a single price. Subscribers who don't watch sports, foreign films, or adult entertainment should pay the same monthly fee as those who do.

  • Barnes & Noble should be required to sell every book ever published. Storeowners should not be permitted to control what's available to their patrons by failing to stock some books.
  • Why do some politicians support such obvious foolishness? Kelly Cobb of Americans for Tax Reform says, "When the first of such regulatory steps tap into the very spine of the Internet-the networks on which everything else depends-that opens the door for further regulation and government intrusion."

    Net neutrality wrests power not from ISPs, but from the consumers they serve. Under a net neutrality regime, ISPs must obey the rules and regulations established by the federal government, rather than responding to consumer preferences in the marketplace.

    Network neutrality is a major shift of power from individual consumers to the federal government. Little wonder high-ranking government officials support it.

    Marc Oestreich (moestreich@heartland.org) is telecommunications legislative specialist for The Heartland Institute.

      Please leave a comment here     If it does not display within 10 seconds, please refresh the page

    * The views of Opinion writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze

    Related Opinions News

    Brian Reilly, a Surprise Tea Party Supporter who asked Sheriff Arpaio to investigate Obama documentation anomalies, switches sides, to attack Arpaio's investigation.
    Robert D. Ashford tells an old story about a documented event that happened a long time ago. The document, a drawing, carries a message, even today.
    The competition between tobacco and e-cigarette products is getting mixed reactions from consumers and key persons in the industry.
    A school superintendent wouldn't invite sick students with chicken pox, small pox, mumps, measles and polio into the school, there would be a mandate they stay home
    The real War on Women is in the middle east, but progressive women in the US don't care about those women. They only care about voting for their democrat candidate.
    We seem to have adapted to the acceptance we must live side by side with evil like a neighbor that trashes his house and lets his dog run wild to bite children at play.

     

    NewsBlaze Writers Of The Month



    Popular Stories This Month

    newsletter logo

    NewsBlaze
    Copyright © 2004-2014 NewsBlaze Pty. Ltd.
    Use of this website is subject to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy  | DMCA Notice               Press Room   |    Visit NewsBlaze Mobile Site