Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Bye, Bye, Internet

Fast forward a quarter century during which time there have been rumblings and grumblings from the Left to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, all of which rumblings and grumblings thankfully were rejected. Today, however, we have a new danger posed for the First Amendment and for the Democrat powers-that-be, the Internet.

What to do? thought the Left. Why “regulate” it, of course!

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, former staffer for Chuck Schumer and on the Select Committee to investigate Iran-Contra, former tech advisor to the president, and member of the board of CommonSenseMedia.com, is the administration’s point man in the new battle which one wag has described as “a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency acting illegally.”

Already shot down by a federal appeals court in its effort to “regulate” the Net, the FCC has new rules up its sleeve for an “open internet,” thanks to Democrats who plan to enhance “the free and open nature of the Internet” by crippling it.

Creating a non-existent straw man by manufacturing a problem over interference of legal web traffic by isp’s and “worries that large phone and cable firms were getting too powerful as Internet gatekeepers,” Genachowski’s FCC is imposing a cure for a patient without an ailment.

As the World Street Journal points out, “Most consumers haven’t had a problem viewing whatever they want online; few instances have arisen of an Internet provider blocking or slowing services.” Ever alert, however, the FCC is worried about “future harms:” http://tiny.cc/oezyc

When the feds get so worried, we should all get worried, although for different reasons.

This, after all, is the federal government in action, an institution not known for having much in the way of foresight, witness the Fairness Doctrine, known for attempting to suppress contrary viewpoints, also witness the Fairness Doctrine, and especially famous for intending unintended consequences. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3145)

No comments: