OBAMANET? Public Option for Internet Next on the Left's Agenda

Dignitas News Service ^ | April 1, 2013 | Paul M Winters

[dignitasnews]

While on one hand the Obama Administration has announced a plan to hand over supervision of Internet domains to the international community, they are actively looking at plans to control how we purchase and access the internet. In conjunction with it's grand launch, Vox Editor In Chief Ezra Klein debuted an exclusive interview with former Special Assistant to President Obama on Science, Technology and Innovative Policy (what a title) Susan Crawford to stress why "the internet is too important to be left to the private market."

The interview came off with as much as much spontaneity as a paid commercial announcement begins with Klein asking bluntly why a public option is needed for internet access. Crawford leaves little doubt to her motivations as she declares, "try to make their own profits at the expense of social good" and "we're one country and every American needs this access."

One has to give Klein credit for his talents as an effective interviewer/propagandist for his primarily liberal audience. He often frames his questions in fashion so that Crawford's response will be seen not so much as opinion, but as clarification of a given fact. Mid-way through the interview, they tackle a key aspect of the certain future debate. Klein deftly opens the question with, "One way of understanding your argument is that it's highly government-centric, and yet something you really emphasize is that the problem here is actually the lack of competition." Having gotten this clever disclaimer out of the way, Klein pauses slightly and then continues, not to ask a question, but to state, "Most people in most cities don't have a bunch of choices for the internet — they have one choice and because that choice is a local monopoly they can charge too much and deliver too little." Then to follow with the question, "Why is that?"

Link to video:

Vox_YouTube

Having rhetorically established these things as fact, Crawford is presented with the dream of every Wednesday night Softball enthusiast and delivers a response sure to be the delight of the progressive-left as she charges, "What happens is that we deregulated this entire sector about 10 years ago." In making that argument that more, not less, government will increase competition, prices and excellence, except for those of us doing opposition research, Klein's audience screamed "Stop! You had me at we deregulated this entire sector."

The remainder of the interview provides plenty red-meat for the bedroom bolshevik to chomp on. Terms such as monopoly, profits, the wealthy and the social good are offered up to frame the debate in its proper class warfare context. Given the left's new-found indifference to violations of civil liberty, it is certain vox populi will see nothing insidious in the statement made by Crawford, when asked if she believed the internet was a given right, "I call it a utility because that's the model of oversight that it should have. But the larger vision is that it's an input into absolutely everything we do."

After all, if the state has a firmer control of who provides internet service, and which services they can provide, imagine how much easier storage and acquisition of data will be. And leaks would be certainly be easier to control.

Commentary by Paul M Winters Founder & Managing Editor, Dignitas News Service

Sources:

Vox Vox_YouTube

[dignitasnews]

We originally published this article on April 1, 2014 and literally had some question if this was an April Fools Joke. I wish it was. Don't normally post old articles, but this has come to pass, and I believe it would be helpful to watch Vox Editor In Chief Ezra Klein;s interview with former Special Assistant to President Obama on Science, Technology and Innovative Policy (what a title) Susan Crawford.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So is he going to change our name to the USSA?

[GeronL]

"Most people in most cities don't have a bunch of choices for the internet — they have one choice and because that choice is a local monopoly they can charge too much and deliver too little

I don't think this is even true anymore.

[dignitasnews]

Well, what the hell. The left thinks race relations are at pre-1950’s levels, so why shouldn’t they think internet options are circa 1998?

[Vince Ferrer]

"Most people in most cities don't have a bunch of choices for the internet — they have one choice and because that choice is a local monopoly they can charge too much and deliver too little." Then to follow with the question, "Why is that?"

Because government regulation itself encourages the formation of monopolies?

[political1]

Three major bills that congress passed dealing with cable television. One in the mid 80’s, and two in the 90’s. Each time one of these bills were passed, cable rates went up. Each time they said, “Increases in cable rates would be greatly reduced.” They said the same thing with the ACA. “It will reduce the cost.” The federal government needs to stay out of the internet business, or we will see a massive increase in our internet cost also.

[setha]

Explain, since one would have to set the bar implausibly low to get “alternatives”.

[GeronL]

explain what?

I live in a small town, 17,000 and we certainly have the choice of several internet providers.

[buckalfa]

I believe the liberal meme on this is changing from having “options” to being a “free” utility to certain entitled classes. The ability to conduct almost any type of business transaction in the future will depend on internet access. Hence not having access will be discriminatory. Of course we know it is all about control and power.

[jespasinthru]

Is the Obama Administration so clueless that they don’t see the hornet’s nets they’re stepping into? The Democrats were disappointed because the young people, one of their prized demographics, didn’t care enough to turn out and vote for them in the last election. But if they cram this Net Neutrality monster down our throats like they did Obamacare, they will see the youth vote in 2016. In numbers that will shock and amaze them. Because you don’t mess with the Internet. It ain’t broke, so don’t try to fix it. This Net Neutrality issue will energize the youth vote the way Obamacare energized the Tea Party. Hillary for president in 2016? Fat chance!

[setha]

I was asking about what you meant about availability, which can vary due to multiple reasons (technical, geographic, and regulatory). What you might be able to get will be different for someone that’s somewhere else.

For what it’s worth, I just look for a no-nonsense connection.

[wastoute]

Watch some entrepreneur from a country that still allows them to launch free net from satellites!

[jespasinthru]

What scares me is that there are still way too many senile, doddering old fools in congress who are so computer illiterate and clueless about the Internet that they can be convinced that a stupid, 1980’s-era idea like Net Neutrality would work with today’s technology without completely crippling it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The feral government cancer has metastasized.

[Old Sarge]

There’s only one thing wrong with your theory: the Stupid College Brat vote will turn out in record numbers - FOR Obola.

Because they are being TOLD that the Internet is broke, and the only solution is Their Lord And Savior, The Obama, The Messiah, The Won.

After all, you can’t put anything on the Internet if it isn’t true...

[Nateman]

...a stupid 1980’s-era idea like Net Neutrality would work..

It's worse than that. They are using a 1930's era law regulating utilities as their excuse for the power grab. No wonder the courts keep tossing out the attempts. That's one reason why Reid went with the nuclear option: to pack the courts with stooges that would allow such travesties.

[1010RD]

Brilliant. Let Obama do for the Internet what he did for healthcare.

Shouldn’t we be calling this Democratnet and Democratcare?

Obama will be gone in 2 years, but Democrats are forever.