Posted on 04/07/2015 5:51:24 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Recent congressional hearings held in the wake of the Federal Communication Commissions's (FCC) net neutrality ruling provide a glimpse into what is so deeply wrong with this regulation, and why so many activist groups were behind it.
Silly you. Actually, those were the interests of those companies — like Google and Netflix — that saw in governmental sway over the Internet commercial benefits for themselves. But what about those groups and individuals who had political or ideological interests, and who played such outsized roles in the deal?
You know, groups like Free Press, Media Matters, Public Knowledge and New America's Open Technology Institute? Or what about the large grant-giving foundations, like Ford, MacArthur, Knight and George Soros's Open Society Institute that, in addition to munificently funding third-party net neutrality activists, directly lobbied the FCC themselves?
It should now be clear, even to those who weren't paying attention earlier, that the primary interest these groups had, and have, in net neutrality is their desire to insinuate government in the regulation of speech on the Internet.
Consider, for instance, the comments of the policy counsel for the Open Technology Institute, as made in a piece published by The Hill just after the conclusion of House Judiciary Committee hearings on March 25:
Net neutrality is a pro-competition ideal, but competition alone cannot fully protect the values of Internet openness and freedom. A net neutrality regime that relies solely on antitrust analysis would be narrowly focused on pricing harms, such as those found in cartels and monopolies. Such a legal theory may prevent some paid prioritization schemes, but it cannot address the non-economic goals of net neutrality such as free speech, political participation and viewpoint diversity. [Emphasis added.]
Similarly, and as reported in an article in National Journal, "Rep. John Conyers [Mich.], the panel's top Democrat, argued that antitrust laws fail to address the 'non-economic goals of net neutrality, including the promotion of innovation and the protection of free speech and political debate.'"
Never mind for a minute that the FCC has no such mandate, and that were it to attempt to assert one (as it inevitably will), it would run headlong into First Amendment challenges based on the widely understood notion that government may not play such a role.
The really interesting thing is how little attention has been focused, by the media or FCC officials themselves, on this aspect of net neutrality. Indeed, a quick search of comments made by Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, yields some vague (and inapposite) comments about net neutrality and free speech, but nowhere is there an indication that he, like the people quoted above, believes that the FCC now has authority, under its Net Neutrality Order, to ensure "viewpoint diversity" or "political debate."
So it would be a good thing, the next time Wheeler is hauled off to testify before Congress, if someone asks him that very question. Does he, or doesn't he, believe that net neutrality confers on the FCC some kind of regulatory authority over content posted on the Internet?
If he answers "no," that would be a healthy check on the ambitions of some of the pro-net neutrality crowd, while if he says "yes," we will have, for the first time, a clear view of what net neutrality was, and is, all about.
Maines is president of the Media Institute, a nonprofit organization that promotes free speech, sound communications policies and excellence in journalism. The views expressed are those of Maines alone.
Interesting?! It isn't interesting or even remotely surprising, it is entirely predictable and expected.
Mike Lee was on FOX this morning saying that he has a stack of paper in his office that’s 11 feet tall. Its binding regulatory law imposed entirely by unelected bureaucrats.
‘Common sense’ speech control
It’s for the children.
We’re from the government and we’re here to control...er...help you.
Yeah, what’s surprising about a leftist controlled government implementing speech control?
If it was really about preventing Comcast from kneecapping Netflix, the order could have been a paragraph long. Two tops.
It seems to me that when unpopular laws are enacted, there is a period of time where nothing seems to happen, or nothing seems to have changed. Then, little by little, the rope is tightened around the neck.
CWII Spark Ping — They might try turning the screws slowly, counting on people being used to evils that they’re accustomed to... but eventually something gives.
Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping!
To get onto The Nut-job Conspiracy Theory Ping List you must threaten to report me to the Mods if I don't add you to the list...
FCC NSA Internet 
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
It should be everyones.
Well, let me say this while I can, F*CK OBAMA!
the pogroms continue
Net neutrality = SOPA with a different name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.