As with many things proposed by liberal Democrats, “net neutrality” sounded nice on the surface, but digging in deeper found something less than what proponents claimed. On December 14, the concept finally met its demise as the FCC voted to stop the controversial plan. Liberals are lined up to sue the FCC, as protesters gathered outside FCC headquarters over the ditching of it. Some liberals even made death threats against FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
The meeting was stopped temporarily and bomb-sniffing dogs brought in after an “unspecified threat,” according to Reuters.
“The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We weren’t living in a digital dystopia. To the contrary, the internet is perhaps the one thing in American society we can all agree has been a stunning success.” Ajit Pai, FCC Chairman
I'm gonna kill Ajit Pai I swear to god
— 𝓕𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓷 𝓜𝓪𝓳𝓸𝓻𝓪 (@FintanMajora) December 14, 2017
In addition to death threats, the State of Washington was first in line to file a lawsuit before the ink was dry on the decision. Ajit Pai is known as an advocate of less government. Liberals hate that.
What is “net neutrality?”
Supposedly, net neutrality is the concept that everyone has access to whatever content they want on the internet. Internet providers are not allowed to block or slow down the services or applications you use. It also means your Internet service provider can’t create so-called fast lanes that force content companies like Netflix to pay an additional fee to deliver their content to customers faster. Sounds great, doesn it? BUT…
Like Obamacare that never worked as it should have, Net Neutrality forced Internet Providers into a government regulatory nightmare. The book of regulations produced by the FCC in 2015 was 400 pages long. It was a competition-stifling document, subjecting the companies to high levels of control. CONTROL has always been the name of the game.
The FCC placed Broadband providers under the strict regulations of the Title II 1934 Communications Act.
Josh Steimle, a technology expert, who is NOT a Conservative Republican, by the way, wrote the following before Net Neutrality went into effect:
“I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations…
…Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers during the manufacturing process to aid its spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should.”
So there you have it. Small business entrepreneurs had a difficult time breaking into the field with new technologies and ideas just because of the regulations. And when the government controls things, you can guarantee something will get messed up. Taking the binders off the telecoms could be a very good thing.