Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for the Internet

December 22, 2010 -

An editorial penned by conservative firebrand and regular Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin calls net neutrality "Obamacare" for the Internet. Malkin says that net neutrality is really about expanding the government's control of the Internet, and less about protecting consumers from big corporations. Speaking about the FCC's vote on Tuesday, Malkin describes it this way:

"The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds. The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks."

She goes on to compare it to Obamacare, in that it provides less access, not more:

"The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement. In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health-insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more."

She also balks at comparing open internet principles with civil rights:

"Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. 'Broadband is becoming a basic necessity,' civil-rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and No. 3 House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every 'nappy-headed child' in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, 'deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is.'"

She ends her editorial by talking about the free market:

"A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals."

There is more of it at the New York Post.


Comments

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Sure is a good thing the Dems on the FCC watered it down so much.  That way they could pass it with votes from both sides of the aisle and Republicans would stop criticizing it as crazy left-wing overreach!

...

...

...wait a minute...

...

...net neutrality IS just like the healthcare bill.

Holy shit, Michelle Malkin is right!

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Bandwidth is a finite resource, so it's not unreasonable to put some rules on it's usage, as long as it's for pragmatic reasons rather than corporate or political favoritism.

In any case, the Government can't take over the Internet. It's run by the W3C, ICANN, ISO and IEEE. All INTERNATIONAL bodies.

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Ahm.. ICANN is essentially controled by the US government.   W3C, ISO, and IEEE have no actual power, they can only make recommendations.

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

EZK I dunno if government did not come in would we have as much satellite TV/radio as we do now? Would radio be a big box waste land?

Sure you get a monopolistic setup either way, one gives you less quality at a higher price the other gives you some quality for more money, either way its samey.

 

What we really need is to pull an imminent domain over all land line's, start upgrading/tweaking them to ensure that all providers of TV can sell easily sell to the public, I want to see comcast offer in a area where one can only get road runner and vice versa.

 

If they can take care of maintaining an upgrade the lines themselves they will get the line for 10% of its rent price.

 

With something like that you will spread broadband and thus content over a wider consumer base , it should pay for itself, if the corps don't like it bring in wireless as well :P

 


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Please let us know when somebody with a shred of intelligence comments on this. Also, don't bother reporting on anything from anybody who uses the words "free market", because they don't have a bloody clue what they're talking about.

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Well, actuallyu free market advocates are right. If we truly had a free market in the internet service provider world, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But as it stands, we don't. The reason we son't is because of government interference back in the 90s. If the government had just stayed out of it, we would be far better off than we are now.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

I disagree.  I would say that government interference allowed things to grow as much as they did.  If we did not have those early ISP regulations, we would have had the same effect that the telephone industry had in it's early days.... incompatible gated networks, rented phones (with only one option), etc.   Internet access would have been completely dominated by local telcos and what they felt like offering.  Even early companies like AOL, CompuServ, and Prodigy would have withered and died immediatly if Ma' Bell was not forced to allow them to use their lines.

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Er, you mean the 90's where Internet usage exploded and it went from being a tiny niche to the most important communications medium in the world?

Yeah, the government should have stayed out of it and left it to private enterprise.  I'm SURE Prodigy and Compuserve would have given us something really special.

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

On the other hand, recorded history. 

Re: Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like 'Obamacare' for ...

Mmmm Is there a case of the government not getting involed? I mean looking at Australia,Canada and the UK I don't see an instance where the large nations let the corporations do what they want, well telesco and Az land but thats different.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician