Michelle Malkin: Net Neutrality like ‘Obamacare’ for the Internet

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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Thad says:

    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!

  2. 0
    Dan says:

    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.

  3. 0
    Neeneko says:

    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.

  4. 0
    Thad says:

    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.

  5. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    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 😛


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

  6. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    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

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  7. 0
    Craig R. says:

    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.

Leave a Reply