Measure to Block Internet Regulation Is a Jobs Bill
 |
| Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) |
Net Neutrality regulations, explained Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) at Heritage’s Bloggers Briefing, would set up the FCC as the Internet’s “gatekeeper”: many innovations in the way the Internet is accessed and used would have to be approved by the 5-member panel to ensure they would not “discriminate” against certain users.
But it is precisely the lack of such government gatekeepers, Hutchison noted, that has spurred the Internet’s tremendous success – including as an engine of economic growth. “There is no need for us to mess around with that kind of success,” she added. “It is a success, and it doesn’t need fixing.”
Hutchison couched her resolution as an economic measure: regulation will hold back job growth for America’s high-tech industries. “It’s definitely a jobs proposal,” Hutchison said of her resolution, “and it’s an international competition issue.”
A range of studies have suggested that Net Neutrality regulation could have a devastating impact on the tech sector. Heritage’s James Gattuso detailed some of the adverse economic effects likely to emerge from the FCC’s Internet regulatory scheme:
- By hindering management of Internet traffic flow, scarce Internet capacity would be used less efficiently.
- Neutrality regulation would hurt competition. If all providers were forced to act alike, network owners’ ability to distinguish their services from one another-and smaller networks’ ability to challenge established rivals-would be reduced.
- Imposing a new, separate set of rules on the Internet would invite endless uncertainty and litigation. Inevitably, regulators would be drawn into years-long, lobbyist-driven policy quagmires as to whether this or that action is allowed or banned and what prices can be charged. This would be a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers but would hurt innovation, investment, and Internet users.
Another 2010 report on the regulations was more explicit about the damage they might do: Net Neutrality could cost the country 500,000 jobs and $80 billion in economic activity.
“Today, according to the FCC, leading mobile carriers invest $20 billion or more each year in new infrastructure, representing 14% of total revenues as recently as 2009,” technology consultant Larry Downes wrote in September. Like the Internet’s record generally, that is a record of economic success with which Hutchison and other opponents of Internet regulation would rather not tinker.
Tags: Us Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, net neutrality, Free Markets, Internet, Heritage Foundation To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 8:54 PM - Post Link
5 Comments:
Deregulation of airlines = lower airfares. Deregulation of trucking = more efficient truck moves. Deregulation of railroads = development of the best freight rail system in the world. And they want to regulate the internet because...? You know the reason.
To silence the right
Not only a left's dream, unless MITT became POTUS !!!!!!
Included the following comments on the FCC and Net Neutrality today in today's post on Washington, D.C. http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2011/11/senate-faced-with-major-decisions-do.html
On Dec.21, 2010, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to regulate the internet. Seton Motley, president of Less Government called the FCC's action a "worse power grab than ObamaCare." Motley said, "It was done without authority from the People's representatives. In fact, 302 of them (inlcuding more than 80 Democrats) told the FCC not to do it. Then there was the D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled unanimously that the FCC doesn't have the authority. More than 150 organizations, state representatives, and bloggers gave them the anti-Nike "Don't do it." So too did seventeen minority groups (that are usually almost always in Democrat lockstep) and many additional normally Democrat paragons - including several large unions, several racial grievance groups, and an anti-free market environmentalist groups."
In my opinion and the opinion of most Americans, this issue before the Senate is not left verses right (in the traditional sense) or Democrat verses Republican. It is progressive elitist socialism verses the rest of America. Unfortunately, it is within the Democrat Party that this movement is currently operating. But the same dangers could exist in the future with elitists in any political party whom believe they have the need to control the voice of the people.
It is patently obvious that net neutrality will result in reduced access and eventual suppression of freedom of speech. We can ill afford giving up any avenue of free speech which is used by both left and right minded citizens to freely address issues. Free speech is used by Americans to address and even mock actions government officials that walk away from the mainstream of America.
Consider Phil Kerpen's warning, "Once we accept that it's the role of the government to regulate the economics of the Internet and the way traffic is managed on the network, we'll start down a path in which government not only designs and manages but also builds and owns. As taxpayers, we'll pick up the tab of enormous costs of building broadband networks that are regulated so strictly they can't even earn a market return. And the government-owned and -controlled network will almost certainly be subject . . . to pervasive content restrictions."
We must get rid of the FCC; barring that, it needs heavy shackles.
Post a Comment
<< Home