This administration is perhaps the most control-freakish administration since the Nixon administration. Thanks to Jonathan Gurvitz’s illuminating column, we can see the FCC’s naked attempt to control the internet:

So what’s wrong with the Internet? According to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, “It may be dying because entrenched interests are positioning themselves to control the Internet’s choke points.” That was Copps’ prediction in 2003, one year before Facebook was launched, two years before some former employees of PayPal, another Internet success story, started YouTube, and three years before Amazon began offering cloud computing services.

If the last decade is an indication of what Internet necrosis and choke points look like, then by all means, let’s have more of them. Yet in his statement concurring with the decision to regulate the Internet, Copps, who is still an FCC commissioner, writes unashamedly that his 2003 warning was issued “somewhat dramatically perhaps, but not inaccurately.”

That’s chutzpah personified. Copps is embarrassingly wrong but he insists that his 2003 warning wasn’t inaccurate. How can he say that with a straight face? From a different perspective, let’s consider the possibility that an honest person couldn’t make that type of statement.

This afternoon, I used Twitter, which didn’t exist when Copps made his statement, to ask Jeff Jarvis, one of the smarter people on the internet, what he thought of net neutrality. Here’s Jeff’s reply:

Cheap smartphones make the FCC’s net unneutrality all the more offensive: The future is unprotected.

He followed that tweet up with this tweet:

Fortune: 500m smartphones sold in 2011; will eclipse PCs as way most get on internet: http://bit.ly/dHGG87

I think we’re at that point where we can emphatically state that net neutrality is utterly unnecessary. Further, we can state that the FCC’s rulemaking isn’t about diversifying the internet. It’s about this administration attempting to control the internet. This question lays it out perfectly:

Net neutrality is anything but neutral. It takes the operation of the Internet away from the heterogeneous and diversified interests of the private sector that has created it and concentrates it in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable board of political appointees atop a federal bureaucracy. Does that sound like a recipe for continued innovation?

The best way to crush innovation is to put it in the hands of political appointees. When’s the last time the government thought of the next Fedex, the next Microsoft? Try NEVER.

This administration is littered with people who want to control communications in general and the internet in specific. Fortunately, the courts and this Republican House will put the kibosh on their attempts.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Administration’s Thirst To Control Internet Showing”

  • Bill C says:

    [i]How can he say that with a straight face?[/i]

    Megalomaniacal power grabbing people say all sorts of blatant falsehoods with a straight face all the time. Given that they spit into the face of federal judiciary by releasing this “plan”, I think the only hope we have is if congress stays a (R) majority, the senate swings (R) so we can get some laws passed about NEVER restricting the net, and a conservative gets elected president in 2012 to actually sign those laws.

Leave a Reply