Despite intentions, ‘net neutrality’ gives online control to politicians

By David McElroy · July 12, 2017

Everybody knows “net neutrality” is a great idea. Right?

Ask any self-respecting member of the digerati and you’ll get the same response. We need net neutrality to “save our Internet.” That’s what all their slogans say, so it must be true.

But do you know what the real issues are? Do the people leading the pro-net neutrality crusades even understand what they’re advocating? Or are they just going along with what seems like a good idea since it’s aimed at big companies they don’t like?

There are few issues today which are as dishonestly framed as “net neutrality.” Although I like many of the outcomes which its advocates favor, the idea is a massive intrusion on private property — and it sets up government to control the Internet.

Briefly, the idea of net neutrality is that any Internet provider must treat every packet of data coming through the network equally. The provider isn’t allowed to charge more or less for one type of data — video or traffic coming from one particular site, for instance. An Internet service provider isn’t allowed to have plans that give a user all the data he wants from one company but have metered access (or no access) for data coming from a different company.

That sounds reasonable, right? On the surface, yes. This has been the way the Internet operated from the beginning, but it was a voluntary arrangement that developed through private agreements. There was no rule that insisted this was the way it had to be. In other words, the market dictated that this was best for the companies involved and for their customers — at least for the most part.

Private companies built their Internet infrastructure and voluntarily linked those networks through peering agreements. Although the original network was started with U.S. government funding, these private companies were allowed to openly build on it without restrictions, so they went with this model instead of the old closed model of the original giants such as CompuServe and AOL. The consumer market demanded interconnected access to various networks, so companies did that instead of continuing to have their individual proprietary networks which were closed off to anyone not on those networks.

Today, companies are experimenting with changes — and a lot of people don’t like that. Frankly, I prefer the neutral model and I think we’re all better off with it, but this is an issue for market forces to decide, not political power.

Political interests want to force the networks to operate according to their own principles, ignoring what is in the best interests of the companies which invest the money. This is a power grab of private networks and it’s wrong, even if I like the end result which its advocates say they want.

The scariest part of it, though, is that once government regulates this much, it’s easy for the regulation to creep further — to outlaw “hate speech” and then “offensive speech” and then whatever is unpopular with whichever majority controls political power.

The people promoting “net neutrality” claim they favor freedom, but what they really favor is forcing companies to operate their networks as they desire — and setting up politicians to have even more control over those networks. The net neutrality advocates are desperately trying to give power to politicians that most politicians wouldn’t dream of asking for.

Only in a world of Orwellian doublespeak can it be “pro-freedom” to give more control to politicians over private actions.

Giving more control to politicians is a terrible idea, but hardly anybody will bother to listen anymore, because they have been so convinced it’s a good idea — without even understanding what’s really at stake.

I don’t care for some of the big companies that are the targets of net neutrality. I’m not even crazy about my own Internet service provider. But the choice here isn’t “freedom vs. big companies.” The choice is “big companies vs. politicians.”

I want a truly free Internet. I want competitors to have the freedom to compete and innovate with new business models, because consumers voting with their spending choices should choose, not politicians.

There are no perfect solutions, but the worst possible solution is giving control to politicians.

What is now called “net neutrality” is really just a method of giving politicians more and more control of the Internet. If that doesn’t scare you, you’re missing the long-term implications of this unwise crusade by well-meaning but short-sighted people.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts