Cross Hairs

2011 January 6
by drdog09

fcc-logo.gifWhat a difference a change of Congress makes. Marsha Blackburn has filed a bill to halt the FCC from making any moves on the Internet as far as regulations go. —

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is keeping the promise she made last month. Today, she filed a bill to strike down the Federal Communications Commission’s recent move to enact net neutrality regulations. The Internet Freedom Act states Internet regulation is the sole prerogative of Congress, and is supported by more than 60 House members, including the majority of Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“I agree that the Internet faces a number of challenges,” Rep. Blackburn said in a statement. “Only Congress can address those challenges without compounding them. Until we do, the FCC and other federal bureaucracies should keep their hands off the ‘net.”

Source
Heh. Harold ole boy, I told you two years ago at the height of Democratic power that the FCC would probably not get progress vis a vis the Internet. This just caps my prediction.

Should we crow about this? Yes and no. Yes because it is the role that Congress is designated to do. No because quite honestly Congress can screw it up far worse than the FCC could. Its my hope now that Congress will define a rational plan for data services that encompasses the following attributes —

  • That access is available at a base level regardless of color, creed or orientation. The only criterion is the ability to pay. And yes tiered pricing for that wish more speed is quite all right so long as the base is useable.
  • That walled gardens based on proprietary networking schemes are not permitted.
  • That content be decoupled from carriage. Yes Auntie Mae, Verizon may not be the sole provider of entertainment content, you may buy from whomever you wish without interference.
  • That adult content be required to move to a specified domain. Lets give the parents a fighting chance shall we?

I hope we get it.

[Cross Posted at ThridPipe.com]

27 Responses leave one →
  1. 2011 January 6 11:14 am
    [1]
    bc3b permalink

    Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is introducing a bill to eliminate “birthright citozenship.”

  2. 2011 January 6 11:46 am
    [2]
    justrand permalink

    i like your suggestions for regulations…I pray the Congress and FCC can stop there!

  3. 2011 January 6 11:52 am
    [3]
    bc3b permalink

    MFG’s buddy, Lincoln Chaffee, is at it again. If only he had been reelected to the Senate, Chaffee could have saved the GOP.

    On Wednesday, newly installed Rhode Island governor, Lincoln Chafee rescinded an executive order put in place by his predecessor, Gov. Donald Carcieri which ordered state agencies and their vendors to use the E-verify system to screen-out illegal aliens for employment.

    Gov. Chafee also ordered the Rhode Island State Police to stop participating in the federal 287(g) program which allowed them direct access to an immigration database when they suspect an arrestee to be in the country illegally.

    Hat tip: Examiner.com

  4. 2011 January 6 12:09 pm
    [4]
    bc3b permalink

    William Daley, the mayor’s brother has been selected as Obama’s new chief of staff.

    As Secretary of Commerce (under Clinton) Dalet was the one who negotiated the NAFTA Treaty.

  5. 2011 January 6 1:39 pm
    [6]

    “If only he had been reelected to the Senate, Chaffee could have saved the GOP”

    Pithy, BC. Very pithy

  6. 2011 January 6 2:18 pm
    [7]

  7. 2011 January 6 2:26 pm
    [8]
    drdog09 permalink

    P.S. where is everyone ????? — EPH

    Read your own post dude. 43% of us are busting our asses so the other 57% can sit on their fat asses. 🙂

  8. 2011 January 6 2:32 pm
    [9]
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    Excuse me, uh why do we need the government to control/censor our speech thru internet regulation?

    Seems to me that the internet works fine……it is probably has some technical issues and is not Utopia or Nivarva but how is applying authoritrian government intervention or control exactly going to “fix” any of that?

    More specifically, is it the role of government (especially the Federal government) to be involved in private speech or commerical transactions?

    Again, Government exsists solely to protect our Individual Rights and Liberties – exactly which one will be protected by government control of the Internet?

    Seems to me our right to speech will be clearly dimished…..and as a practical matter none of the supposed “issues” can be solved any more effectively thru government coersion and force then they can thru voluntary action by private individuals……

    Once again, if we claim to be Conservatives or beleivers in Limited government/Indvidual Rights yet go around agreeing right off the bat that the Federal government is authorized to intervne (ie expand beyond its ennumerated powers) in every situation in life on the basis that such encroachment is justified because force and coersion will “fix” things we will soon or later end up losing all our aruguments with the Left as this is their basic premise….

  9. 2011 January 6 2:36 pm
    [10]
    drdog09 permalink

    BC,

    Look at it this way, Chaffee is doing what he is doing to the smallest state with the smallest population in the country. As a senator he was shafting 300m people. As a gov only a million or so. Progress.

  10. 2011 January 6 2:42 pm
    [11]
    bc3b permalink

    drdog09 –

    Good point. In this case, less is really more.

  11. 2011 January 6 2:51 pm
    [12]
    drdog09 permalink

    WEC,

    To your point, for the end user, none is needed. Fact, I make the case that SCOTUS should have just made the ruling that the 4th Amend extends to communications in the electronic realm. That would have prevented this hodge-podge of rulings and exclusions we have now. Like the CA smartphone posting of yesterday. Its a mess.

    But there does have to be some regulation at the provider level. Otherwise most of the major carriers would just set up their own networks and tell consumers if you want access to content X you need to use our protocols to get to it. Hence the term ‘walled garden’. Imagine if Facebook decreed that you may only access them using network service Y. The Internet would quickly devolve in to a tower of Babel.

    Things were pretty smooth on the ‘Net when it was a bunch of bearded techies working under gentlemen agreements as to how the tech worked. Once the Suits moved in contract lawyers, market position and a rush for the 40% ROI started making a mess of things. That right there should be a good indicator. Hell I am a pig in slop grab all you can capitalist at heart. But you know, there is greed and then there is GREED. My old man told me once, “get all you can, but leave some for the other guy…” Then he winked at me and “… so they come back for more later.” Worked for 40 years.

  12. 2011 January 6 4:07 pm
    [13]
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    #12 Yes, Greed exists in the world…..however that “greed” cannot be fulfilled in a free market unless the greedy person provides a good or service voluntarily….

    In a government regulated system, I think history shows that the regulartory scheme always works to the actual advantage of the “big” or supposed “greedy” person……in other words, the greedy person can now use force of law to gain advantage or to stiffle smaller competition (that might be able to find an alternative solution for you with better quality or lower cost)…..

    Regulations are reshaped by clever firms with deep pockets and savvy litigators and greater politcal access…

    Regulation is far more apt to favor the large entity than the small one. For small firms, regulations work effectively as barriers to entry. For large firms, regulations are merely an irritant to be circumvented. Not only does this benefit the large interest and Statist government types but actually harms the smaller firms and individuals it is proclaimed to protect IMHO

    So in practical terms, stiffiling economic liberty results in worse or at best equal outcomes to that of an unregulated or free market…..

    Again, philosophically, I think its dangerous to Liberty (and politcally unwise) to expand governmental power beyond simple protection of our rights…..

    The logical end to making “limited” expections becomes overtime unlimited expanision…..after all, if we think a “small bit” of government intervention works (with the converse loss of freedom and individual rights) then why would alot more work even better?

    In any case, I philospohically disagree that its an appropriate role to allow for government intervention or centralization into areas that do not have a clear basis in protection of our individual rights and freedom…….

  13. 2011 January 6 4:17 pm
    [14]
    drdog09 permalink

    WEC,

    Uncle Milty laid it out pretty well —

  14. 2011 January 6 4:33 pm
    [15]
    drdog09 permalink

    WEC,

    Regulations favor the big firm for the simple reason that they are generally the ones writing the legislation. (And for those on BJG that think our CongressCritters write these laws. Hey I got birdges going cheap!) But WEC I have to point out that The Constitution itself is a regulation. It defines the regulations that are to be used to operate a government for what was supposed to be minimal. So you can’t get away from some regulation. The best you can hope for is that it is evenhanded and as minimal as possible to assure a functioning marketplace for buyers and sellers.

  15. 2011 January 6 4:46 pm
    [16]
    gnqanq permalink

    Any form of government (including ours) has the natural inclination to gather more and more power (regulation). Through this acquisition of power and regulation these so called elitists acquire their wealth and status by deciding who the winners & losers are, until the people decide to hit the reset button.

  16. 2011 January 6 4:55 pm
    [17]
    mulletover permalink

    It is way past time to hit the reset button.

  17. 2011 January 6 4:55 pm
    [18]
    justrand permalink

    Eph, I don’t know about everyone else, but I have been consumed with business and family over the last few weeks. Things should settle down now, but thank God for bc3b, drdog, JM, et al for keeping the wheels spinning! 🙂

  18. 2011 January 6 5:28 pm
    [19]

    WHERE’S MITT ROMNEY ???????????????

  19. 2011 January 6 5:49 pm
    [20]
    drdog09 permalink

    Where’s KH? We need to assign him the task of writing an app to track Mitt Romney’s cell phone. Then Eph can rest easy. 🙂

  20. 2011 January 6 5:53 pm
    [21]
    drdog09 permalink

    Where is that reset button? We need to press it HARD.

  21. 2011 January 6 6:12 pm
    [22]

    RESET BUTTON

  22. 2011 January 6 6:13 pm
    [23]
    drdog09 permalink

    They have done it again!

  23. 2011 January 6 6:17 pm
    [24]
    drdog09 permalink

    22, Psssst, that PULL dude, not push. 🙂

  24. 2011 January 6 6:32 pm
    [25]

  25. 2011 January 6 7:49 pm
    [26]
    drdog09 permalink

    I bow to your photographic prowess.

  26. 2011 January 7 7:31 am
    [27]
    Wylie E. Coyote permalink

    #15 My point is you have to have a correct fundamental understanding of WHY we have a government to begin with!

    I submit that with a free and independent people a government is constructed solely to protect our Individual Rights (think Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness/Property)…….

    We deputize the government with a portions of our rights to defend them using force/threat of force/coersion in collective situations where we cannont do so our selves…….

    Yes, law or regulations exsist to codify protection of our basic rights from violation by other citizens (ie criminals) or foreign powers who would use force, theft, or fraud against us – they should not exists to “make things equal” or to “do good things” or to impose our personal values (such as our beleif that every employer should pay a “living” or minimum wage; how are we harmed if the agreement is voluntary by the two parties) or belief as to “what is right” or what is best as these personal opinions of what we want and NOT protection from others violating our rights!

    And as you point out, the “who” as to who makes and enforces/interprets such “values” regulation is entirely dependendent on the human population from which the regulator is drawn. In other words, the government offiicial is just as likely to be as “greedy”, power hungry, etc as the “evil” private citizen whom they are charged to regulate. One does not become an Angel who makes impartial decsions and infalliable decsions once employed by the government nor does one become a devil who does nothing but evil if acting as a private citizen!

    Government does not (or should not) be allowed to “regulate” or pass law that do not involve protection of our rights….

    Almost all regulation passed by State or Federal government these days are essentially based on the premise that people are not competent to make decisions for themselves therefore the “all wise” government elite must make them for them……

    And that is the way in which Statist supporters of massive regulation will explain or rationalize this as the government’s duty to “protect” citizens. But this is very ill defined and essentially limitless in scope. Which is this issue – if you think government exsists to impose your “values” on others to “protect” them from “bad people” or their own bad choices then what are the limits of government powers?

    The greatest change comes when we accept that protection is not just a question of against what we are protecting, but against whom, and whether that “whom” might include the individual himself.

    Once we allow that protection may include protection against his own bad decisions or poor judgment, we enter the realm of truly totalitarian government. As I described in many posts almost all modern interventionist governments, from simple liberalism through the most authoritarian state imaginable, rest upon the concept that government must protect citizens against themselves.

    Of course, in reality, even the previous category, the protection of individuals against the bad acts of others, is really just protecting individuals from themselves.

    The most malign of forces, so long as they are private citizens, without the force of government, can do not more than try to deceive, cajole, bully or otherwise convince an individual to accept their offers. And so, even though they describe it as protecting against “corporate exploitation” or “unfair bargaining positions”, the truth is, in a free state, protecting an individual against other private citizens or groups amounts to restricting their right to contract

    In other words, limiting their options, restricting their choices. That is protecting them against themselves.

    And this is not a Free Society where the people are soverign…..

    And Statist, Liberals, Democrats, whatever you want to call the proponents of unlimited government power will run circles around us every time as we fundamentally agree with their basic premise of government – so we will continue to see it expand in both scope, size, and power until we establish a basic conservative understanding of governance based on protection of Individual Rights!

    There are deeper “rat holes” we can go down as to the practical effects or “benefits” of regulations (I postulate that they more then often are a net negative and at best produce the same outcome as a freedom or a free market) but that is another lengthy discussion…..

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.