Dissenting FCC Commissioners on Net Neutrality Power Grab: "
In light of the recent ham-fisted power grab by the FCC, the dissenting statements of commissioners who do not want the government to seize the Internet by the throat make interesting reading.
From Robert M. McDowell:
What had been bottom-up, non-governmental, and grassroots based Internet governance will become politicized. Today, the United States is abandoning the longstanding bipartisan and international consensus to insulate the Internet from state meddling in favor of a preference for top-down control by unelected political appointees, three of whom will decide what constitutes "reasonable" behavior. …
The Order's expansive grasp for jurisdictional power here is likely to alarm any reviewing court because the effort appears to have no limiting principle. If we were to accept the Order's argument, "it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether." "As the [Supreme] Court explained in Midwest Video II, 'without reference to the provisions of the Act' expressly granting regulatory authority, 'the Commission's [ancillary] jurisdiction … would be unbounded.'" I am relieved, however, that in the Order, the Commission is explicitly refraining from regulating coffee shops.
In short, if this Order stands, there is no end in sight to the Commission's powers. I also have concerns regarding the constitutional implications of the Order, especially its trampling on the First and Fifth Amendments.
I keep returning to what should be a threshold question: why do we intervene in the one sector of the economy that is working so well to create high-paying jobs, untold consumer choice, and entrepreneurial opportunity?
The answer: because it is working so well to create high-paying jobs, untold consumer choice, and entrepreneurial opportunity. But Big Government will fix that.
Baker narrows her objections to Orwellian 'Net Neutrality' to the top seven:
First, the factual record does not support government intervention. Second, the majority's claim that consumers will benefit from this government overreach is unsupported and deeply flawed. Third, the majority's focus on preserving network operators' current conditions will distort tomorrow's Internet. Fourth, the majority puts the Commission in the unworkable role of Internet referee. Fifth, the majority fails to marshal a sustainable legal foundation. Sixth, the majority's decision to act a legislator, not regulator, is a mistake that may undermine our agency's mission. And, lastly, opportunity cost. By that I mean, we have squandered months on this effort, diverting resources and political capital away from real problems that lie within our core competencies, like universal service and spectrum reform.
When people look back on the Age of Obama and ask the inevitable question, 'Why didn't somebody stop them?' at least McDowell and Baker will be able to say they tried.
On a tip from Kevin R.
"
No comments:
Post a Comment