The Bureaucrats at Work

I just read the article below. This is a supreme example of faceless, unelected bureaucrats attempting to control you. While their expressed goal is "net neutrality," they absolutely fail to recognize the fact that an unfettered free market is the strongest, most effective creator of an unfettered broadband. Read it for yourself, and think of the implications of the government becoming involved in yet one more facet of your life, and a critical one at that. Obama's successful use of the internet in his election is well known. It now serves as the primary thorn in his, and his Marxist network's, side, as it provides an absolutely open forum for discussion of every aspect of his administration that he would, quite frankly, often not discuss.

The FCC and Broadband Regulation. What Part of "No" Did You Not Understand?

BTW, I strongly recommend you bookmark the Heritage Foundation, and make it a daily part of your reading schedule. It is the nation's largest conservative think tank, and a great antidote for the liberal lies spilling out of the mainstream media.

******************************************************************************

OK, so three minutes after I posted this (the first time), I read the following article.

Bandwidth hogs eat away at principle of net neutrality

At first glance, it appears to be in support of FCC regulation. But read on. The final solution offered is the free market at work, if only left alone to do so. The article discusses Comcast's attempt to limit a portion of the internet, in this case due to overly high usage, potentially limiting others' access. This restriction was censured by the FCC in the name of "net neutrality." So far, FCC looks good. But read on, and consider this specific case in the spotlight of the Heritage article, and in the answer provided by the article itself. Simply put, a free market that regulates itself. Let's consider the scenario with out FCC interference. 1) Bandwidth Hogs enter the market. 2) Comcast restricts Bandwidth Hogs. We reach a decision point in the road where consumers vote with their feet. For those who find this restriction bothersome, they change providers. Comcast looses business. If they loose enough business, they will retract the restrictions. ORRRR, maybe people with other providers see Comcast's delivery speeds increase dramatically, and switch to Comcast. These people aren't consumers of the bandwidth hogs, and could care less about them. Either way, the market will regulate itself. The key to this is that because the market is unfettered, there are alternatives to Comcast, and so people can, and will, change to meet their own needs. It is in this same market system that the solution proposed in the New Scientist, charging by volume rather than speed would function. People who truly need, or want, this high bandwidth, would either pay more, or switch providers. People not needing, or using, this bandwidth, would not notice the change per se. Or maybe they would become annoyed that their service is slow, because a high volume of bandwidth hogs continue on. Guess what? Yep, they'd vote with their feet again, and go find a provider with better service for their needs.

Yikes! enough!

Gotta run.