I haven't written a post to this point on the concept euphemistically named "net neutrality", a natural topic given my academic background and over 20 years as an information technology professional and consultant.
The FCC in 2008 demanded that Comcast, an Internet service provider, not block or restrict certain peer-to-peer applications (like BitTorrent) (or, say, deploy certain high tech devices which redirect or resell Internet services through a broadband connection); Comcast and other ISP's have a variety of technical and marketing reasons for wanting to manage traffic. Technical issues include performance issues with throughput, including very large files, quite often video or music files (some of which may involve copyright violations, a separate legal issue). I consider many of these performance issues as somewhat temporary because telecommunications companies, like Cisco, continue to manufacture devices which vastly expand capacity for file transfers. Cable providers like Comcast have shared resources, and no doubt Comcast is concerned that a few customers are using a disproportionate amount of resources and slowing down Internet access for other customers. Marketing reasons might include differentiating service levels for pricing purposes (e.g., faster speeds and/or larger file transfer quotas at premium levels); this includes prospective priority service fees from Internet content providers.
Content providers like Google, Apple, and Amazon, of course, promote an open Internet concept, sometimes called net neutrality. Broadly speaking, one can think of it as analogous to the concept of a First Amendment of the Internet; there are a variety of relevant concerns, including censorship and the possibility that ISP's may itself compete in offering content in an intrinsically unfair manner.
I'm not going to write a comprehensive post on net neutrality at this time (see this Heritage Foundation post from 2006, somewhat dated but a good summary), but it's a no-brainer that any conservative must stand against net neutrality. We can find differentiated services in many areas of commerce, e.g., express lines in supermarkets, higher prices for overnight delivery services or weekend/holiday delivery, or lower-priced child's plates in restaurants. Allowing ISP's to offer content providers premium service at a fee encourages investment in relevant telecommunications equipment. The bottom line is that the net neutrality argument involves unnecessary heavy regulation--making a rapidly-changing industry sector globally uncompetitive, subject to bureaucratic inertia and incompetence (remember the sage saying by Heraclitus that one cannot step into the same river twice?), not to mention the law of unintended consequences. There really is no "smoking gun" here crying for regulation; the progressive advocates are pushing on a string. We have had robust growth in content, capacity and speed from Internet service providers without unnecessary and counterproductive regulation.
In essence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC overstepped its authorized bounds in the Comcast case. I don't think the Supreme Court would reverse this ruling, meaning one of 2 things: the Congress could attempt to pass heavy-handed regulation; or the Obama Administration could try an end-run around the decision. I'm concerned about any legislation going beyond the point where ISP's directly compete as a content provider. (Liberal Republican senator Olivia Snowe has been sympathetic on net neutrality legislation in the past, so it's theoretically possible the Democrats could win a cloture vote on a filibuster.) I'm even more concerned about a prospective end-run where the administration by fiat decides to reclassify Title I information services under Title II (regulated) services. This would be, in my judgment, unconstitutional, a violation of checks and balances. Any change in classification must be initiated in the legislative branch of government. (The Hill provides selected reaction from interest groups on both sides of the issue here.)
Obama's Proposed Change in Nuclear Weapon Use Policy: Thumbs Down
In a baffling policy change, Obama has unilaterally decided that to rule out a nuclear response, if hostile powers, who have not developed nuclear weapons, attack the US with other weapons of mass destruction (e.g., biological or chemical weapons). I'm certain that Obama has probably himself some wiggle room in the fine print. Now I'm sure that the US must have its own diversified portfolio of weapons, and this may be his puzzling way of trying to prevent a new nuclear arms race in Southeast Asia and the Middle East (in particular, North Korea and Iran). I'm not sure (given the fact that the US and other nuclear powers have not used such weapons since the end of the last world war almost 65 years ago) there is need of such a reassurance, and that fact hasn't stopped nuclear ambitions of these rogue nations in any event. More importantly, I don't see why it would be effective unless other major nuclear powers (in particular, Russia and China) made the same assurances. And it hasn't been affective in any event; surely Iran and North Korea know that for any weapon they produce, the US has hundreds. So if the de facto deterrence of the law of large numbers fails to impress them, why would Obama's unilateral modified policy? What concession has he won in return? Has he made America any safer by saying he'll defend the nation with one arm tied behind his back?
It's not only that but the sheer madness of swearing off modernizing our existing nuclear weapons; why in the world would you, in the lead of a foot race, unilaterally decide to walk the remaining 100 yards? Does he really expect the competitors in the race are going to stop behind him and settle for second or third place? Or do they regard such blunders naive and self-defeating and take full advantage of unforced concessions?
These policy changes unwisely and unnecessarily compromise the national defense of the United States and must be rejected in the strongest possible terms. Tell me, when Obama plays poker, does he always show the other players the face cards in his hand? How many games does he win by showing his cards while other players hide theirs?
Political Cartoon
Lisa Benson points out 15 months after Democrats assumed strong control of the Congress and the White House, we still haven't seen any significant job recovery over 8 million lost since the beginning of the recession at the end of 2007. I have repeatedly argued that the Democrats have unwisely focused attention on picking winners and losers (government jobs, alternate energy, infrastructure, favorable tax treatment based on business size, etc.) versus broad-based business tax relief. All this pretentious nonsense that the Democratic Party Stimulus Bill "saved" us from a "depression" is absurd. Why are state government positions more worthy that positions in the private sector (which pay the taxes that fund government)?
Quote of the Day
Underpromise; overdeliver.
Tom Peters
Musical Interlude: Additional Songs of the Heart
James Ruffin, "What Becomes of the Broken Hearted?"
Anne Murray, "Broken-Hearted Me"
Blondie, "Heart of Glass"
Billy Ray Cyrus, "Achy Breaky Heart"
