Obama Administration Looks Divided on Net Neutrality

December 3, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (8)

The Obama administration appears a little bit confused about what its policy towards government regulation of the Internet should be.

On the one hand, as The Hill reported just a few weeks ago, a senior U.S. government official “warned the increasing number of foreign government policies aimed at restricting the flow of information on the Internet could serve as an informal trade barrier and hamper economic growth.”

Speaking at Georgetown University, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said the nations of the world must “work to ensure that the Internet remains an open marketplace for ideas and beliefs” as well as “an open marketplace for business.”

“At the Commerce Department,” Locke continued, “we feel strongly that the Internet must remain, as much as possible, a worldwide open market, one where vigorous competition is allowed to thrive and where trade barriers are negligible.”

[Check out a roundup of this month's best political cartoons.]

On the other hand, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, an Obama appointee, has announced he’s ready to push for regulations on the Internet that would allow the heavy hand of government to reach right into cyberspace under the rubric of what is known as “net neutrality.”

Sort of sounds like a contradiction, doesn’t it? What Genachowski is advocating, in essence, treats the Internet like it was a public good, like broadcast television and radio, and that the government should be allowed to regulate it as such. As Americans for Prosperity’s Phil Kerpen put it in a recent column, net neutrality “sounds simple—force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way—but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving.”

While Locke appears to be telling the rest of the world to rely on market forces to produce innovations in cyberspace, Genachowski seems to be pushing for just the opposite—and engaging in a power grab while he’s at it.

As Kerpen explains further, the FCC is ignoring what has already been significant pushback from Congress and the courts in deciding to go forward. This includes “letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation” signed by 300 members of Congress as well as what he calls “A devastating unanimous decision of the D.C. circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet.”

The chairman is likely to get his way when the FCC takes up the issue on December 21. That doesn’t mean he’s right—nor does it mean the policy will stand for very long. What it will do is add to the confusion in the marketplace that is helping to keep the U.S. economy from really starting to grow again.

Tags:
FCC,
net neutrality,
Congress,
internet,
unemployment,
Barack Obama,
Commerce Department

Reader Comments Read all comments (8)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Telephone companies already have a version of net neutrality - if you call a number, they have to connect you, they can't deliberately make their competitors phone calls not connect or have terrible quality. That's all people want for the net - a fair playing field, where the people who own the wires can't decide who can and can't use the net, the quality and speed of the connection, or what content can be passed.

That's the simplest way I know to explain it. I have to say, as someone who understands the technical side of this - I just don't understand why ANYONE who considers themselves a capitalist and believes in free and open markets doesn't support net neutrality.

T1ger of NH 9:19PM December 08, 2010

The technology is here to extract oil from shale where estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total 1.5 trillion barrels of oil – or more than five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. This energy bounty is simply too large to ignore any longer, assuming that the reserves are economically viable. And yet, oil shale lies far from the radar screen of most investors.

http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/

The costs of extraction will not be viable, that is, until the price of gas reaches $4-$5/Gal ...but we will soon arrive at those figures, and, no less, at a time where this country's, as well as, the global economy, is at a virtual standstill, if not a continuing downward slide.

In addition, the costs of the energy required to heat the oil shale need to meet a minimum to arrive at a profitable dollar for investors. Methods of extraction through heating may be also be developed with an aim of heating businesses as well as homes.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10220108

Nonetheless, folks, I believe we are about to see ALL energy costs going right through our roofs!

Haberdashery of ID 9:25AM December 07, 2010

The Gulf has a very good record for leaks for all companies but one. BP. Obama was aware of the scandal under Bush of government inspectors misdeeds. Naturally obama was working on that and appointed new director.

Still BP received wavers on safety checks. We all should remember obama’s slowness to act. Long refusal to lift ban on foreign clean up foreign ships.

Pipeline oil from Alaska and Gulf oil quantity of oil is dwindling. Not from lack of oil but drilling.

Most of us are familiar with the National Oil reserve. Is filled with our share from oil pumped in America. Else royalties is paid in cold hard cash to Uncle Sam. Oil companies bid on public lands for right to drill. Then they must do environmental studies, and go through whatever lawsuits led by Green groups. If all goes well multimillion dollar rigs begin drilling in Gulf. Some strike oil & if oil supply is sufficient do very well. Pipelines in Gulf is a maze of expensive transportation to shore.

With all this there have been few major leaks. A commendable record. The one known bad apple, BP, obama waved the regulation. obama received the most campaign money that BP gave to one candidate.

Oil companies now can drill more than one hole from one rig. Can do more than drill straight down. Pump oil from wells, where a few years back, they couldn’t. Deplete the oil in the hole better.

Oil companies are working on safety. Is to their advantage. BP should have been made accountable to high standards instead of allowed to take short cuts and less expensive methods. BP was the bad apple and obama permitted it...

Bill Hedges of MO 1:26PM December 06, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement