People in their ignorance believe that Net Neutrality authorizes government to prevent privately-owned Internet service providers and search engines from forming technocratic cartels who then engage in censorship. Few however understand the more dangerous truth, that under Barack Obama, all control over the Internet was, through Net Neutrality, handed over to the global regulatory body ICANN, whose name being the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, defines it as a non-profit organization which coordinates the international maintenance and procedures of several databases related to namespaces on the Internet to ensure its “stable and secure operation”.
How all this transpired is truly intriguing. When the contract between ICANN and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) — a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce — ended on 1 October 2016 per the directive of the Obama-controlled Federal Communication Commission, America’s ability to protect free speech on the Internet became formally transitioned to the global multistakeholder community. To do so, however, required the FCC to formally nationalize the Internet into a public utility under the clever misleading heading “Net Neutrality”. By doing so, the Obama FCC opened Pandora’s box to rogue nations like Russia, China and Iran to easily access and influence international censorship of the Internet. The 2010 Internet Censorship Report explained internet censorship “is one of the tools used by governments to filter out unwanted information and to prevent the spread through the World Wide Web. It is a phenomenon of staggering proportions that affects over 25% of the global population.” The result is that free speech and the alternative media (particularly WikiLeaks) will be permanently stifled by multinational corporations like Google, Facebook and Amazon, each of which current FCC chairman Ajit Pai correctly observes has already censored and routinely blocked “content they don’t like.” Through Net Neutrality, Pai explains that the nefarious agenda in Silicon Valley might include clocking “their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy.”
Net Neutrality may sound fair enough until further examination into what such government-enforced equality means in real life. According to The Washington Times, the truth regarding the federal government ending the very Internet infrastructure by returning it to its prior successful incarnation is for most, stranger and less appealing than fiction.
• First, the ban on “blocking” could include charging prices that are unaffordable to some, thus blocking them from services.
• Second, throttling — despite its violent connotation — is simply the reduction of download rates for certain users at certain times — a useful tool to discourage “bandwidth hogs” from slowing Internet speeds available to other nearby users.
• Third, “paid prioritization” or more simply, discounted and premium service, is common in just about every functioning market in the U.S. economy. Moreover, the ban on prioritization calls into question the use of pricing to allocate economic resources.
The extreme level of histrionics from the Left regarding the re-privatization of the Internet has not disappointed. For instance, it would have you believe that the federal government under Donald Trump will destroy the Internet as we know it. For instance, social media’s largest power brokers, including Facebook and Twitter, are at the forefront, as are Google, Amazon and Netflix. These also include international corporations, who stand to profit off their ties to the federal government, which would provide a nationalized monopoly on a quid pro quo basis.
In an historic win for Net Neutrality in June 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld regulations over internet service providers created by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in February 2015 by a 2 to 1 vote, appeals court judges allowing the FCC the right to regulate internet service providers (ISPs) as public utilities under Title II of the Communications Act, much as it regulates phone companies. The court also upheld rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Several Internet, cable associations and telecom companies — including CenturyLink, AT&T, USTelecon, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Alamo Broadband — argue that these rules will throw a wrench in telecommunications infrastructure and growth by stifling the ability for innovation by independent small, upstart firms.
While the Obama FCC commissioner Tom Wheeler celebrated the ruling by arguing that Net Neutrality would “ensure the internet remains a platform for unparalleled innovation, free expression and economic growth,” the socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, an opponent of the private sector and free enterprise, tweeted that Net Neutrality “will help ensure we don’t turn over our democracy to the highest bidder.” Of course, democracy was turned over to the federal government and the international community to regulate as a public utility at the cost of further erosion of the Constitution.
“If you analyze it,” said Ronald Reagan in a 1975 interview with Mike Wallace, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism… How do we call a liberal? You know, someone very profoundly once said many years ago that if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism. And what is fascism? Fascism is private ownership, private enterprise, but total government control and regulation. Well, isn’t this the liberal philosophy?” Today, Liberalism has created a multinational corporate cartel, or technocracy, comprising of Google, Microsoft and many others which have long been contracted out by governments to construct entire systems while consolidating their grip on the marketplace. YouTube is heavily censoring any accounts its left-leaning censors view as “offensive” in a similar fashion to our universities. State and local governments have long jockeyed for ways to tax internet sales over Amazon. The federal government in the past has sought to do the same, just as the European Union through Facebook has policed user posts during the migrant crisis by purging any visible criticism of Brussels’ open borders policies as violations of “hate speech” codes. These would constitute clear violations of the First and Fourth Amendments.
By nationalizing the Internet into a public utility through Net Neutrality, government has found a new vehicle for taxation. Net Neutrality will do nothing to impede, but rather embolden government to pursue more flagrant violations of the Constitution under PRISM and the PATRIOT Act. The very content the American people are now accustomed to through alternative and international media may be flagged as content an unelected bureaucrat somewhere finds to be counterproductive to his agenda — or, in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s accusations of Russia sabotaging the 2016 presidential election, anything labeled as “fake news”.