BY: NCViking

The tech and communication industries are sending out lobbyists in full force to shape potential regulations that would provide government with greater control over internet access. Oh goody, the land war over the very precious real estate of the Internet has begun in Washington with an attack on the supply lines! I was never a big fan of the man, but I do love John McCain’s take on the “net neutrality” issue published in the Washington Post. Excerpts below:

Ronald Reagan once famously said, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
It appears that the former president foresaw the fate of the Internet. When the Internet first began to catch on with consumers as a new marketplace for purchasing books, clothes and music, state and federal legislators stepped in and attempted to tax Americans’ Internet use.

Fortunately, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress came forward and stopped taxation of Internet usage before it could start. But as Internet use continued to grow, the government just couldn’t resist not regulating the greatest modern invention since the light bulb (particularly once the ability to tax it was taken away.)

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on whether to regulate the historically open architecture and free flow of the Internet. The commission will seek to impose “net neutrality” rules that would rein in the network management practices of all Internet service providers, including wireless phone companies.

These new rules should rightly be viewed by consumers suspiciously as another government power grab over a private service provided by private companies in a competitive marketplace. Does this sound familiar? It should.

Regulation kills innovation. Let’s not kill the Internet. An open and unfettered Internet may be the real stimulus during these difficult economic times, and it comes without a $787 billion price tag that is passed along to taxpayers at a significant cost for future generations.

Hee hee. I love the jab at Porkulus because I share this view. Bucking the Maverick, other Republicans or potential ones are jumping on the regulation bandwagon. Carly Fiorina, businesswoman, Republican activist and possible future senator from the Golden State pondered about the future of the internet saying that regulation was inevitable.

She mentioned that politicians should be held accountable just the way that business managers and board members are, and that the U.S. government cannot continue to spend money without dealing with entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Fiorina criticized Boxer for successfully sponsoring only three relatively insignificant bills in her 18 years in the Senate.

“I don’t think that’s good enough,” she said.

Asked what she thought about regulation of the web, she said it was inevitable that there would be more regulation of it. Why, for instance, is there no protection of women and children on the Internet, when there is plenty in real life. She said this duality — where anything goes on the wild wild west of the Internet — would have to end.

Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com rightfully asks the question “What protections do women need on the Internet that they have off of it?” The Fiorina statement is quite insulting to women, and protection of children from dubious web content is the job of parents. The web should be left alone. Considering regulation here is stepping up onto a slippery slope. Where does regulation begin and end? Who has a right to access it, what is acceptable content, what is not and who is to judge? Using the internet to break the law is the only place I feel where governments should get involved, and this should only pertain to common law enforcement, like catching predators and stopping scams, crimes etc. None of this is out of the realm of everyday freedoms of walking down the street. There are risks in doing so, but police are there to arrest those who mug you or worse. I have no problem having law enforcement eyes on the “public” wires to provide protection. Note: public. Any access to private information should be court ordered related to common privacy laws. Outside of this, stay out of the way.

• Economic Crisis of Confidence - February 8th, 2010
• Cato Analysis and Fact Check of SOTU Speech - January 28th, 2010
• State of the Union Déjà vu? - January 26th, 2010
• Purple Predestination - January 25th, 2010
• Prince Composes New Vikings Fight Song (Oh Yes He Did!) - January 22nd, 2010