One of America's leading authorities on technology and telecom policy, Motley is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, activist, and policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.
Latest posts by Seton Motley (see all)
- Fake News Vs Real Collusion: Wash Post Concocts The Former, Protects The Latter - June 27, 2017
- Obama’s IRS 2.0 (Or 3.0…4.0?…Or Is It…?) - June 21, 2017
- The Power To (Over)Tax – Is The Power To Destroy - June 20, 2017
There are only two possible explanations. They are either really, really ill informed and naive. Or they know they’re wrong – and they are each respectively lying both of their faces off.
Let’s revisit just a few.
The mis-assertions endlessly abound.
And on, and on, and….
So on to the next set of…questionable assertions.
In February, the Barack Obama Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – specifically, the Commission’s three unelected Democrat bureaucrats – fundamentally transformed how the government regulates the Internet.
These three unilaterally imposed 1934 landline telephone law – passed by Congress eighty-one years ago – onto a Web that didn’t even exist until roughly twenty years ago.
This is not just Network Neutrality – which is awful enough. And has already been twice previously imposed by the FCC – and twice unanimously rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court.
This is Net Neutrality – plus the full boat government-mandated-monopoly regime of massive amounts of regulations and lots and lots of taxes.
Leading the charge is FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler – previously seen being a two-time campaign cash bundler for President Obama. And look – he’s promising government restraint.
But fret not, the regulators tell us. They will wield just some – and not all – of their massive new powers. They will practice “forbearance.”
“(F)orbearance” refers to a special magic power that Congress gave the FCC…which gives the FCC the power to say “you know that specific provision of law that Congress passed? We decide it really doesn’t make sense for us to enforce it in some particular case, so we will “forbear” (hence the term ‘forbearance’) from enforcing it.”
Because we all know how restrained government always is. There will be omni-directional, near-limitless powers and taxes to wield – but the wielders are promising they won’t wield them.
Doesn’t sound very forbearance-y to me.
The promises continue.
(B)ecause it distorts the operator investment business decision, net neutrality has the potential to significantly discourage infrastructure investment.
Because massive new government intervention never increases the cost of doing business. Like ObamaCare didn’t increase the cost of doing business. Like all government intervention doesn’t increase the costs of doing business.
Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices.
If U.S. federal regulation was a country, it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking…ahead of India.
No big deal, they say.
That’s a really expensive whimper.
See what the government did there? In the name of “protecting consumers,” they take for themselves a ton of money. From a company – that will of course have to pass that exorbitant cost on to their consumers. Not so much pro-consumer – as pro-government.
Does government move as fast as the private sector? Not so much.
Which means the government imposed massive new regulations in February. Which they didn’t define before imposing them – and won’t define for at least half a year after.
Would you invest in a sector where the regulations are amorphous and undefined? And will be for an indeterminate amount of time going forward? And could change yet again, over and over, at any moment – if a bureaucrat decides to change his or her mind about forbearance?
Neither would I.
We’ll close with the broadest possible government Socialism.
Does that to you sound like a government looking to limit itself – as promised?
Not to me either.