We need not ascribe malicious motives to Big Government advocates – we need only look at their results.
With this track record of uber-failure – which has put us on the fast track to oblivion – why would we want even more government? When everything Big Government advocates say they need – results in less of what they say they want?
(Federal Communications Commission) FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler defended newly imposed net neutrality rules as well as the agency’s plans to block the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger, saying that moves have been necessary to protect competition.
These are two HUGE government impositions on the private sector. Made by Big Government advocates – in the name of protecting competition.
Yet again, the exact opposite is going to happen.
(A) number of small Internet Service Providers (ISP)…are going on record, saying the FCC’s Open Internet Order will have a negative impact on their business and stifle future investment….
(S)ix ISPs—which have customer bases ranging from 475 to 8,000—…have declared under penalty of perjury that the FCC’s Order is leading them to cut back on investing in their networks. Those companies include wireless service providers, small cable operators and electric cooperatives.
Of course they will have to cut back on investments. Reality mandates they must.
More Government costs everyone in the private sector more money. The smaller the private sector participant – the less able they are to absorb the costs.
If they’re lucky – investment is all that goes away. As government continues to grow – more and more of these small providers will go under. How’s that for more competition?
(W)hen informed that her plan to nationalize health insurance might lead to massive bankruptcies, Hillary respond(ed):
“I can’t worry about every small, undercapitalized business in America.”
Big Government advocates are usually much less straightforward. As does Chairman Wheeler, they in Alice-in-Wonderland down-is-up fashion claim more government means more room for small players to operate.
Far and away the biggest impediments to private Internet providers being Internet providers – are local governments.
Local governments and their public utilities charge (Internet Service Providers) ISPs far more (for building rights) than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction….
These (government) incumbents – the real monopolists – also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.
This reduces the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy service.… The lack of competition makes it easier for local governments and utilities to charge more for rights of way and pole attachments.
It’s a vicious circle…(A) system of forced kickbacks….(also) includ(ing) ISPs…building out service where it isn’t demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.
Not exactly conducive to competition – as smaller companies don’t have the coin to pay the government-kickback freight.
And this ain’t competition-conducive, either:
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has voted to overturn large parts of two state laws that limit local governments from funding and building broadband networks.
Government is the referee – and playing for the opposing team….
Think about these local governments – which hold the intrinsic fate of every private Internet provider in their greedy, giant hands – also competing with them as Internet providers.
Think the government shakedowns are bad now? Think its hard to get the government to grant you permission to do business now? Wait until the government is trying to sell what you’re trying to sell.
And government can ultimately do this:
The Postal Service (USPS) has a legal government monopoly on delivering first-class mail…. (Prospective competitors) are required by law to charge a high minimum price and cannot undercut USPS rates.
Government is taxing private providers – and using that money to fund competitors to these private providers.
Imagine if McDonald’s could tax Burger King – and use that money to fund McDonald’s.
The answer to government-caused problems – isn’t more government. Hair of the dog won’t work for public policy – because it never, ever has.
You want more competition? Get the layers of government impeding it out of the way.