FCC Regulations Could Spell End Of Internet Freedom

Can a massive dose of old-fashioned government intervention into a freely-operating market really be trusted to ensure the Internet will continue to be an open an innovative place in the future? That’s what President Obama and the Democrat majority on the Federal Communications Commission want us to believe, but can they possibly be right?

The president outlined his preference for a high degree of government regulation of the Internet during his latest State of the Union address in January. At the end of February, the FCC (a regulatory agency that is supposed to be independent) took the first steps in implementing rules that will likely change the Internet as we know it — and probably not in a good way.

The interventionists on the FCC say that more government regulation is necessary to protect consumers (i.e. “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.”). But their plan rests on the shaky premise that those government regulators somehow know the exact business model to dictate the interactions between Internet service providers, content providers and consumers.

If you feel like you’ve heard this story before, you’re right. Decades ago the federal government took an interventionist attitude towards all sorts of markets; everything from telephone service, to railroads, to airlines.

And the new rules being proposed to regulate the Internet don’t just sound familiar to the regulatory schemes imposed in earlier eras – the fact is the FCC is taking one of those antique regulatory frameworks and trying to cram into it Internet activity.

Specifically, they’re using a New Deal era regulation, known as Title II, which originally was designed for wire-line telephone service.

The bureaucratic barriers, governments-of-yore erected between businesses and consumers, are generally considered by economists to be failures - they limit consumer choice, dramatically slow innovation, and artificially inflate costs. And as a result of those failures, most of those regulations no longer exist.

The President and his supporters have reviewed that historic evidence and come to a conclusion that maybe this time it’s different. They are, in effect, claiming that the open, free-market Internet has failed, necessitating government intervention.

They’re entitled to their opinion, but do you agree that the Internet as we know it has failed?

In just about 20 years, we’ve seen astonishing growth in the size and scope of what the Internet can do. It’s been an absolute paragon of innovation and openness. And somehow we’ve managed this without the heavy hand of government involved - shocking, I know.

To change all that now by imposing a regimen of truly massive government regulation would be a mistake — and not just because it would limit the choices of consumers. Imposing new Internet regulations would have a chilling effect on new investment for infrastructure, slowing the growth of Internet accessibility, especially in rural states like Montana. That would have a compounded effect by making it that much more difficult for technology startups to thrive in rural states.

The Internet cannot be free and open if we allow government regulators to stand between providers and consumers.

The only way to ensure that the Internet continues on its existing trajectory of freedom is to allow competitive market forces to do the amazing job that we know they’re capable of. Those competitive forces that come with the free interaction between providers and consumers provide much more robust protection for consumers than a government bureaucracy ever could.

The Internet has got along just fine without the type of government regulation being pushed by the President and his allies. We need to urge our Montana congressional delegation to protect consumers by supporting legislation that stops the FCC from regulating the Internet under Title II.

Mike Lang represents House District 33 in northeast Montana. He is the chairman of the Montana House Federal Relations, Energy, and Telecommunications Committee.