Hands Off of Our Internet

Regulation: In the name of fairness, a Federal Communications Commission plan to impose "net neutrality" without any legislative or legal authority will in effect be silencing a conduit for the truth that keeps us free.

The Internet is once again under attack, not from hackers intent on spilling secrets or causing mischief, but by an administration intent on controlling the free flow of information that it views as a threat to its expanding power.

According to the Hill, which obtained a copy of the FCC's tentative December agenda just after midnight Wednesday, the government agency will seek to impose rules concerning "net neutrality" at a Feb. 21 meeting. The announcement says these "rules would protect consumers' and innovators' right to know basic information about broadband service, right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and right to a level playing field."

Regulation now is done by Internet service providers (ISPs) and Web sites that sprout up like weeds. A lot of nonsense is online, as well as a lot of valuable facts and information. Information's former gatekeepers, such as the mainstream media and the federal government, find this free flow of ideas inconvenient.

Note the announcement's emphasis on "lawful Internet traffic" and a "level playing field." This is government-speak for controlling what gets said and who gets to say it. The Internet is already open to all, but in the marketplace of ideas, as in other areas of endeavor, some ideas win out over others. The FCC wants to decide what and whose ideas get heard.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski insists net neutrality is designed only to prevent communication giants such as Comcast from blocking some Web sites while favoring others, particularly their own, with higher speed and better quality. Yet somehow the Internet thrives with bloggers having no problem getting their voices heard and providing forums for unfettered free expression.

In April, a federal court struck down the commission's attempt to regulate Comcast under Title I, arguing Congress has not granted the commission authority to regulate the Internet as it did TV, radio and telephones.

A couple of months ago, Rep. Henry Waxman drafted and then dropped a bill to do just that.

In the name of providing access to the alleged downtrodden victims of corporate greed, the FCC proposes to take unto itself the power to regulate how ISPs serve their customers. The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the Net.

The issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC diversity czar Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Venezuela's Hugo Chavez did to silence his country's media, wrote an article titled "Net Neutrality Is A Civil Rights Issue."

"Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the Internet for its public interest benefits, " Lloyd wrote. "Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it." Lloyd feels government should be the voice controlling what you see and hear. Freedom is in the public interest.

In a speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that too much information is a threat to democracy. "With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations - none of which I know how to work - information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a means of emancipation," he opined. "All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy."

We disagree. Twitter, Facebook and the iPad are exactly what Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers had in mind.