FREEDOM LINE BLOG: The Inmates Are Running
the Asylum at the UN

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly
announced the results of the election for the open seats on the Human…

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum at the UN

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly announced the results of the
election for the open seats on the Human Rights Council.  There were
14 seats available and 14 member-states seeking election, automatically
demonstrating how much of a sham this institution is.  A report by
Freedom House indicated that of those 14 nations, an incredible
nine have human rights records that are questionable or simply
not qualified.

The UN Resolution establishing the Council states
among other things that:

…the Council shall be responsible for
promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a
fair and equal manner…

…the Council should address situations of
violations of human rights, including gross…[more]
May 14,
2010 • 04:17 pm

[close]

Home

About CFIF

Mission

Contact
Us

Donate to
CFIF

Employment
Opportunities

Privacy
Policy

CFIF
Staff

Commentary

Latest
Commentary

Questions of
the Week

Notable
Quotes

Archive

The Issues

Take
Action

Donate

Internet
Donations

Post
Mail Donations

The
Inmates Are Running the Asylum at the UN

More
of the Honest and Refreshing Chris Christie

Update
on Pennsylvania Special Election

This
Week's Liberty Update

Video:
Then They Came for the Internet

Hillary
Clinton Won't Abandon Afghan Women

Chris
Christie Plants the Flag

Is
Eric Holder Prejudiced?

Lindsey
Graham is Making Sense

Kagan
“Interview” Doesn’t Count as Transparency, Mr. President

Today's
House Schedule

Today's
Senate Schedule

Committee
Hearings Search

Find
Your Elected Officials

Open
Letter to the U.S. Senate: Reject Bailouts, Taxes, and Onerous Regulations
in S. 3217!

Statement
of CFIF's Timothy Lee on FCC's Unprecedented Power Grab to Regulate the
Internet

Liberty
Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts
delivered to your inbox.

Legal tales stranger than
stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our
courts.

“Net
Neutrality” Regulation: Obama’s Imperious FCC Shifts to Plan B

By Timothy
H. Lee
Wednesday, May 12 2010

In an attempt to circumvent the Court
of Appeals ruling, the FCC has unveiled its attempt to “reclassify”
the Internet under New Deal-era telephone laws written in the 1930s.

Last month, a federal court of
appeals unanimously rejected the brazen campaign by Obama’s Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet via so-called
“Net Neutrality.”

Meanwhile, over in the court of public opinion, the
American electorate opposes Obama’s scheme to federalize the Web by a
2-to-1 margin.

But just as we witnessed with healthcare, such
realities are irrelevant to the Obama Administration.  Neither an
embarrassing judicial rebuke from the Court of Appeals nor lopsided public
opposition will interrupt its kamikaze mission to impose as much of its
big-government agenda as it can prior to November’s election
reckoning.

So instead of respecting the unequivocal Court of
Appeals decision or public disposition, Obama’s FCC disdainfully retreated
to Plan B.  In an attempt to circumvent the Court of Appeals ruling,
the FCC has unveiled its attempt to “reclassify” the Internet under New
Deal-era telephone laws written in the 1930s.

In other words, if you don’t possess the
straightforward authority to regulate the Internet, simply reclassify it
as a telephone.

The FCC had launched its formal effort to impose “Net
Neutrality” last October, making good on Obama’s campaign promise to
liberal netroots supporters.  For those still unfamiliar with the
term, “Net Neutrality” is the far left’s Orwellian moniker for its effort
to impose a bureaucratic straightjacket on the heretofore free Internet,
dictating a one-size-fits-all network management and pricing scheme.
By way of illustration, Internet service providers would be prohibited
from prioritizing critical Internet traffic such as emergency medical data
over such less-critical traffic as spam, pornography, recreational video
downloads or television programs.  They would also be prohibited from
applying differential rates to bandwidth hogs who currently enjoy free
rider status.

Here’s why this matters:  As Internet use
continues to skyrocket and bandwidth becomes increasingly scarce, network
providers must be allowed to innovate to meet capacity demands.
Internet traffic is expected to increase 50% per year through 2015, and
wireless traffic is expected to rise 131% through 2013 alone.  In
order to accommodate that increase, service providers must be allowed to
experiment with such concepts as packet prioritization and data
differentiation, as with the emergency medical data example above.
The important point is that freedom to invest, innovate and experiment
will be critical going into the future.

“Net Neutrality,” however, would prevent that freedom
to innovate.  Instead, we would face the bleak alternative of slower
Internet traffic and degraded service for everyone.

Fortunately for American consumers and unfortunately
for the Obama Administration, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia interrupted their scheme.  Last month, the Court ruled
without dissent that the FCC doesn’t possess the legal authority to
regulate Internet service.

In the aftermath of that ruling, Obama’s FCC and
far-left activists scrambled to concoct a plan to save “Net
Neutrality.”  Their not-so-clever solution?  Simply shoehorn
Internet service into regulations drafted in the 1930s for old-fashioned
landline telephones.

That retrograde idea contradicts over a decade of
bipartisan consensus spanning both the Clinton and Bush
administrations.  Bill Kennard, who served as FCC Chairman under Bill
Clinton, highlighted the foolishness of the “reclassification” idea now
pushed by Obama’s FCC:

“Classifying Internet
access as telecommunication services could have significant consequences
for the global development of the Internet.  We recognize the unique
qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory
frameworks are appropriately applied to it.”

Since its inception, the Internet has transformed our
society and world economy as dramatically as any technology in human
history.  But with its announcement this month that it will seek to
reclassify the Internet under 80-year-old laws, the FCC threatens to
suffocate Internet investment and innovation by the private entrepreneurs
that have brought us this far this quickly.

Ultimately, foreign nations offering more hospitable
regulatory environments will thrive, while the U.S. will face new
governmental headwinds.

“Net Neutrality” is nothing short of an effort to
place yet another sector of our economy under federal control.  But
don’t take our word for it.  Consider the words of Robert McChesney,
founder of Free Press and the leading activist voice supporting “Net
Neutrality:”

“What we want to have in
the U.S., and in every society, is an Internet that is not private
property, but a public utility.  We want an Internet where you don’t
have to have a password and that you don’t pay a penny to use.  It is
your right to use the Internet.”

Working together, we will stop this latest scheme to
impose “Net Neutrality,” whether through legislative, judicial or
administrative avenues.  Congressman Cliff Stearns (R – Florida) has
introduced the “Internet Investment, Innovation and Competition
Preservation Act,” and judicial challenges to the FCC’s shenanigans are
inevitable.

In the interim, we are treated once again to the
tawdry hyperpartisan spectacle of the “by whatever means necessary” Obama
Administration.

Related Articles :

» Statement
of CFIF's Timothy Lee on FCC's Unprecedented Power Grab to
Regulate the Internet

» CFIF
Submits Reply Comments to FCC: Warns Against Classifying Broadband
as Title II Service

» Thwarting
the Aggressive Obama Agenda: Appellate Court Quashes FCC’s "Net
Neutrality" Scheme

» Surprise:
Obama’s FCC Quietly Proposes Nationwide Internet Tax, Says it Will
“Reduce Uncertainty”

» CFIF
Launches ‘Stop Net Regulation’ Campaign

» CFIF
to FCC: Proposed “Net Neutrality” Rules Would Smother Internet
Innovation and Damage the American Economy

» Obama
Administration Imitates Hugo Chavez on Internet

» Google’s
Spider Web of Ties to the Obama Administration

» Political
Opposition to Destructive “Net Neutrality” Gains Momentum

» Net
“Neutrality” – Government’s Newest Takeover Plan and Corporate
Welfare for
Google

Question
of the Week

How many individuals whose nominations to the Supreme
Court have been officially submitted to the U.S. Senate for confirmation
have declined to serve?

None

Three

Seven

Eleven

More Questions

Quote of the
Day

"Wouldn’t it be grand if the Obama administration cared more about
policing our borders than about policing our refrigerators? How about
fixing our deportation system instead of fixing our junk-food diets? First
lady Michelle Obama argued this week that obesity is a 'national security'
issue. But her husband allows far greater threats to go unabated. The
FBI’s arrests of two Boston-area…[more]

—Michelle Malkin, Syndicated
Columnist

—
Michelle Malkin, Syndicated
Columnist

Liberty
Poll

Do you support, oppose or care not one little bit about
President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court?

Support

Oppose

Don't
Know

Don't
Care

©
2010 Center for Individual Freedom. All rights
reserved.