The Left has long demanded the implementation of their definition of an “Open Internet” and “Internet Freedom.” Sounds great, right? Who could be opposed to that? Then again, who could be against a “Fairness Doctrine?” Or “Network Neutrality?”
All represent terrible government policy. But the Left is very good at naming very bad policies.
The American people – as a general rule and principle – want less government involvement in most things. The Left – wanting more in nearly all – must obfuscate their intentions. Concocting innocuous names for noxious plans is a staple.
Here’s what lead Media Marxist outfit Free Press means by “Internet Freedom” – as described on their website SavetheInternet.com (get it?):
Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers (ISPs) may not discriminate between different kinds of online content and apps.
No ISP is currently doing anything like this – but that couldn’t matter less to the Left. To “remedy” this non-existent problem, the Barack Obama Administration illegally imposed Net Neutrality – which makes the government the Regulator Overlord of every single website.
Since nowhere on the planet are governments messing with Internet freedom.
(T)he free speech rights of mobile device users are at risk. Private corporations and governments now have unprecedented control over the information we access and share via mobile networks, and too often this information is exploited.
As with Net Neutrality, private corporations have all along had this “unprecedented control” – and they haven’t exploited it.
While broadcasters and mobile phone companies have government-issued licenses for certain portions of the airwaves, other swaths are open, meaning that any company can develop a product —like a cordless home phone, Bluetooth headset, baby monitor or remote control — that utilizes this open space without any need for a government license.
Again, who keeps inviting the government?
To help the next generation of wireless technology take root, we need to ensure that spectrum held by companies like AT&T and Verizon is put to use in the public interest — and we need to make more spectrum available outside these companies’ control.
AT&T and Verizon – and T-Mobile, Sprint, Virgin, Cricket,… – desperately need more spectrum. To serve the “public interest” – by giving the public in what they are interested: faster, better wireless service.
The Left would stiff these public interest-serving companies – to give away more of this preciously finite resource. Even though there is already at public disposal more unlicensed spectrum than licensed.
For the Left, “Internet Freedom” means – free from charge.
(B)roadband access in the United States is far from universal. Millions of Americans still stand on the wrong side of the “digital divide,” unable to tap into the political, economic and social resources of the Internet.
This is fundamentally incorrect.
As of June, 2011, 95% of all Americans had access to broadband Internet from cable, DSL, fiber or other wired services. That’s up from 15% as recently as 2003, and zero percent in 1996, when high-speed Internet didn’t even exist.
This seems to be fairly universal access achieved in a remarkably rapid manner.
The basically regulation-less Internet has become a free speech-free market Xanadu. About as open as anything going – a bastion of freedom.
By Reality’s definition – not the Left’s. For the Left, “freedom” and “openness” come from greater government control.