Imbeciles with Administrative Authority (aka FCC Bureaucrats)

This whole net 'neutrality' mumbo jumbo is one more repulsive overstepping of boundaries by the out-of-control Bureaucracy that we call a government. What does the FCC even do? Protect us from the occasional bosom shot on network TV? Perhaps force the use of the word frack (thank you Battlestar Galactica) instead of the ghastly -- and more commonly used -- four letter word that we are all familiar with?

I am exhausted by the litany of power-hungry administrative agencies with innocuous little acronyms (see EPA, FCC, IRS, etc.) each fundamentally altering the nature of citizenship in its own little way. Keeping track of the political lever-pulling is enough to make one's head spin. Of course, we are all supposed to live by the output of their milling about; however, we get absolutely nil input into the development of these laws, even if the rules that come from these 'agencies' routinely verge on the asinine.

Take for example the law that prohibits the development of new boat docks along the Intracoastal Waterway, applicable to both existing and new property owners. By way of example, if John Smith buys a house overlooking the sound in coastal North Carolina, Mr. Smith is not allowed to build a pier to house his nice new fishing boat because of EPA regulations aimed at protecting estuarial breeding grounds. Sounds simple enough, right?

Well, not really. Putting aside for the moment the fact that property rights are the fundamental underpinning of our way of life -- see Franklin's previous post on this subject -- this is after all the same Intracoastal Waterway that has thousands and thousands of existing docks. Last I checked, the development of these docks did not induce widespread extinction of various sea creatures. This is the same Intracoastal Waterway that serves as a super-highway for cargo barges and various commercial freighters. How in the world does that little rule make sense? It devastates property values for owners who do not have docks, while exponentially increasing property values for owners lucky enough (or bureaucratically talented enough) to be grandfathered in. The Law of Unintended Consequences knows no bounds!

Considering the preceding, this writer's Christmas -- for the second year in a row -- has been dampened, like an innocent fire hydrant, by the leg-lifting of our Federal Government. It cannot be said any better than was said by the FCC committee chairperson who wrote the dissenting opinion:

Preserving the open Internet is non-negotiable: it is a bedrock principle shared by all in the Internet economy, a building block on which we can all agree. And, the Internet is open today. The evidentiary record in our proceeding has reaffirmed that government action is not necessary to preserve it. Yet the majority acts, and acts decisively, to adopt Net Neutrality rules, imposing the heavy hand of government into how broadband networks will be managed and operated. The data most certainly does not drive us to this result. In the final analysis, the Commission intervenes to regulate the Internet because it wants to, not because it needs to.

I cannot support this decision. It is not a consumer-driven or engineering-focused decision. It is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure. The majority bypasses a market power analysis altogether, and acts on speculative harms alone. The majority is unable to identify a single ongoing practice of a single broadband provider that it finds problematic upon which to base this action. In the end, the Internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today.

Hear, hear! These Imbeciles with Administrative Authority have somehow found a way to screw up the Internet. THE INTERNET!!!

Merry Christmas Everyone,

The Whos Down in Whoville