Net Neutrality discussed on Glenn Beck’s Fox show
Fox News star Glenn Beck is spending some time this week introducing his millions of viewers to the arcane issue of net neutrality and the dangers this government power-grab poses for our basic freedoms on the Internet. To wrap up Monday’s show, Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity talked with Beck about the Marxist foundations of the net neutrality movement — something I outline in a policy study for The Heartland Institute titled “Neutralism: The Strange Philosophy Behind the Movement for Net Neutrality.”
Kerpen was kind enough to invite me to participate in a panel discussion on the future of Internet regulation at AFP’s “Defending the American Dream Summit” earlier this month. In my 10-minute opening remarks, I told the audience to get familiar with names like “Robert McChesney” and “Eben Moglen” and “Richard Stallman” — pioneers in advancing the innocuous-sounding concept of net neutrality as a Trojan Horse to hand the Internet over to government and destroy the concept of private property rights and capitalism. Alarming stuff, eh? Yet true. From the mouth of McChesney in August:
At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.
Read more about McChesney here. Kerpen also mentioned that a group called Free Press is the most powerful interest group in Washington on technology matters and is pushing hard for net neutrality. The founder of Free Press is the aforementioned avowed Marxist Robert McChesney. Now millions know these alarming facts, and millions more will continue to be educated as the Federal Communications Commission embarks this week to impose net neutrality on us.
I’m having trouble posting the video, but here’s where you can see Kerpen’s appearance (the first minute or so is on a different topic, but Beck then gets right to it).
Ryan Rediske says:
October 20th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I don’t think you understand the concept. Net neutrality is similar in scope to allowing all cars to travel on any road, without being slowed or stalled. Or allowing all mail to be delivered without prejudice. Traffic on the Internet should not be slowed, stalled or blocked by anyone, thus the idea of net neutrality.
I have no idea how this free, unhindered flow of traffic concept is being linked to marxism. If you want to see a country that does not employ net neutrality, look to China. They block a good deal of Internet traffic. I do not want that, I want the free market to decide that newspapers, radio, phone and even cable tv should probably either rethink their strategy or slowly die to the better technology; the Internet. Meanwhile, I do not want the owners of newspapers, radio stations, phone companies or cable tv screwing with my Internet service just because they’d rather I pay them than the Internet provider.
I get my Internet service from a cable company, which is in competition for video and phone services that I use on the Internet. I -do not- want them to start making my Internet phone calls suck or block my access to Youtube simply because they want me to pay them for voice over IP and HBO instead of letting the market dictate the best choice.
Can you honestly say you like the idea of getting your Internet services blocked just so you can be forced to purchase something you do not need?
James Lakely says:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:21 am
Ryan,
Thanks for your reply. With respect, I think you are the one who misunderstands net neutrality — specifically what it means in the eyes of the FCC. And you are also misplacing motivations/reactions of government and the market. Let me address some of your comments.
Have you never been on a road where cars are stalled or slowed? Of course you have. Why do they stall or slow? Too much traffic. The ISPs merely want to retain the power to (on very rare but necessary occasions) to move that traffic more efficiently so that the vast majority of those traveling on the “road” can get by. The free market can make those decisions much more efficiently than government can. Telling ISPs they cannot direct traffic in a way that pleases the maximum number of customers will degrade the experience of being on that “road” for everyone.
You make a good point here. Trouble is, I am not linking the idea of “free, unhindered flow of traffic” to Marxism. I’m pointing out that Marxists are using the Trojan Horse of promoting “free, unhindered flow of traffic” to advance a regime where the state, rather than consumers and markets, control the Internet. For a quick rundown, go here. For more extensive information, go here.
Again, you help make my point. Who is the “they” in China? It’s the government. They make all the decisions. They block Internet traffic. In America, ISPs block traffic at their peril because they will lose customers. In China, they block traffic at will because they are not accountable. We don’t need to even tip-toe down that road.
Again, look at what you are saying. You live in an area where cable is competing with other broadband delivery services for your dollar. If they “start making [your] Internet phone calls suck or block your access to YouTube” you can go to another provider. You are falling for the sucker lines of the net neutrality proponents. Have you ever had YouTube access denied? Have your VoIP calls “sucked”? I’m guessing not. And it’s the market, not government, that has dictated those choices.
bfskinner says:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:46 am
James do you own any stock in any major internet provider companies?
You seem to be under the impression that there is some real competition in the market. Once again, counting on that free market miracle that never seems to come about. In many major American cities there is a duopoly, but that really isn’t competition, now is it?
As I see it, the only way for you to be making any sense is if you own stock in these companies.
Joshua Grass says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
It is a real shame that pundits are being manipulated by large service provider corporations into being against Net neutrality. Ryan Rediske, you are correct in every line of your post. Either James Lakely is misinformated or not being honest with his readers. Net neutrality is exactly the kind of principle that a blogger should be adamantly for. How would you like it if a service provide could block content because they don’t like it?
Just because you don’t agree with us on some of the more social libertarian issues, doesn’t mean you have to trade in your own principles to disagree with us on everything. Again, you are being manipulated by the large service provider companies and you should know better then to fall for it.
James Lakely says:
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
bfskinner: No. I don’t own any stock in the telecoms — or any stock at all, as it happens. The duopolies that exist in some cities are the result of city government policies. We need to break down those barriers to encourage even more competition.
Joshua: I am neither misinformed, nor being dishonest. And I am not being “manipulated” by anyone. If you believe that government provides our rights and freedoms, then net neutrality is for you. I’ll take my chances with the market. The “evil” of a corporation is usually temporary. The evil of government is permanent.