Reason.tv

Reason.tv Replay: 3 Reasons The FCC Shouldn't "Touch" The Internets!

|

The FCC has just taken initial steps to regulate the Internet service providers the same way it regulates telephone companies. Although Chairman Julius Genachowski has said he would use any regulatory powers with a "light touch," having the FCC control any aspect of the Internet is a really bad idea for at least three reasons.

Written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie (who also hosts). Approximately 2.15 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of all our videos. Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new material goes live.

And don't miss our recent long and short interviews with C-SPAN creator Brian Lamb and our investigation of The Great Philly Beer Bust.

NEXT: City Regulations vs. Art in Not-So-Weird Austin, Texas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good video, overall, but I suspect that a big part of why ISPs haven’t restricted content is because they know when they do net neutrality laws will be inevitable.

    1. Really? You don’t think the wealth of connectivity options in most major cities have anything to do with it?

      I get my internet from a small ISP which contracts through Qwest for the DSL line. If they started restricting my use in any way, I would jump ship to another. If Qwest did so, I would switch to Comcast cable. If both did, there’s Satellite, or an ever-expanding base of cellular & WiFi options. If they want my money, they need to give me the service I want.

      1. In other news, life is easy when you’re young, rich, urban, and mobile. But what about everyone else?

        1. Wealth envy is a curable disease, Hobie.

          1. I’m not envious of wealth. I’m one of the wealthy like you. The difference is I care about the poor people who – through no fault of their own – fall through the slats of the sewer drain of joblessness, where they are pulled under by the undertoe of oppression, choke on the hydrogen sulfide of despair, or are eaten by the alligators of corporate greed.

            1. I’m not wealthy. But I don’t go around grousing about those who are.

        2. what about everyone else?

          What about them? Please elaborate. Be specific.

        3. They have satellite and dial-up, at the very least. Probably at least one cable provider too.

          1. “At least” one cable provider? You’re funny.

            Try watching important educational videos like President Obama’s speeches on YouTube when all you have is dial-up.

            1. What the fuck is educational about Obama’s speechifiying?

  2. Its not just the FCC. The FTC and the IRS are trying to gain control too. Check out these articles:
    “Why does the Wall Street regulation overhaul give FTC authority over the Internet?” http://www.campaignforliberty……view=35193

    IRS Wants a Cut of Sales On eBay and Craigslist http://yro.slashdot.org/story/…..Craigslist

    1. Greedy business interests are the rationale for government regulation. Government regulators are never motivated by greed or power-hunger, are they? No, of course not.

  3. Sadly, the FCC is about as useless as the TSA! What a joke!

    Lou
    http://www.big-bro-watching.us.tc

    1. I love this guy.

  4. “A light touch approach, to fast-moving technology

    So the FCC made an argument against regulation in their argument for regulation. If the technology is ‘fast-moving’ isn’t this precisely the time not to regulate anything about the internet?

    If technology had become stagnated and completely locked into one carrier and one method of internet connection, a-la AT&T in the 60’s, maybe that would be a time for regulation. Of course in reality, it would be regulation which would cause us to become mired down into one uber carrier and one point of connection to the internet.

  5. Look, peasants, this HAS to be done. I can’t control you unruly, unwashed sources of income properly if I don’t have the internet, radio, cable and print media under My thumb.

    1. Where did the internet touch you, Barry?

      1. That’s MR. PRESIDENT to you, scumbag. You’re lucky there’s witnesses here, else I’d have Tommy Three-Thumbs here drag your ass down to the basement for a good beat-down, Chicago-style, bitch.

        1. I got this Rahm; in case of any challenges to this, you know, pesky lawsuits from the plebes thinking htey have say so, I’ll rubber stamp this right through. We see the wisdom of the beat-down, and find it a living, breathing remedy to what ails he plebes.

          1. “htey” = “they” and “he” = “the”: it has now been read into the record.

  6. Baseline truth – this is just government expansion pure and simple. If you don’t oppose increased regulation by the FCC you are NOT – repeat NOT – a libertarian in any sense of the word. You are probabaly a deluded, big-government OCD liberal who hates disorder and wants to put the entire country in chains the roundabout way. I mean, this is a litmus test issue for libertarians – there is in “third way” here. Now the trolls are going to make a case for regulation and just a little control by the FCC, but seriously, what is the biggest problem you can think of on the internet right now? Lack of civility – and is the government going to fix that? The market has given incentives to various companies to give the consumer what they want- as Tara cogently argued – and the FCC would only Only ONLY fuck that up.

    1. Lack of civility – and is the government going to fix that?

      Oh, they’ll try.

  7. Correction – “NO third way”…

  8. No one will ever want to regulate harmles, simple-minded political babble, so just stick uour heads back up your asses and relax. You’re safe.

    1. The same government that gave us the PATRIOT Act, you mean?

      You poor, trusting soul. And brain-damaged, to boot.

      1. Oh, yeah, you libertoid pricks are so threatening to the powers that be. How many votes did the LP get in the last election? How about your darling Ron Paul? He has a very impressive following of nutjob right-wing twits. I can see how you’re worried, you self-important assholes.

        1. Explain, then, why the right-wing radio freaks are always admonishing voters to not waste their votes – or, for that matter, why YOUR party toyed with the idea of keeping Nader off state ballots.

          Oh, and go fuck yourself, Max. But that’s something you should do every day. Give your mom a break once in a while and self-serve.

          1. Suck on Ron Paul’s cock some more, you dickless piece of shit.

            1. Cowardly answer, Max. Try again.

              1. Okay, suck Rand Paul’s cock too, you market fudnamentalist moron.

    2. For those interested, here’s my latest cartoon: Max meets Episiarch and Warty.

      1. Nice use of Nathan Explosion, but the real badass is the Dethklok manager. Or that long-white-haired old guy who always says “Noooo… we wait.”

        1. Pointless fact: The long-white-haired old guy is voiced by Mark Hamill (aka Luke Skywalker).

          1. Mr. Selatcia. I should’ve looked it up earlier.

    3. WIENER WATER SOUP

      1 package wieners
      3 cups water

      Combine wieners and water in a two-quart saucepan. Bring to a boil until wieners are cooked. Throw the wieners in the garbage. Serve soup. Serves 3.

    4. No one will ever want to regulate harmles, simple-minded political babble, so just stick uour heads back up your asses and relax. You’re safe.

      That’s what I kept trying to tell ’em.

      1. Thanks for the pointers, old cracker, but I’m in the big seat now.

    5. Already been done.

      http://tinyurl.com/2fkx6kl

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.