In a matter of days, the Federal Communications Commission, led by an unelected political appointee who formerly served as an Obama campaign "bundler" of funds, will act to impose the most sweeping regulation of the Internet to date.
As seems too frequently, the left is winning the marketing war by using appealing terms that mask the true actions of the impending regulations. "Net neutrality" sounds consumer-friendly and implies policy aimed to make the Internet neutral about each consumer, whether that's a large corporation, a small business or an individual user updating a Facebook status a few times per day.
As usual, the truth has been removed from the discussion.
There is absolutely nothing "neutral" about the looming proposals.
The notion that every user of the Internet should be treated uniformly is quite a morally superior notion that is based on socialism and not on open and free market enterprise.
A consumer has an equal opportunity to purchase an Internet service that meets his or her needs. Different consumers have different content needs, ranging from very basic to exclusive and high-end service.
Those with significant content needs, such as hospitals, universities, banks and other entities with heavy user traffic and a large number of "transactions," select different service plans with various options, access and speed to meet their needs. These heavier users also pay a price for the level of Internet use and data requirements -- a standard practice in most industries.
The "crisis" that needs regulatory action is justified by the University of California, Berkeley's "Network Neutrality" website that states, "... without a neutral stance in what is carried over their pipes (referring to providers like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, etc.), network providers can choose to discriminate and decide how fast data will be transmitted and at what quality."
Never mind that some consumers pay for a premium plan to access unlimited bandwidth to meet the needs for high-end volume and quality, while the average consumer chooses to pay for a service adequate to meet their needs. Not all Internet users require premium service at premium prices.
In the world of the left, it's "discrimination" unless equal service is available to every user of the Internet at the exact same price. It's "discrimination" if, say, medical records are prioritized over your Facebook status update. It's "discrimination" if you choose a less expensive Internet service to meet your user needs while a major content carrier pays more for use and for the extra bandwidth required to deliver that voluminous digital content.
The wrong answer is more government and, in this case, a "non-discrimination" requirement via regulatory changes that would treat the Internet as a utility required by all rather than a service.
Does the argument sound familiar?
Is health care a service purchased and or is it a right? Candidly, if you can buy it, it's not a right, but don't let that cloud your clear thinking.
Americans are paying the high price of Obamacare that has turned health care on its head, caused premium costs to rise, and forced out-of-pocket costs to soar due to government requirements that essentially make health plans uniform and more costly.
The Internet is already regulated through government oversight. It is not an unregulated industry.
But characteristic of the big government folks, more regulation to a manufactured crisis is the answer, with guarantees of price increases, a reduction in innovation, and, not to be left out, the proposal to monitor and limit political speech advocated by both the FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and his vice chairman, Ann Ravel.
Net neutrality, indeed.
Robin Smith, immediate past chairwoman of the Tennessee Republican Party, is the owner of Rivers Edge Alliance.