CATO on Fairness Doctrine II

This is my 300th post here at the Notepad, and I could not have found a more appropriate topic than what I consider a looming attempt by the federal government to institute policies via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that I am convinced are going to ultimately result in the stifling of dissent on our nation's airwaves - and specifically in the area of talk radio, the one medium the Marxist left does not (yet) control.

Via the CATO Institute:

Civil libertarians feared that a change of administrations would herald a revived Fairness Doctrine, a policy that previously permitted the government to oversee broadcast news coverage for "balanced views." A return to the Fairness Doctrine, however, now seems unlikely. It is very likely, however, that politicians from both the left and the right will try to extend government control over the media beyond current policies. New rules adopted or proposed by the Federal Communications Commission suggest that the agency may be poised to enforce the most intensive government oversight of broadcast programming in decades—perhaps even in the history of the agency. The FCC voted last year to require each broadcast licensee to file quarterly "enhanced disclosure" reports—highly detailed information regarding its programming and editorial choices. This information will be used by organized groups to file complaints to pressure broadcasters to air programming that the complainants prefer. The FCC is also formulating programming guidelines based on the enhanced disclosure reports purporting to ensure that broadcasters meet local needs. This "broadcast localism" effort may also require broadcasters to appoint local boards to oversee their performance and their editorial decisions. As the FCC seeks to expand regulation of broadcast media, the traditional justification for its authority—spectrum scarcity—has lost credibility, and the agency's new efforts are likely to run afoul of the First Amendment.

You will find the original CATO Institute article here.

Here is the PDF of their policy analysis:
Fairness 2.0: Media Content Regulation in the 21st Century, Cato Policy Analysis No. 651

As I see it, the FCC has only one responsibility, and that is to ensure that radio frequencies do not step on each other. Anything beyond that, and they are going too far.

I am not at all comfortable with the federal government involving itself in media content in any way, as that is something that tyrannical governments have always tried to do.

Shame on us if we stay on the couch and let this happen.

Feds Laying Groundwork for Internet Takeover?

Read this and decide for yourself (emphasis mine):

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO, Oct 22 (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators voted unanimously Thursday to support an open Internet rule that would prevent telecom network operators from barring or blocking content based on the revenue it generates.

The proposed rule now goes to the public for comment until Jan. 14, after which the Federal Communications Commissions will review the feedback and possibly seek more comment. A final rule is not expected until the spring of next year.

"I am pleased that there is broad agreement inside the commission that we should move forward with a healthy and transparent process on an open Internet," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.

The vote came despite a flurry of lobbying against the net neutrality rule by telecommunications service providers like AT&T Inc (T.N), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Qwest Communications International Inc (Q.N), which say it would strip them of the ability to manage their networks effectively and would stifle innovation and competition.

[...]

"We commend the FCC for beginning the process," said Senators Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, and Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, in a joint statement. They proposed a net neutrality bill in the last session of Congress.

[...]

Verizon Communications warned of unintended consequences from government rulemaking and added it is seeking "common ground" with others in the industry on policies that would apply to all.

"The Internet ecosystem is serving consumers very well, and there is no problem that requires new government regulation," said Tom Tauke, executive vice president of policy and communications.

You can read the entire Reuters.com article here.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is having none of it, and believes this is essentially going be a sort of "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet.

"Net neutrality, as I see it, is the fairness doctrine for the Internet," she said. The creators "fully understand what the Fairness Doctrine would be when it applies to TV or radio. What they do not want is the federal government policing how they deploy their content over the Internet and they want the ISPs to manage their networks and deploy the content however they have agreed on with ISP. They do not want a czar of the Internet to determine when they can deploy their creativity over the Internet. "They do not want a czar to determine what speeds will be available....We are watching the FCC very closely as it relates to that issue."

So are we, Rep. Blackburn.

Every time I hear the suggestion that the federal government get involved in anything, I cringe. Once you let them in, it is damn near impossible to get them out again.

The idea that the federal government should have any say in how the Internet is run is preposterous, as you can be sure their involvement in same will only deepen as time goes by. Yeah, the old slippery slope that would be.

The decidedly totalitarian leanings of the administration currently holed-up in the White House only reinforces my belief that the feds should be kept as far away from the Internet as is possible.

As far as I know, the Internet isn't broken, and even if it was, the last entity on Earth I want to see "fix" it is the federal government.

(h/t: Drudge)

Photocredit: scaredmonkeys.com