No Net Neutrality? The Ultimate Tax on Businesses & Society

Wanna watch conservative and libertarian eyes twitch: tell 'em we need more government oversight. No doubt they would point to the all-but-impotent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as yet another example of how government mucks things up. And they would be right, with only themselves (and Congress) to blame.

Set up in 1934 to "ensure that the American people have available -- at reasonable costs and without discrimination -- rapid, efficient, nation- and world-wide communications services," the FCC has been loaded with commissioners more concerned with areola than meaningful access. And the laws they have made (1996) deregulating the telcos but not dealing with the last mile until nearly a decade later, increased competition - but only to a point. The "last mile" is the euphemism for the customer -- and every long-distance new competitor that emerged in the 1990s -- had to pay the incumbent Bells a "toll" to bring the long-distance wire to the customer. Fast forward another 10 years, and through roll-ups, the FCC managed to pave the way to a new unregulated monopoly -- Verizon.

Which brings us to today's topic Net Neutrality -- or rather, Verizuhn'sNet, or as my favorite curmudgeon Jeff Jarvis decries: The Schminternet. Google and Verizon cobbled together a self-serving policy. Per the FCC edict: there would be no discrimination -- on wired services. But wireless and managed services? New ballgame. In fact, the business model already exists: it's called cable -- and you can only get your HBO if you pay for the mega movie package. Telco and Internet Law Professor Susan Crawford calls this a "science-fiction-quality loophole."

That Google has decided to cross the line and work with Verizon to end the Net-Neutrality stalemate is because the FCC created a blackhole instead of policies -- not that the courts have helped. None of the adults decided to man up -- so the corporations are. Funny, the libertarians and conservatives don't trust government -- but they want to trust the folks most likely to profit from any policy changes. Fox. Henhouse. Anyone?

So while the FCC is impotent and will remain so if the commissioners -- and Congress -- who pass insipid bills who are too busy fundraising rather than studying up on the subjects on which they are making laws,  perhaps we can rouse that other slightly older federal agency the FTC, who is supposed to be worried about trade and commerce, consumer protections and anti-competitive monopolies to see that what this mumbo-jumbo really is: a tax on small businesses and individuals. If they can't afford to pay, they won't be able to play. This regressive tax would unlevel the playing field -- stifling job creation and innovation by blocking those too small to ante from Schminternet services.

Oh and just in case there is any, ahem,  (no doubt) unintended discrimination, according to the GooVer proposal, one can file a complaint. A $2m penalty would be incurred by anyone in violation (see loopholes above to see if you have a snow-balls chance of winning).

And of course if the FTC won't step, we can always pray to the folks at FaceBook to do the opposite of whatever Google wants.