Net Neutrality and the Free Market

It's been a few weeks since the last email blast, and that is because our little campaign has now concluded. But something happened this week that I'd like to relate as my last message on Net Neutrality...

Here are just a few of the latest articles on Net Neutrality for your information:

Net Neutrality Supports Admit, They Want Property Rights Eliminated

Oh, Net Neutrality sure sounds like a great idea. Why, Net Neutrality supporters only want what's best for "the people," right? They only want the Internet to be a playground for all, free of the influence of evil corporations, and they want fees to be reasonable for the lowly masses, right? Turns out, not so much. Fair pricing and open access is the least of what Net Neutrality supporters really care about.

The latest wrinkle in the saga of Net Neutrality pretty much proves that Net Neutrality supporters really don't care much about a free and open Internet as formulated in most people's minds, nor do they care if corporations offer the Internet in a "fair" manner. No, what Net Neutrality supporters want is the end of ownership of intellectual property. What they really think is that anything that appears on the Internet should be wholly free of any capitalist ends whatever. That includes anything you create, by the way. They aren’t just against those evil corporations. They are against anyone making money on the Internet. That means you too.

Net Neutrality pushers don't care who creates what. They don't care if inventors and artists create something that they might want to make a living , they don't care if it is even possible to make money from your own intellectual property, your own programming, your own YouTubeesque video work, your own art, music, or computer coding. They want your hard work to be free to everyone and they want to make sure you cannot earn even single a red cent from your own efforts.

This is a most un-American idea.

I say this because now we can easily see the until now barely hidden truth with the latest cause célèbre of Net Neutrality supporters. Unsurprisingly it concerns Fox News.

A posting at Tech Lib Front explains:

In response to a fee dispute between the two companies, Fox on Saturday pulled its programming from the Cablevision system, and blocked Cablevision internet users from accessing Fox programming on-line. Separately, (minority owned by Fox) enforced a similar restriction, hoping to stay “neutral” in the dispute. Despite the fact that “The Simpsons” and “Family Guy” weren’t even on this weekend (pre-empted by some sports-related programming, I guess), the viewing public was incensed, journalists wrote, and Congress expressed alarm. The blackout, at least on cable, persists.

Net Neutrality supporters are outraged that Fox has removed its content from the Cablevision system and blocked that service from accessing its programming over the Internet. This, NN supporters claim, is precisely the sort of stuff that they intend to prevent with their policy ideas.

But just what are the Net Neutrality folks saying here? Certainly they are saying that Fox should not be allowed to decide who gets its programming. They are saying that Fox should not be allowed to decide with whom they will do business. NN supporters are saying that Fox should not be allowed to make decisions about its own programming and they think that said programming should be free and "open" on the Internet.

This is essentially a communist-like, anti-property rights argument.

In the past NN supporters have concentrated their fire on Internet providers saying that efforts they might make to structure higher fees for faster connections endangered the Internet. They've said that this idea would essentially create a multi-tiered Internet where "the poor" have lesser access to the Internet than "the rich." Until now NNers have claimed that they really only care about "the last mile" of the Internet, that window by which users access the Internet. But this has been a smoke screen all along.

Perhaps if NN supporters had stayed with that populist argument they'd more easily win this policy argument. But with this Fox issue they've revealed the intrinsically un-American ideology behind their efforts. Their true goals are to eliminate any capitalism on the Internet.

And if I am mistaken, then why have NNers gone with this anti-Fox reasoning? How can they possibly justify applying "last mile" policy prescriptions to a content creator instead of a content provider? Fox is not an ISP. They are the creator and the owner of the content. Yet NNers are going after Fox in this case.

This reveals Net Neutrality supporter's true goals and those goals are clearly anti-property rights oriented. Those goals are absolutely anti-capitalist and anti-American. Their goal is for government to take over the Internet, making of the Internet a capitalist free zone.

Of course, if that happens it will certainly kill any future improvements, future innovation, and will drive most content creators off the Internet. And that, good reader, will kill this versatile and amazing tool for all of us.

Thanks for your attention to Net Neutrality and please do continue paying attention to the issue, writing about it on your own blogs, and most especially telling your legislators that we do not want the left's ideas of Net Neutrality to pass.

Here are a few anti-Net Neutrality organizations and Web Resources that are worth looking in on occasionally:

Here are some industry websites that follow Internet regulations:

We hope that you will post our articles and press releases. We also hope that our emailings will interest you enough to join the fight and write a few blog posts about Net Neutrality.

At stake is no less our freedom to blog not to mention the innovation of a free market.

Feel free to drop me a line at and do let me know if you are interested in helping to get the free market, conservative narrative on Net Neutrality out to your readers. This issue is vitally important for the freedom and success of our Internet.