BCT Editorial – 10/21/10

The Times published a previous editorial entitled “Scare tactics” on this topic.

This editorial illustrates two beliefs of the Times.

First, the editorial doesn’t appear to grasp the fact ISPs provide their service using their private property.  The government has no business telling private businesses how to run their networks.  If ISPs want to charge content providers, that should be their choice.  While the Times is at it, why not rant about supermarkets.  Why?  Supermarkets decide what products will be sold and suppliers pay supermarkets for preferential product placement.  What about the Times itself?  Are we to believe the Times accepts all ads and charges the same for all ads it runs?  As a reminder, the Times refused to run an ad for this website.

Second, the Times believes we need a nanny state.  That’s evident in the following statement: “Net-neutrality doesn’t impose restrictions on users; it’s there to make sure the ISPs don’t exploit them.”  This is the same BS we get whenever government wants to increase its control over the people.

The editorial concludes with “The FCC has the authority to impose net-neutrality rules and should use that power to protect equal access to the Internet.”  Not exactly.  In April, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously the FCC didn’t have the authority to implement its plan.

The editorial failed to note a big backer of the FCC plan is the organization misnamed “Free Press.”  I say the organization is misnamed because its positions are “premised on the idea that newsgathering is a public service” and thus should be government funded.  Does that sound like a free press to you?  Does this sound like an organization that has your best interests at heart?