Close the FCC? The Real Radical Ain’t Mark Jamison. Rather, It’s the Alt-Left That’s the Outlier.

by Mike Wendy on November 24, 2016

I’ve been watching with bemusement the alt-left’s freak-out over the Trump appointment of market-based economist Mark Jamison to co-chair the FCC transition team. In particular, one article – FCC Vetter Jamison: Do We Need an FCC? – has their undies in a big wad.

In brief, Jamison suggests that in a time when communications competition thrives and numerous alternatives are available, better ways exist to “regulate” the marketplace instead of the bloated, duplicative, sclerotic and captured FCC.

This is hardly radical, or new.

The market-based community has been writing about these ideas for well-over a decade. The PFF-led DACA Project, organized in 2005, is a notable illustration. These ideas are predicated on the belief that the advance of technology, industry peer “policing,” competition, and present consumer enforcement tools are better suited to address real, not conjectured, harm and marketplace failure than is prophylactic regulation (like Net Neutrality).

As it relates to the Commission, this could mean that the FTC would address competition and consumer protection matters; the NTIA spectrum management; and the states deployment and universal access issues, among other things. Sure, the FCC would have a role, but it would be circumscribed, being centered on public safety and technical / interference matters instead of its struggling-for-a-mission job it now plays.

The deregulatory trajectory is clear. For over four decades, Congressional law and policy, FCC regulation, and court decisions have moved to unshackle the communications marketplace from the silos of the 1934 Communications Act. This is not to mention broader Congressional law and its tax policy, which has worked to remove burdens on the telephone system and Internet users; and its laws which have sought to keep the regulatory state as small, and small business-friendly, as it can be.

That ain’t radical. That’s the trend. Those are the facts.

Quite frankly, it’s the alt-left – hogtied by Google, the Ford Foundation, and Soros’ Open Society programs – which is the outlier. What’s especially ironic and troubling is that the alt-lefties have hijacked this deregulatory progress, and through hook, crook and partisan theft power-grabbed the Internet with out-of-date FDR-era / 19th Century railroad regulation, which, if they were still in control, would never go away.

Jamison’s viewpoint represents the will of the people and the tide of history. The alt-left, a disenfranchising fraud.

Who needs the FCC when it’s nothing more than a Ponzi scheme for 1%-er “progressives” (a.k.a. thieves)? Here’s to hoping the next FCC changes that racket.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Brett Glass November 25, 2016 at 5:36 pm

The groups pushing for FCC overregulation are actually not far to the “left” politically (as if, in fact, politics were one-dimensional, which they are not). They are merely funded by competitors of the corporations which you characterize as being on the “right, as well as by their large stockholders. (George Soros, for example, is a very large Google stockholder.)

Both groups of corporations are in fact engaged in rent seeking, and both favor regulations that tilt the playing field in their favor.

The problem is not a “left” vs. “right” problem but rather the FCC’s general susceptibility to corruption and political influence. And, yes, if it cannot be immunized against these things, it may be best to dissolve it and substitute one or more other agencies which are.

Reply

Arthur Rhodes November 28, 2016 at 5:36 pm

In regards to ISP’s:

“Competition thrives” Hahahaha, I shouldn’t judge. Who knows what I would say, if I were paid to say it too.

Customer service is so god awfully bad in your clients industry. Is that a by-product of the great competition you speak of?

Your clients industry is at the top of the most hated companies in America list’s. How did that happen? Because of thriving competition?

You know who doesn’t have to provide good customer service or be concerned about ending up most hated companies in America lists? Companies that don’t worry about losing customers despite being on those lists. ISP’s fit the bill.

There is a reason Amazon.com customer service is incredible. Because we can shop anywhere else we want and they know that.

But keep touting what you get paid to say. You can write it all you want on this cute little blog. It doesn’t make it true.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: