Judge Napolitano: Owellian “Net Neutrality” Anything But Neutral


Champion of the Constitution and popular “Celebritarian” Judge Andrew Napolitano has vocalized his opinion against a FCC imposed “Net Neutrality”.   Napolitano believes that State imposed “Net Neutrality” will end up being “anything but Neutral”.

Napolitno has 3 fears

*The government regulating something that has been nearly perfectly free always makes it unfree

*Whenever government regulates something it costs more

*If they regulate the costs, they’ll regulate the content

Napolitano goes on to say:  “They already regulate the content of regular broadcast television.  In theory in return for Fox receiving it’s license from the FCC it has agreed NOT TO SAY certain things and TO SAY certain thing.  Who the heck wants to see the internet become that?”

Can we trust “benevolent dictators” to regulate the internet that Al Gore so selflessly created?

About Author

Matt Bergman

Matt Bergman founded Punk Rock Libertarians in 2010. Formerly played guitar and sang in the Baltimore punk band "TENWATCH" and currently plays guitar and sings in "post freedom".

  • Eric Steiner

    This is the most compelling argument I have heard opposing net neutrality, but what is to stop the “corporate fat cats” from raising rates and manipulating content? Both are sharks looking to use this for their own interest and it looks like both are muscling towards some sort of control, exploitation of this incredible resource.. It really needs to be made completely free somehow, and free from exploitation from either the corporations or the government.

    • Competition will stop those “corporate fat cats” you mention. Consumers will opt for the provider that fits their interests the best.

      • Eric Steiner

        That would be fine, if there were anyone who could compete with the corporations who own a monopoly over it right now. The reason we are even discussing net neutrality is because the corporations who have the monopoly over the internet service are looking to exploit it and give faster service for select corporations while giving the start up internet sites slower connectivity because they can’t compete financially. There is no competition for ISPs it is owned by the rich. The reason I would advocate for a system of net neutrality is to try to give everyone opportunity to let their voice be heard on the internet, not just corporations. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

        • Margaret Sheehy

          But if they don’t like what you have to say, no one will hear you anyway. The last thing we need is a regulated internet like broadcast television.

        • No, there’s not a monopoly. There are many ISPs, and that guarantees competition. And there aren’t many more BECAUSE OF REGULATION already in place, that makes even more expensive and difficult for small players to enter in the business. If anything, what we need is LESS REGULATION.

          • Eric Steiner

            Access to high-speed Internet service — also known as broadband — has

            become a basic public necessity for communication.

            Cable and phone companies which hold virtual monopolies over the infrastructure of the Internet often refuse to build out high-speed broadband to regions that need it most, and actively seek to block communities from seeking their own broadband solutions. It is the corporations you want to give the power to who are preventing competition.

            The Internet is under attack from both corporations and the government. The Federal Communications Commission is voting on rules that would allow Internet service providers to discriminate online and create pay-to-play fast lanes. If the FCC approves this plan, Net Neutrality will vanish. This is a serious fight. Powerful companies like AT&T and Verizon are deploying hundreds of lobbyists to stop the FCC from making rules that would actually protect Internet users. And Comcast is pretending to support Net Neutrality to sell the government on its merger with Time Warner Cable.

          • You talk about “cable and phone companies” (notice the plural) and then go about saying they “hold a virtual monopoly.” No, they don’t: a monopoly is “the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.” You want me to show you a monopoly? The State IS the worst of all possible monopolies: it holds the monopoly over the use of force on a given territory. Try to understand this fact, and maybe you’ll get to a state of mind that allows you to refrain from giving the state even more power than what it actually has.

          • Eric Steiner

            You need to understand that the state and the corporations are in bed together. The best method would be to form an individual branch that monitors, defends and keeps it free, free from influence of corporations and government, this is what I want.

          • I do understand that. I also understand that regulatory capture is a norm, not an exception: all regulation gets captured by the subject that was initially the target, and is used by it to tamper competition. You want to give a blow to the “evil corporations” in the communications industry? Fight for ending the FCC, and for burning the hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that support the cronyism in that industry.

          • Victor Jansson

            If the state and the corporations “are in bed together”, how do we help the situation by regulating the internet? Then according to your own logic we’re just handing it over to the corporations.

            Regulatory capture always happens. Sherman Anti-Trust was even an example of that. Upton Sinclair’s the Jungle lead to regulatory takeover as well, he even came to oppose the law that came about because of his fictional book.

            The FCC sucks. I don’t want them to control the internet. Anyone who is worrried about a lack of competition should favor more competition, not more government control.

          • Eric Steiner

            And there are two major cable providers who are about to merge Comcast and Time Warner, once they merge there will be NO competition any longer for cable they will own the infrastructure and they will own the government that creates all the rules.

    • Victor Jansson

      Competition is already stopping them, and at this point in time there’s still only like three competitors.

      • Eric Steiner

        Who are the three competitors?

        • Victor Jansson

          Comcast +Time warner (merged), Cox, Verizon and new on the board is Charter

  • Wynn Horton

    He made a broad jump from regulating price to regulating content. He also did not prove his point well. I like him, but he didn’t sell me this time.