F.C.C internet plan eerily analogous to healthcare reform? You be the judge.

F.C.C. plan to widen internet access

I don’t really know that much about the internet business, but I do know how to compare criteria and rhetoric and when I saw this this morning I was amazed. It sounds to me to be exactly like the government exchange idea that the house and senate dems pitched as healthcare reform.

"According to F.C.C. officials briefed on the plan, the commission’s recommendations will include a subsidy for Internet providers to wire rural parts of the country now without access, a controversial auction of some broadcast spectrum to free up space for wireless devices, and the development of a new universal set-top box that connects to the Internet and cable service.

The effort will influence billions of dollars in federal spending, although the F.C.C. will argue that the plan should pay for itself through the spectrum auctions. Some recommendations will require Congressional action and industry support, and will affect users only years from now…

The plan envisions a fully Web-connected world with split-second access to health care information and online classrooms, delivered through wireless devices yet to be dreamed up in Silicon Valley. But to get there, analysts say the F.C.C. must tread carefully with companies like Comcast and AT&T that largely control Internet pricing and speeds. Already, there are questions about the extent to which the F.C.C. has jurisdiction over Internet providers…

Oh, this is the best part: Mr. Genachowski also argues that broadband expansion can be an economic stimulant, a crucial selling point in a time of high unemployment. “Broadband will be the indispensable platform to assure American competitiveness, ongoing job creation and innovation, and will affect nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives at home, at work, and in their communities,” he said Friday."

Thoughts? Am I right in my assessment?

You can extend their (shaky) reasoning to all economic activities to be honest…

Yes, definitely. It worries me.

BTW I wonder if this is linked to the same discussions going on on the BBC in the UK regarding whether internet access is a ‘right’. In the end if they do enshrine it in some sort of legislation, it won’t matter how logically sound the notion is (which is to say, not at all) because appeals to authority will suffice.

You mean appeals to precedent?

No, just “oh, look, the Declaration of Human Rights says it’s a right, so it must be so!”

Yeah true. The whole conversation these people are having about rights and what not is devoid of logic imo. Because if the internet is a right because some people don’t have it, what’s not a right?

I’d definitely say there were parallels. But, as Mises said, the failures of previous interventions begat new interventions. It’s no different if we’re talking about healthcare, banking, the Internet or sports.