Net Neutrality: Regulation for Regulation's Sake

In non-primary news, the FCC determined that it doesn't need new regulatory power over the internet:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday there's no need for new regulation of the Internet, saying his agency has all the authority it needs to prevent discrimination by Internet service providers.

That's a relief. Net neutrality is one of those things, like olestra, that may sound appealing in theory, but in practice is simply a bad idea prone to worse execution.

"The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your material or allow quick access is appalling," [Justine Bateman] told the committee.

Yes, because we need to listen to what Mallory Keaton says. The fact is net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. There is rarely service interruptions, which usually result from heavily trafficked sites. The real reason for this onerous regulatory regime is summed up thus:

"The only thing bigger than corporations in this country is the government," he said. "So we think we have to make clear to legislators that we need somebody making sure that that pipe is neutral."

Bigger government for bigger government's sake. Heaven forbid we let private citizens order their own lives and exercise their speech rights in accord with their own preferences.