Jeffrey A. Eisenach: "Nothing Moderate" About Reclassification
George Mason University Law Professor and Navigant Economics LLC Managing Director Jeffrey A. Eisenach has an op-ed in today’s edition of The Hill, looking at the FCC’s attempt to impose Internet reclassification on the market. Eisenach says there is “nothing moderate” about this dangerous first step toward pushing through net neutrality legislation that would stifle innovation and hurt consumers. Some highlights:
“To propose applying such an intrusive and cumbersome regulatory regime to a market as dynamic as the market for Internet applications and services is as audacious as it is misguided. But the radicalism of net neutrality lies not just in the level of proposed intervention, but in the rationale behind it.”
“Traditionally, regulatory intervention has been justified only the basis of market failure, a principle which reached across both parties and ideologies. But the FCC has discovered virtually no evidence of market failure: Even net neutrality advocates cite only two brief episodes of allegedly harmful discrimination, the most recent of which occurred more than three years ago. As 21 economists, including Carter-era regulator Alfred Kahn and Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith, recently pointed out in a filing at the FCC, ‘there is no economic basis for a finding of market failure in the markets at issue.’ However, ‘there is strong economic evidence that the regulations would inhibit, or prohibit, efficiency enhancing conduct, thereby reducing competition, slowing innovation, deterring investment and ultimately reducing consumer welfare.’[1]
Boiled down to the basics, in other words, net neutrality is a massive scheme for what Richard Posner termed ‘taxation by regulation’ – the transfer of wealth from one group to another by means of government regulation.
You can read the full op-ed here.
Sham
This article and this entire group is a sham. Eisenach works at George Mason Law school, mainly on economic issues. In this capacity, he works directly with the Mercatus Center.
In case you aren't aware, the Mercatus Center is a right-wing think tank of academics. It was founded, funded, and continues to be funded by Koch Industries. Koch Industries is led by Charles Koch and his brother. These men are libertarian/right wing fanatics who invest money in various think tanks to undermine government regulation and legislation, especially when it comes to environmental issues.
This is all significant because we learn the motive of Eisenach. He is employed to publish right wing propaganda that pushes back against sensible legislation. People like Eisenach and think tanks like Mercatus lend their credentials to published papers. Then politicians, talking heads, and media members cite and quote those well credentialed papers in order to push a disinformation campaign to kill various types of legislation regulating big business. Almost all their papers are half-truths or flat-out lies; however, because the information is published by phds and other academics, their work is deemed credible. Thus, no one disputes the paper or looks at the actual facts. In essence, deference is giving to these "smart" professors without anyone questioning their motives or facts.
This article is nothing but a lie to push the big business agenda of privatizing the internet. If you need more proof, look up Mercatus Center on a Google search, read Jane Mayer's August 30th article of The New Yorker, or do some other basic research for yourself based on who the members of this group are. You'll see I'm right.
Finally, Michael Powell is anything but bipartisan. Under Bush, he was a partisan hack who never met a business that he didn't like. Check out his resume for yourself.
On the other hand...
Broadband providers have managed to create a vibrant, accessible, and *profitable* infrastructure all under a default presumption of Net Neutrality. Enshrining Net Neutrality into law will only serve to protect market access by entrepreneurs and start-up companies; the economic harm done to Comcast is grossly outweighed by the economic benefit created by Twitter, Facebook, Google, and the like.
Good effort at trying to put a negative spin on Net Neutrality, but would you advocate the same position for any other infrastructure of public trade? Are you opposed to Road Neutrality? Should the big shipping companies get to drive faster than the "freeloader" car drivers? Maybe we can start a petition against Telephone Neutrality?
Let big corporations band together against consumer choice and competition in the most open marketplace ever enjoyed by mankind? That's a little pathetic.
Post new comment