Net Neutrality? Really?

The first time I heard the phrase “net neutrality” was in this Daily Caller article: Comcast, Time-Warner Tank After Obama Announces Net Neutrality Support. Normally “net neutrality” would sound like nails on a chalkboard to me. It’s a little too PC for my taste, but I confess when I first read that net neutrality means reclassifying ISPs as utilities, I thought it actually could be a good thing for broadband customers because…

Remember this?

 

Haven’t we all had similar experiences with our ISPs? Seriously, does anybody like Comcast? Or AT&T? Or Time-Warner? I know I don’t and, products and services aside, it always makes me wonder how these companies manage to stay in business with such egregious report cards when it comes to customer service.

I learned about customer service a long time ago, shortly after graduating from college, when I entered an executive development program for a large, upscale retail store. The first thing learned was the customer is ALWAYS right. Even when the customer is wrong, the customer is ALWAYS right. The customer is ALWAYS right. Period. End of discussion. It was hammered into my brain. And do you know why? Because in the highly competitive retail industry, customer satisfaction is vital to business success and continuous growth. Satisfied customers come back for more and they bring their friends.

Call me an evil capitalist, but I believe free markets are good because they empower consumers by stimulating competitive business practices. See, when I’m allowed to choose products and services, based on quality, value and customer service, the consequence is companies work harder to get and keep my business. Free markets breed exceptionalism.

The problem, however, with internet service providers is there’s no competition. They are not forced to compete for our business because in most cases, consumers have only one choice of ISP.  POTUS rationalizes that the monopolization of internet service by a few giants in the industry presents a greater threat to free markets than government regulations do. Hence, reclassifying ISP’s as utilities and subjecting them to all the same restrictions and regulations as the electric and gas companies, to name a few, is a good idea, right? Maybe…if we could only trust POTUS. But we can’t.

“Net Neutrality?” Seriously? Let’s say we call it what it really is. The government’s attempt to regulate, control and tax access to the last bastion of unrestricted information and free speech: the internet.

Remember the last PC pseudonym the administration shoved down our throats? It was the Shared Responsibility Payment. By the way. It’s a tax. Just ask SCOTUS or this guy…

An expert and one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, Jonathan Gruber, admits the bill passed thanks to two things: a conscious and orchestrated lack of transparency and the stupidity of the American voter. For the record, Mr. Gruber is not a critic of ACA, but he made it clear in October of last year, after the botched roll-out, that if people “really knew what was in the bill, it would not have passed.” Oh and let’s not forget about that “You can keep your doctor” business. We all know how that ended up. There’s a name for this sort of tactic in the sales industry. It’s called bait and switch.

My conservative principles make me bristle at the idea of big government regulations, but what makes me bristle more are the myriad examples of Barack Obama’s history of baiting and switching the American people. Lies, corruption, law-breaking and cronyism is bad politics.

I hate Comcast, but I hate being lied to and exploited way more. Perhaps net neutrality is a good thing, but POTUS gives me no reason to trust him. “Net neutrality?” Seriously? Smells like another bait and switch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *