That's the gist of a message from Senator Mike Lee, (R-Utah) via a Town Hall email. To quote from the email:
Obamacare, the VA scandal, the IRS scandal--these are just a few examples of what happens when we give government huge power without oversight.
It's about to happen again--the Obama Administration is fighting for a government takeover of the Internet and the Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on it February 26th. That's why I am writing you today--I need your help to stop this.
President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.
More hysteria, lies, and total BS below the
Orange Omnilepticon.
I'm going to take advantage of Senator Lee's call to arms and dissect it as an exercise in translating Wingnut messaging.
Text of email
Dear Friends,
Obamacare, the VA scandal, the IRS scandal--these are just a few examples of what happens when we give government huge power without oversight.
[Except that 2 of these three were not and are not scandals, outside of the Right Wing Fever Swamp. The other is - and it is being dealt with. Or do administration and Congressional investigations not count as oversight? There has been some accountability already - though this scandal has been going on since the previous administration. Where was the oversight then?]
It's about to happen again--the Obama Administration is fighting for a government takeover of the Internet and the Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on it February 26th. That's why I am writing you today--I need your help to stop this.
[Happen again? I keep forgetting how the Kenyan usurper has nationalized so much of America, like the Federal takeover of the financial industry after the Great Recession, and the Single Payer national health care system. And let's not forget the government takeover of the auto industry.]
President Obama came out a few weeks ago urging the FCC to vote to regulate the Internet the same way that it regulates public utilities under Title II. What this means is that, for the first time, billions of dollars in fees will be attached to Internet service just like they are to telephone service.
[Taxes? OMG!!! Tax & Spend!! Tax & Spend!!!
If there is anything that involves consumers being charged massive amounts of money, it's about the desire of Internet Service Providers to turn the Internet into the cable TV business model - high prices for restricted content, crappy service, pay for speed, and maybe other 'innovations' like demanding you rent a box from them if you want service, and having to agree to all kinds of restrictions on what you're allowed to do.]
You see, under Title II if someone wants to own a telephone company, there are fees baked into the law--fees companies pass on to customers.
[Because, you know, these companies are run by altruists who would not charge their customers anything, if the government didn't burden them so.]
Now, under this new regulatory regime, Internet service providers will be subject to these fees as well, and then pass them on to you, the consumer.
[Except they won't. This, AFAIK, is total BS.]
This is essentially a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.
[Because every time the government does something, it always involves secret massive tax increases. Of course, doing things in the dead of night is okay, if it's for the benefit of multi-national corporations. AmIrite?]
The Internet is built on speed and dynamism, it’s always changing, there are always new and better ideas that are exploding onto the scene, and part of the reason for that is that innovators are not having to go ask Washington, DC for permission every time they want to do something new.
[Except this is NOT about going to Washington for permission to do anything - it's about NOT letting faceless, unelected I.S.P.s turn into Internet gatekeepers whose only desire is to maximize their profits at the expense of everyone else.]
What this really comes down to is a fundamental question:
Who do you want in charge of the direction of the Internet: people at dot-com startups that brought us game changing companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and Uber; or nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats in our nation’s capital?
[Umm, faceless public servants who are not in it for the money, or unelected faceless corporate overlords and their bought and paid for politicians? And we all know how much those game-changing companies care about the public interest.]
There is another aspect of this that gets overlooked: the Internet is an incredibly important force for freedom, for liberty, and the rights of free speech that we hold dear. It is an existential threat to tyrants in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia who seek to keep information from their people.
We must preserve the high ground for the United States to stand up to these countries and tell them to keep the Internet free and preserve free speech on the Internet throughout the world. We cannot do that if we are regulating the Internet in a similar manner ourselves.
[Except there is nothing in the proposed FCC rules about censoring free speech; if anything - it's about protecting free speech by preventing companies from charging for the privilege - or blocking it entirely if it poses a threat to their business.]
I am not accusing anyone of sinister motives here, but I am deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do. In the long term, this could have a chilling effect on political speech, in ways that today we could not even begin to imagine.
["...deeply concerned about the idea of any government bureaucrat having the power to tell companies what they can and cannot do." Umm, just companies, Senator? Are you suggesting that companies should not be subject to the rule of law? Do you really think government telling companies what they can and can not do is never a good idea?
Speaking of government bureaucrats Senator, going to roll back NSA surveillance, or reign in the CIA while you're at it Senator? I see you're taking some steps in that direction. How about a more fundamental right while you're at it? Going to do something about the government bureaucrats who are a leading cause of violent death in your own state? ]
We do not have much time left to stop this gigantic government takeover of the Internet. The FCC is voting on February 26th and the Left is mobilizing to support their effort to do so. We cannot let the conversation be totally one-sided. The FCC needs to hear from us today--not tomorrow or next week or next month. Today.
Please join me and go sign the petition to keep the Internet free. We must stand for liberty and preserve the Internet free of government interference.
[Because nothing says you're standing for liberty like fighting for the rights of giant corporations to be free of any regulation or accountability while protecting their right to establish monopoly control.]
Thank you for standing for Internet freedom.
Sincerely,
Senator Mike Lee
Republican-Utah
If you want more of the same, you can check out
the petition Lee is promoting. It's a nice distillation of GOP talking points - demonizing Obama, government, and government oversight of business, while talking up moral authority and freedom. The petition is set up so you have to take it as written - no way to add comments. It's designed to give Senator Lee X number of signers in support, as a number to wave at the FCC, while also gathering email addresses.
Senator Lee's wikipedia entry is fascinating reading. It gives you a sense of just how incestuous Utah politics are, and the strength of his conservative credentials. Lee has connections to a lot of Washington's deep government through family and friends; he got right on board with the Tea Party.
Of more interest to this particular issue is Lee's connections to Comcast; he's benefitted from the desire of the nation's largest cable company and Internet Service Provider to ensure its interests are looked after. (Here, here, and here.) If you notice, nowhere in his dire warnings about the "government takeover of the internet" does he mention Comcast or any of the cable companies these rules are aimed at. It's the very real danger that Comcast will turn the Internet into a toll road where pay to play is the rule of the day, which has the FCC proposing the new rules. Lee is really fighting for the ability of Comcast and others to make as much money as they can get away with.
What's especially interesting about Senator Lee's position is that the rest of the business world seems less than upset at the prospect of the FCC stepping in to preserve net neutrality, after the response to the original proposals back in May. Here's Kevin Drum's look at the response of the markets vis a vis what will happen to the I.S.P.s under the latest proposed restrictions on broadband internet providers.
It comes via Brian Fung, and it shows the reaction of the stock market to yesterday's news that FCC chair Tom Wheeler plans to impose strict net neutrality rules on broadband internet suppliers. This mostly applies to cable companies, and the prospect of strong regulation should have sent their stocks downward. Instead, they spiked upward: [see chart at link]
The real story is quite a bit different from the way Senator Lee pitches it. Instead of ordinary people and business facing ruin at the hands of an overreaching government, it's more the government stepping in to do what the market can't: keep someone - the I.S.P.s - from exploiting their position between content providers and consumers for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. As
the NY Times notes:
Republicans like Senator John Thune of South Dakota are accusing Mr. Wheeler and President Obama, who called for strong rules in November, of imposing “public utility” regulations on the Internet. This, they say, will stifle the incentive to invest in high-speed networks. Those arguments are preposterous. The commission is not trying to regulate the price of broadband service. Nor is it forcing cable and phone companies to lease access to their networks to competitors, which it could do under a 1996 telecommunications law.
The truth is the F.C.C. is taking a measured approach, justified by the growing importance of Internet access, which has become the most important communications service for most individuals and businesses. An executive at Google recently said the commission’s proposals would not deter the company from building broadband networks known as Google Fiber in cities like Atlanta and Nashville. Even Verizon’s chief financial officer told investors in December that Mr. Wheeler’s plans would “not influence the way we invest.”
Senator Lee's email is pretty much standard GOP demagoguery: Obama bad, government bad, taxes, bad for business, bad for freedom, lather-rinse-repeat. He's framed the issue as government making life more expensive for everyone while trampling on freedom. And what he leaves out is just as important as the misstatements, half-truths, and outright lies he puts in.
Nowhere does he give a reason why the government would want to do this, other than to hint at "sinister motives". He never admits to the possibility that the government might actually be doing something that would benefit people. He never mentions the desire of companies to assert monopoly control over Internet access, to charge all the traffic will bear. He doesn't even mention the words "net neutrality."
By using Town Hall to disseminate this screed, Senator Lee is playing to a picked audience, one already receptive to the paranoid anti-government, anti-public interest fantasy world view of the Tea Party and like-minded conservatives. He confirms their beliefs, plays on their fears, tells them what they want to hear. And people wonder why America is becoming so divided? Why government is dysfunctional?
Odds are you won't see this picked up by the regular media - it's the kind of thing that goes under their radar. But... it's out there, influencing the debate, skewing the narrative, and furthering the larger agenda of the conservative movement.
Keep an eye on Senator Lee. He's got the messaging down.