In all the chatter across the net about the Federal Communications Commissions passage of Net Neutrality rules I have yet to see anyone point out the ironic part of the “unofficial announcement of Commission action” press release.

While many are focusing on the technical details and pondering the future affects on the business of the Internet I was intrigued by the sheer irony of the verbiage used in the fourth paragraph of the release.  The “process” in question is referring to the last year in which the FCC has pursued rules on the issue,

This process has made clear that the Internet has thrived because of its freedom and openness — the absence of any gatekeeper blocking lawful uses of the network or picking winners and losers online.  Consumers and innovators do not have to seek permission before they use the Internet to launch new technologies, start businesses, connect with friends, or share their views.

As we say down in the South… well ain’t that sump’n.

In the commissioners own words the FCC acknowledges that:

1. The Internet has blossomed because it is free.  Freedom of course being defined as the liberty from coercion of the power of another.  Oops.
2. The Internet has been a success story because it does not currently have any gatekeepers and has a history of not having gatekeepers and the market has maintained this independent of any, once again, coercion of the power of another.  Oops.
3. The Internet has allowed its users and innovators to thrive and create and succeed and fail, pick its own winners and losers all without seeking permission.  Oops.

In one little paragraph the FCC has essentially refuted everything else that follows in any unofficial or official action.  In one paragraph they have admitted that the Internet has been completely successful, handled its own hiccups, not had to ask permission to do anything, not had any gatekeepers establishing barriers to entry, BUT… we still need some rules.

The real message the FCC is sending us is one in which they simply want control.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t tell the country that the Internet is successful because no one regulates it, but that the FCC will now regulate it and that it will still be successful and nothing will change.  This doesn’t even make sense conceptually.  Ultimately, it seems the message is loud and clear.  It is simply about control.

[Cross-posted at Digital Society]