First, it was the financial system.  Then came the auto industry, followed quickly by efforts to control energy consumption and place conditions on property owners' right to sell to sell their homes (cap & trade), set compensation limits, eliminate workers' rights to secret ballot union elections and 'reform' health care.  Now the federal government wants to take control of the internet. 

The internet is a classic example of how free markets work when left alone.  Entrepreneurs invested hundreds of billions of dollars creating vast communication networks; free market activity led to the creation of millions of jobs and the ongoing invention of new technologies.  No taxpayer subsidies...no government bureaucrats telling consumers what they can have or when they can have it. 

This latest assault on free markets is also an attack on our constitutional form of government.  We are a republic, where government is limited by the rule of law and the true power rests with its citizens.  As noted in the following Kansas City Star editorial, the FCC is thumbing its nose at the courts and moving full steam ahead with its intent to take over the internet.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission says proposed new rules for Internet providers are only intended to encourage competition and free-flowing Web traffic.  Whatever the intent, the plan announced by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has needlessly injected a worrisome level of economic uncertainty into one of the nation's most thriving high-tech sectors.

Last month, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC lacked authority to regulate the Internet. Undeterred, Genachowski said he proposed to simply reclassify broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service" rather than an "information service."  Such a move would subject broadband to certain Depression-era rules drawn up to regulate copper-wire telephone service.

Genachowski claims he's taking a middle ground. At least for now, he says his initiative wouldn't regulate broadband rates, force providers to share lines or regulate content. But it would require that providers like AT&T or Verizon allow data to travel to subscribers without interference.

In practice this could mandate one-size-fits-all pricing for every Internet data packet, regardless of whether it's text or bandwidth-hogging video. Providers reasonably argue for the freedom to pursue different pricing models on the grounds that would encourage investment in new traffic-managing technology.

Genachowski's approach is ominous, and not only because it would place Internet providers under "common carrier" rules intended for phone companies. It would hinder development of one of the economy's most vibrant sectors.

Even if the worst-case scenarios spun by providers don't come to pass, this gambit could be the opening shot in a long, disruptive court battle over the FCC's jurisdiction over the Web. It's a prospect that would likely retard significant new investment in the Internet.