The FCC vs. Your Retirement

[Commentary] At the behest of President Barack Obama, in a highly unusual intervention with an independent agency, commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to impose utility regulation on the Internet. Historically, cable and telecommunications were stable investment vehicles. Providers made long-term investments, and consumers purchased subscriptions. This ensured reliable deliverable of dividends, important for people living on fixed incomes and pensions. Such stability was enabled in large part by a light but consistent regulatory framework. It's strange then why the FCC would throw a monkey wrench into a system that drives 5 percent of the S&P 500 and put millions of Americans' retirement plans at risk. But the agency is under siege by activists who don't trust private enterprise and want all of America's networks to be under government control because they believe they can do it better than the market. Incidentally, the rules they imposed allow the government more ease to surveil citizens under the premise of protecting their "privacy" and the ability to add new fees to broadband subscriptions.

Unless Congress acts, the lawsuits and long litigation progress against the FCC probably will cost savers, taxpayers and petitioners at least $1 billion. That's a lot of money that could go to upgrade and expand networks, particularly in rural areas. A better path is for Congress to put an end of the litigation and do its job to make the proper communications laws for the digital age.

[Roslyn Layton is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Frank Louthan is managing director at Raymond James financial advisors]