Consumers could be surfing the internet, listening to their favorite tunes, reviewing documents or even watching television right now, all for around $500 on a touch-screen device less than ten inches tall. But they can’t. Not yet, at least.

Computer maker Apple has its fancy new gadget ready to go, and it could already be on the market for people to enjoy — except for one little problem: The federal government has not yet “approved” it.

As it turns out, the company cannot sell its new iPad until bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) get around to allowing it. Apparently the government “needs” to make sure the device does not interfere with other equipment, operate in the wrong government-allocated spectrum or emit too much radiation — all for the greater good, of course.

But while most analysts predict its prompt approval, the bureaucrats are already making a fuss in a vain attempt to justify their bloated salaries and unconstitutional authority. "Apple's iPad announcement has set off a new round of reports of networks overburdened by a data flow they were not built to handle," wrote two federal bureaucrats — John Leibovitz with the FCC and Phil Bellaria from the federal Omnibus Broadband Initiative.

"With the iPad pointing to even greater demand for mobile broadband on the horizon, we must ensure that network congestion doesn't choke off a service that consumers clearly find so appealing or frustrate mobile broadband's ability to keep us competitive in the global broadband economy," they said.

But would internet networks really be “overburdened” without the wisdom of central planners in the federal government? It’s highly doubtful, but even if it did become congested, an intelligent entrepreneur unburdened by bureaucrats and regulations would promptly fill the void in broadband availability.

But what about protecting people from radiation? Well, to put it simply, no company would risk harming its customers knowing full well that such a business model would land them in court paying out millions. Customers would never purchase such a product, and the firm’s self-interest alone would prevent such occurrences.   

Apple acknowledged the last regulatory hurdle in a note sent to customers, also pointing out that availability of some functions would likely be restricted in certain jurisdictions. “Some features and applications are not available in all areas,” read the letter as quoted in Wired magazine. “Application availability and pricing are subject to change. This device has not yet been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.”

As usual, the government, in its zeal to unconstitutionally control everything, is standing in the way of technological progress. The resources expended on securing government approval, filling out forms, hiring attorneys and bending over backwards to appease bureaucrats could have been used instead to research and develop newer and better technologies.    

The regulatory obstacle course also makes it more difficult for small firms to enter the market, which translates into less consumer choice, higher costs and less innovation. But for Big Business, it can be great: less competition means a bigger market share.

Wired magazine writer Eliot Van Buskirk concludes his story, entitled ‘Wondering Why You Can’t Pre-Order an iPad? It Isn’t Legal Yet,’ by noting that “A conspiracy theorist might say that Apple secretly hopes the FCC will step in and ‘force’ it to sell the iPad to all of its potential customers, regardless of which wireless carrier or plan they want to use, but that seems like wishful thinking.” Perhaps. But the point is that in a free-market, under America’s system of constitutional governance, there is no place for government “force” at all (except to punish the improper use of force or fraud).

The federal government should never have become involved in communications, especially considering the fact that it possesses no constitutional authority to do so. But now that it is, there is a simple solution: Abolish the FCC and fire its legions of bureaucrats. This simple step would save taxpayers more than $300 million per year while unleashing American innovation and ingenuity in ways that cannot be foreseen.

The price the American people have paid so far in terms of taxes, lost productivity and the stifling of technological progress is unquantifiable, but it is surely too high. It is past time for true change and a return to the constitutional principles and free market system that made America unique, prosperous and free. 

Alex Newman is an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small media consulting firm. He is currently living in Sweden and has spent most of his life in Latin America, Europe and Africa. He has a degree in foreign languages and speaks Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Italian and a little Swedish and Afrikaans. In addition, he earned a degree in journalism from the University of Florida, with emphasis on economics and international relations. 


 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (22)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

	As I posted at "Politicians in Wonderland" The only thing government, at all levels, can produce is confusion, mediocrity and useless paperwork. The entire bureaucratic "work" force should be immediately fired. They are the people who SHOULD be out of work, not the private sector where wealth is actually created (and then stolen by government at all levels, which only consumes/steals).
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 03, 2010
Votes: +3

Richard A Hesel said:

	Poor Apple Poor Apple. Because of the Feds they just can't get anything done and nobody makes any money. The evil government has stymied their innovation and creativity at every turn. Everything they make is dull, just like Microsoft, which operates under the same constraints. Just imagine the products Apple would invent were it not for the Feds!
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 03, 2010
Votes: -3

Open Source said:

	Hang on a minute So, you would prefer that the iPad be released without considering its use of spectrums and bandwith, even if that means your cellphone reception might be interrupted? That your wireless modem be disturbed if your neighbor bought an iPad? Where is the malice here?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 04, 2010
Votes: -1

Dinnercoat said:

Ever heard of APRAnet? You know that internet you talk about in the article started as a Department of Defense (government) research project. "But what about protecting people from radiation? Well, to put it simply, no company would risk harming its customers knowing full well that such a business model would land them in court paying out millions." If the cost of litigation is less than gains to be made by sacrificing safety in a product of service a corporation would choose the latter every time if they had a reasonable believe they'd get away with it. Corporations are amoral, they are neither good nor evil but do anything and everything in their power to make money; whether the actions they take hurt/help others is inconsequential.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 04, 2010
Votes: -2

NCSA Mosaic said:

Government, ha! ARPANET went online in 1969. And what happened with the 'net between 1969 and 1988? Not much in the way of public usage. Only after the 'net was opened to commercial usage in 1988 did anything useful in terms of technological progress come out of the effort. Someone in government had a good idea. So what? It was useless until citizens could use it for themselves, and pursue their own self-interest with the technology. Arguably, government regulation and control severely held back the advancement of Internet and Web technology.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 04, 2010
Votes: +3

rprew said:

	... If the FCC had existed in 1876, we'd probably still be communicating via carrier pigeon while the descendants of Mr. Bell were still awaiting approval.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 04, 2010
Votes: +2

Open Source said:

	... Sorry, rprew, but based on the logic in this article, if the FCC had existed in 1876, Bell would have got his approval a month or two after his first successful announcement. Yes, that's right, a month or two. Not, as your comment suggests, 135 years. Small price to pay, right?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 05, 2010
Votes: -1

Lee Gonzales said:

	opensore's idiotic servility to the state the state can do no wrong.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 06, 2010
Votes: +3

Lee Gonzales said:

The bureaucracy's boot lickers The Declaration of Independence of 1776 says in part: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." The colonists disliked immensely the controls and regulations imposed upon them by king George's bureaucracy. They well,understood why they had to break away and form their own government- a government free of bureaucrats. They also realized that there would always remain the few boot lickers" who would side with the government bureaucracy over the free market. Regardless of the damage done caused by the anti-free market regulatory agencies like the FCC the boot lickers would always side with government harrassers and parasites. The bureaucracy's boot lickers have made an appearance at this site. Bootlickers only know servility to the state. They are unimaginative and boring.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: +1

Opener Source said:

George the Third hated iPads too Yes, yes, you caught me Mr Gonzalez. I love licking boots. Love it almost as much as I love tortured interpretations of the Declaration of Independence. But to return to the point, which naturally hasn't been addressed: So, you would prefer that the iPad be released without considering its use of spectrums and bandwith, even if that means your cellphone reception might be interrupted? That your wireless modem be disturbed if your neighbor bought an iPad?

report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: -1

Lee Gonzales said:

	opensore admits "I love licking boots" bureaucratic regulatory boots that is.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: +1

realtorgal said:

Is it that "torturous" for some to read the Declarationof I ndependence? Apparently so. http://www.jbs.org/jbs-educati...-resources "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has... obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers... He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.... He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For ...imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: That is a small part of the Declaration but a knowledge of history is required to understand the context in which the Colonists penned those bills of particulars against the king. Some like the "swarms of officers" are clear to most people that it refers to the king's bureaucrats. There is nothing difficult to understand or "torturous" about it. This site is above the mental capacity of some, of that there is there is no doubt. They need to exercise their "mental skills" at sites like Sponge Bob and Square Pants and leave it to others who appreciate the value of history and our nation's documents like the Declaration and the Constitution.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: +1

Opener Source said:

	... I whole-heartedly appreciate the value and history of the Constitution. Especially that little bit of it called the First Amendment.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 07, 2010
Votes: -1

Lee Gonzales said:

	appreciation of the First Amendment Appreciate of the Constitution, especially the first amendment, is directed at the federal government and not at the states. Freedom of speech trumps McCain /Feingold does it not?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 08, 2010
Votes: +1

Opened Sauce said:

	... Uh (cough), fourteenth amendment. Not sure how Citizens United is relevant here...
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: -1

Lee Gonzales said:

	relevancy "I whole-heartedly appreciate the value and history of the Constitution. Especially that little bit of it called the First Amendment." You brought it up.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: +2

realtorgal said:

"Uh (cough), fourteenth amendment." Was that a furr ball you coughed up? Our pet troll (sourced) implies that somehow the "liberals" interpretation of the 14th amendment nullifies the original intent. It does no such thing! All you have are politically connected lawyers (judges) who need to be slappped down by Congress for writing law. They need to be interpreting each case brought before them according to the original intent of the Founders. And in most cases sending the cases back to the states since most of these cases are states matters not federal matters. The Bill of Rights were simply a reaffirmation that the feds cannot meddle in these areas, therefore it makes no sense, except to our pet troll with dust in his throat,to make such an illogical conclusion.The Framers took extra care to keep the central government at bay. The Bill of Rights were an added proclamation after ratification of the Constitution because the states were not going to sign onto the new federalist system without a written guarantee that the central government was to keep out of the affairs of the states. Everyone at the time of the Constitutional convention understood this well. The federal government was limited by a few "enumerated powers." The states kept to themselves the larger bulk of powers. The liberal lawyers (judges)saw an opportunity to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights by a false interpretation of the 14th amendment, but that does not square with the original intent that the Framers had in mind. The 14th can in no way throw a lasso over the BOR and suddenly nullify states sovereignty.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: +0

Opener Sauce said:

Uh uh Even original intent evangelists like Clarence Thomas and Nino Scalia accept that the intent of the drafters of the amendments is relevant for interpreting those amendments as part of the Constitution in the same way that the intent of the founders is relevant for interpreting the BoR. And that's even if we accept the legitimacy of original intent theory. Just because you've swallowed the collection of fairy tales that the JBS sells under its 'Education' tab doesn't mean they're the be all and end all of constitutional interpretation. Liked the furball joke. Nice attempt at humor.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: -3

Lee Gonzales said:

dear furball "Just because you've swallowed the collection of fairy tales that the JBS sells under its 'Education' tab doesn't mean they're the be all and end all of constitutional interpretation." according to the troll formerly known as "Opener Source" All that you are doing "Opener this and that" is digging a deeper hole for yourself. You don't address anything but come up with your own silly notions at what you erroneously conceive as logic. Which makes no sense whatsoever from the stand point of why you keep posting at a site that you in call "fairy tales." You have no friends here, they're all at stupid R Us sites like the Democrat,Progressive and Marxist sites. The traffic to JBS.org and The New American have jumped remarkably due to the content of our stories and the tabs on the JBS menu, the community and the the traffic is just getting started! You are helping the JBS and TNA simply by logging on and spending time playing the role of the fool.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: +2

RP said:

The best moniker There has been Open Source, Opener Source, Opened Source, Open Sauce, Open Saucer, and Opener Sauce. Perhaps I missed a couple. The most appropriate so far as been Open Sauce. It indicates an open bottle of the "sauce" may be in play here, and would account for the twisted reasoning passing for "logic", the inability to comprehend in full what has been conveyed in articles and posts, the argumentative demeanor, and the problem trying to keep the moniker straight. Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions. - Albert Einstein. We all know what social environment Open Sauce is in. It really doesn't matter whether Open Sauce is an a$$, a drunk, or a drunken a$$. Traffic is being increased to the site, as increased traffic begets more traffic. It's an internet thing. I believe traffic has more than doubled in the last year, if I remember the stats correctly. The word is definitely getting out. I have also been noticing a marked increase in registered users.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 09, 2010
Votes: +1

Openn Source said:

	As they say Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 10, 2010
Votes: +0

rprew said:

	... Open Sauce had best stay out of the sun. Looks like the malathion is working.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 10, 2010
Votes: +1