The Heritage Foundation has hit this issue right on the nail head. The unjustified notion that big is bad introduces unnecessary regulatory review, which amounts to unnecessary delay in getting innovative products to market. As a former regulator, I saw the unnecessary and time consuming hoops that telecommunications firms were forced to jump through in the name of “consumer protection.”

It’s time that the FCC abandon the “regulate the behavior” school of thought and look at resource allocation from an optimizing view point. In other words, if the transaction gets spectrum into the hands of the party that makes the best and efficient use of it, then allow the transfer at the fastest speed.

Government, as manager of the economy, is supposed to look for optimal use of resources. It’s not supposed to use regulation as an optimal noose around the neck of innovation.

Having been a victim of identity theft, I can understand the feeling of violation that comes over a person who has been through it. The frustration of not being in control and having to go through the bureaucracy and paperwork to recover what was lost.

There is of course the need to blame someone; to determine where within the process is the breakdown located. Where was the lack of oversight? In my opinion, the problem always starts right at the beginning when the consumer makes a choice not only about what information to share but sharing the information in the first place.

Whether it’s failing to change passwords after a separation from a spouse or thinking twice about posting silly pictures on Facebook, the decision to share and failure to properly secure sensitive information starts with the consumer. Unfortunately, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration wants to replace personal responsibility for keeping private information secure online with more heavy handed online privacy regulation.

Visions of Elizabeth Warren aside, creating another crusading consumer protection agency is not what’s needed. Instead, the industry’s suggestion of greater consumer education on what to do to protect private information is the way to go. The best defense is a great offense and this is where consumers are failing.

In an eloquent piece written in The Huffington Post, Mr. Wright has thoroughly described the static view, held by the FCC and other net neutrality proponents, and the dynamic view, held by the National Urban League, the NAACP, and other groups and citizens opposed to net neutrality.

Free Press and Color of Change’s views are static because they are only concerned with protecting the traffic they are getting from their 2.6 million online viewers. This is why they focus on a conservative consumer protection argument. Consumer protection, in its traditional form, automatically degenerates to more regulatory rules, which is where the FCC comes in.

Free Press and Color of Change never talk about expanding broadband adoption, which is a more progressive and dynamic approach that is best served by allowing broadband providers to develop service plans and packages that can incentivize the additional consumer demand needed from the more skeptical members of the minority community.

Regulation based on a set of patronizing consumer protection rules will not close the digital divide.

Declan McCullagh raises a very important point. There is a system in place to address consumer protection and antitrust issues. The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice have addressed these issues for decades. The FTC even offered the Federal Communications Commission a hand in drafting consumer protection language for the FCC’s national broadband plan last year.

In addition to the federal consumer protection and antitrust statutes in place, the states also have consumer protection and antitrust laws in place. There are quite a few attorneys general who would like to bolster their resumes by taking on a few large broadband providers.

But as Mr. McCullagh rightly points out, broadband providers have been avoiding on their own the discriminatory practices Free Press and Public Knowledge continue to allude to.

Why recreate the wheel?

Maybe I think a bit too linearly, but what does donations received by a politician have to do with increasing consumer welfare?

Consumer welfare? What’s that? Isn’t that what Free Press is talking about when it banters around the notion of consumer protection?

Unfortunately, the answer is no. Attacking a congressman on the issue of money he received from a corporation may be good tabloid fodder, but in the world of public policy, it’s pointless.

Free Press should be concerned about consumers realizing increased levels of broadband services for the same level of price. Free Press should be concerned about increasing consumer surplus. Regulation has never brought that about.