Why did President Obama appoint Tom Wheeler to head the FCC?

[2banon]

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Tom Wheeler is the former head of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA).

Those are lobbying groups for the cable and cell phone industry.

This is the guy who made his fortune working in, later investing in, and lobbying on behalf of, the cable industry.

This is the guy who will almost certainly immediately upon leaving the FCC either go work for Comcast as past FCC chairs have done or back to head up the lobbying arms.

Why am I not seeing a critical mass (here on Du for a start) aggressively demanding that the FCC take action to restore net neutrality and shut down action of the Comcast/Time Warner merger?

This issue impacts the ability to even participate on this discussion board for those of us who cannot even afford to pay current rates.

Getting back to the question, I don't understand Obama's complete disregard for consumers by appointing to the FCC people who have financially benefited in the past (and most assuredly will do so again in the future) from anti-trust deregulations. I just don't get it.

*********************************


Editing to add a Call to Action : quick summary for Net Neutrality

The FCC simply needs to reverse a mistake it made in the Bush era and reclassify broadband Internet services.

If the FCC states that broadband should be treated as a telecommunications service, our problems are solved. Reclassifying would mean that our Internet service providers are common carriers, just like our phone companies are, and it would obligate them to treat the content that flows on their networks in a nondiscriminatory way.

But nothing will happen if we don’t speak up. Call on the FCC to do the right thing and fix this mess once and for all.

Summary on Media Consolidation

Stopping this kind of deal is exactly why we have antitrust laws.

This merger would put more than a third of all cable-TV subscribers in Comcast’s hands and give it control over more than half of the “triple-play” services that combine TV, phone and Internet service. Don’t forget, Comcast already owns NBC, MSNBC, Universal Studios and tons of cable networks. That means that for most of America, Comcast could control even more of what you see and how you see it.

Putting this much power in the hands of one company is dangerous. This deal would lead to less consumer choice, less diversity and much higher cable bills.

This is a fight we can win. Tell the FCC and the DoJ to stop this merger.

Call to Action

[G_j]

1. K&R!

[SamKnause]

2. Why you ask ?

Because Obama does not represent the needs of the people.

His appointments and nominations have proven this time after time.

He represents the corporations and their CEOs.

Many will not accept this, even though the facts are staring them in the face.

[2banon]

3. Good point.. Maybe THIS issue will inspire those supporters to take action?

It would go a long ways in restoring faith if a critical mass of those defenders would rally against these proposed mergers and policies.

[KoKo]

4. Many of them agree with his picks and policies. That's why they voted

for him.

Others of us took him seriously about "Change You Can Believe In." But, those of us disillusioned with his policies are told we didn't listen carefully enough to what he was saying before he was elected. They say we hear what we wanted to hear and that he was clear about what his policies would be. Even when shown video tapes of his speeches where there was clearly something different that he said from his current policies...we are told that we still didn't listen carefully.

So....that's the way it is, sadly.

[msanthrope]

7. You do realize that your Presidential candidate voted to confirm Mr. Wheeler? nt

[JoePhilly]

34. You are ruining perfectly good faux outrage!!!!

With your pesky facts.

[Armstead]

42. Do YOU think it is a good idea to appoint lobbyists to regulate the industries they represent?

That's all that matters. Cute disregard for faux outage aside, why don't you actually focus on the issue?

[rhett o rick]

52. They believe that what is good for Wall Street is good for the country. nm

[JoePhilly]

74. Because this is the internet and I can focus where ever I choose.

As can you.

I'm going to bet that before this thread, YOU (much like me) knew little to nothing about this guy. Or wait ... you've been tracking him for years, right? Got his entire bio memorized, right? I doubt it. More likely he's new to you and pretty much everyone here on DU.

Now, I understand that freaking out is always STEP 1 here on DU. If Obama burps, DU flips out. We have multiple posters dedicated to doing little more than taking everything he says and trying to find the "secret" meaning.

In this case .... as we see down the thread, this guy appears to support the progressive side on net neutrality.

hummm ... so is he evil simply because he's been a lobbyist? Did Warren and Sanders turn to the dark side? Does being on our side of net neutrality issue matter?

Ahhhhh ... screw all that ... let's flip out first ... that's the DU way.

[2banon]

78. Not the point at all.

The point isn't whether or not we just heard of this guy, but what his background is, and THAT pertains to the issue at hand, which is a significant matter.

Given your response, I am compelled to conclude that you're income is comfortable enough to have no issue whatsoever as regard to significant rate increases that is a guaranteed, as well as the limitations which will be imposed on those who do not enjoy income parity with you. So, you don't give a rats ass.. duly noted.

[JoePhilly]

81. You can conclude whatever you want ... again, this is the internet.

Personally, I think its silly to be against some one simply because they have been an industry lobbyist.

Much of this thread demonstrates that exact type of knee jerk response that is now commonplace on DU. Why think, when you can just flip out.

And that is the main point in this thread.

[2banon]

89. Consider this a call to action (link)

freepress.net

[JoePhilly]

91. No summary ... no link clicking.

[2banon]

98. Just edited OP to Add Summaries and Links for Net Neutrality and Media Consolidation

You'll find both there at the bottom of OP now.

[Armstead]

80. You assume that everyone who cares about actual issues blindly freaks out.

You can focus anywhere you want to, as can I.

And control of the media is one of my own hot button issues, and I have been paying close attention since the 1970's

But if you don't care about an issue like this, why go trolling to insult the people who do? What's the point of that? Just for the fun of getting a reaction?

In general, if I feel people are getting worked about something I think is trivial or is not interesting to me, I try to stay out of it.

For example, I personally don't give a damn about gun control, and am probably a bit libertarian on the subject. I don't think more gun laws are the answer to the epidemic of violence we are experiencing.

But I know that issue matters to a lot of people here. And that sometimes people get emotional about it.

And I'm not going to put them down and insult them or dismiss their concerns simply because I don't care or somewhat disagree with them.

If you don't give a shit about who controls our national information infrastructure, then why don't you just stay the hell out of such discussions? If you have nothing you want to contribute other than cute put-downs, why not just focus on the subjects you are interested in?

[JoePhilly]

83. Who said I don't care about media consolidation?

At no point in my post do I say that.

I simply commented on DU's natural tendency to knee jerk at the first opportunity, on ANY issue.

As usual, folks who have no idea who this guy is, or where he actually stands on the issue, are freaking out.

Obama appointed him ... so he must be bad.

What's new.

[Armstead]

95. Let me put it this way.

If you care, then why not just defend the choice, without insulting everyone who is upset?

It's not all knee-jerk responses.

To be honest, it bothered me somewhat that Obama appointed a lobbyist and industry insider to head the FCC, but I swallowed it (yet again) and didn't get on DU and spout off about it. I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt.

But the waffling about the vital issues that have arisen lately has gotten me upset. You may not share that concern. You are fully entitled to dismiss it -- and to state why you believe in real terms you believe it is not a problem. But there is no need to be condescending to people who are troubled by it, or once again lump everyone who has concerns together into your little stereotype.

Why does he bother me personally? Okay. the statement below sounds more like it would be coming from a Republican or spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce or the Heritage Foundation. This sounds like code for "Let the free market determine everything."

“How we encourage economic growth using these networks is crucial. And the key to that is competition, competition, competition,” Wheeler said during an event at CES 2014 last week. “Because competition is so much better than even the best, wisest, well-intentioned policy maker.”

“The government, in the form of the FCC, is not going to take over the Internet,” Wheeler wrote in a blog post published late Tuesday. “It is not going to dictate the architecture of the Internet. It is not going to do anything that gratuitously interferes with the organic evolution of the Internet in response to developments in technology, business models, and consumer behavior.”


http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/15/why-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-isnt-big-on-net-neutrality-rules/

-----------------------
And when you add this little tidbit to the upcoming merger of Comcast and Time Warner -- Well yes, i think people who give a damn about the future o communications have a right to be troubled.

-----------It's an F-in pattern of putting foxes in charge of the henhouse.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/02/13/doj-antitrust-chief-uncertain-for-comcast-review/

"Before Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer took the helm of the Justice Department’s antitrust division a little more than a year ago, he was a top private-practice lawyer at Arnold & Porter LLP. During his tenure there, he represented General Electric Co.GE -0.35% and NBC Universal during their earlier deal with Comcast, a transaction that was approved only after the companies made concessions to the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission in early 2011."

I hope the concern many of us have turns out to be misplaced. I hope that both men rise above their backgrounds.

But why the hell did Obama choose them over many other qualified people without such conflicts of interests?

And you wonder why people get upset with him?

[JoePhilly]

96. Who are these "other qualified people?"

And I'm confused ... do we want the cable companies to compete with each other, or not?

Do we want the government to "interfere with the organic evolution of the Internet"? Or are you saying we DO want the government to control the internet?

And a guy was a lawyer for GE in a merger, which was approved only after concessions to the DOJ and the FCC ... that's bad? Do we not like the concessions?

And again ... who are these better candidates you speak of?

DU was SURE Obama was going to appoint Summers ... and freaked out.

Every quarter or so, DU is sure Obama is about to dismantle Social Security ... and freaks out.

Some folks on DU are ALWAYS upset.

Its reached a point where I don't take many of them seriously. And they don't tend to be the best source for objective information on any topic.

So here we sit ... a guy no one knows, a couple quotes that actually don't seem too scary to me ... and part of DU is freaking out.

I'll read up on the guy. At this point, I haven't seen a reason to freak out.

[Armstead]

101. There's the specifics here and there's the larger attitude

Larger attitude -- I try not to get personal on DU, but I'm gonna.

You have a tendency to dismiss issues with blithe insults to people who get upset about things. It seems to be your first response.

The points you raised in the above post are certainly fair ones, and legitimate. Speaking personally, I have no problem if you challenge a point I might make on that basis. I would be happy to reply based on my own interpretation.

For example, you say: "Do we want the government to "interfere with the organic evolution of the Internet"? Or are you saying we DO want the government to control the internet?"

I would respond that government regulation is required to balance market forces so that the positive aspects of business do not overshadow the negative ones. That is the role of government.

"Organic evolution" is an easy term that is often used as a code by the Corporate Elites and the conservatives who justify them for "let the market do whatever it wants."

As a liberal, I would say that (especially in the industries that affect everyone) there has to be a balance between the "organic" marketplace forces and the public interest. When left unregulated, markets inevitably move towards monopolies, elimination of the middle class and other harmful effects -- because it puts profit above all else. That applies to the Internet as well as many other sectors of life and the economy.

If you want to debate or argue about that, fine. Nooooo problem. That's what debate and discussion is about.

But, back to my earlier point.

It seems, by your own words, your first response to people who criticize President Obama or the Democrats from a leftward direction is to roll your eyes and stop paying attention, and jot off a dismissive insulting post about them. That might be more satisfying than to discuss your differences in substance, but it doesn't contribute much.

I for example have been involved in the media business for a long time, and I care about the issues involved with it deeply. It is not "faux outrage" or knee jerk or anything like that. And i resent your facile put-downs of the people here who are trying to stop this massive merger combined with the potential loss of the public-service aspect of the Internet to the monopolies that are being created. Its not just about Obama -- but he is hiring too many foxes to guard too many hen-houses.

If you actually do care about the bigger picture, and think that people are wrong when they complain, it would be more constructive to actually engage on the subject at hand, and not make it personal and petty.

[2banon]

102. Well Said..

Thankyou for your tireless contributions..

[Armstead]

104. Thanks.

This subject does merit a lot more attention and clarity

[2banon]

106. Yes, I edited the OP to add links for background summaries and Calls to Action

It's been a number of years since I was involved in media activism, but that I am compelled to be under the administration of the person I voted for, really sucks. So grateful there are others such as yourself engaged in this vital issue and who can articulate the underpinning issues far better than myself! Again, thanks!

[rhett o rick]

51. And the corporatists dont understand why the lower classes are outraged.

The corporatist believes what is good for the corporations is good for the country. Is that what you believe? Or do you think that this corporatist is different. That he will shun his ties to the 1% and work for the people.

[2banon]

59. "Faux Outrage" ? Seriously?

Maybe I misunderstand the target? Do you think this issue is a "faux" concern?

[JoePhilly]

76. Be honest ...

When did you first learn this guy's name?

Does it bother you that Warren and Sanders voted to support him?

Are they not concerned? I mean, given the level of outrage here in this thread, certainly they should have voted NO.

Right?

[2banon]

84. Honestly..

I learned of this guy's name this morning, while researching who the commissioners were, specifically who the person is, what their professional background was.

It does bother me that Sanders and Warren voted to confirm, but it bothers me more that Obama didn't put before the Senate for confirmation, people who actually were qualified from the Public Interest community as opposed to people with Wheelers ties to the industry.

As to the last question.. they didn't have a say as to who the appointees would be.. but that said, I'm deeply disappointed they didn't bring these concerns up in the public fora before the confirmation process. I have no idea if they regret not doing so themselves.. I've no ties to their office or staff, and have not yet heard or read anything in that vain to date.

All of that said, there is nothing faux about this outrage. If you're not understanding why, we can discuss that and I'll be happy to explain.

[JoePhilly]

88. Please explain what we're supposed to be upset about.

This guy will .... what exactly?

[2banon]

99. I'm not taking you seriously at this point..

I've just read several of your posts in this thread, mostly in response to Armstead, and it's clear to me you're not concerned with either Net Neutrality, or the Media Consolidation.

Your responses imply tacit approval and faith in the Fox that's been put in charge of guarding the Hen House. If most of the hens get devoured on this watch.. meh, so be it.

[2banon]

100. Already addressed that question in the OP.

[Egalitarian Thug]

93. This one of the posters that, if President Obama killed and ate a puppy during a press conference,

they would be defending him as an advocate for animal rights who was demonstrating the need for expanding spay/neuter programs.

[sabrina 1]

110. You're making a very odd assumption. Maybe it's projection? Do you really think that those who

are justifiably outraged at the many Republican and Corporate Appointees of this administration who they supported, will continue to support ANY politician who caves to corporate influence? The answer is 'NO'. Here's something for you to learn. IF Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders show signs of becoming Corporate Politicians, they will lose the support of Progressive Democrats.

I hope that clears that little misunderstanding of what being sincere about issues actually means. Now, maybe there are some people who will blindly continue to support a politician regardless of how they 'evolve' on the issues, but the majority of Progressive Dems are not among them.

[Enthusiast]

121. +1 a whole bunch!

[Phlem]

37. When you ask about how they reconcile "Fast Tracking" the TTP you get

crickets.

Sadly people pick and choose they're own reality and are so convinced of them selves they must convince you to validate they're views. Like creationists, they just make shit up that fits they're analysis.

Said in full agreement with you and with no outrage.

That last sentence was for the other the other side. You know when words like "hater", and "faux outrage" start to become prevalent in the thread cause they refuse to see what's happening right in front of them.



-p

[2banon]

62. I agree..and it's a sad commentary, isn't it? n/t

[BlueStreak]

56. Obama didn't say a hell of a lot. It was all empty rhetoric.

That's what passes for "smart strategy" these days. Every political consultant wishes his candidate would do more fluffy, empty rhetoric. Obama got elected because he had the best, most convincing delivery of the empty rhetoric. In other words, he was the best of the bullshitters. Conventional wisdom says nobody can get elected any other way.

[SammyWinstonJack]

149. +1. It WAS all empty rhetoric....both times.

[SamKnause]

6. Not likely.

He gives a speech and they all swoon.

It is nauseating.

Obama is pro spying.

Obama is pro monopolies.

Obama is pro droning.

His ACA is pro insurance and pro pharmaceutical.

Obama is pro Wall Street.

He is achieving things Republicans could never have gotten away with.

It is the old good cop bad cop.

[Yavapai]

44. The same as Bill Clinton did.

He is achieving things Republicans could never have gotten away with.

The same as Bill Clinton. He brought us NAFTA, because the Democrats would have screamed like hell if a Republican had tried to do it.
He changed the welfare system in ways that seems to have been the 1%er's dream. The list goes on and is long.

The money from corporatism has transcended political parties and now controls both.

Legalize pot because reality just sucks!

[SamKnause]

45. Agree

[msanthrope]

8. Then why did Senators Warren and Sanders vote for him, too? nt

[msanthrope]

5. For the same reasons Senators Warren, Franken, and Sanders voted for him....

he's really well qualified, and his proposed net neutrality fix is a good one.

[2banon]

15. What is in the proposal that appeals to you?

and why would you trust a corrupt congress to implement whatever you like about this proposed fix?

Wouldn't you prefer that the FCC make the fix first, then look at possible legislation that only served to strengthen consumer protection after? This is a process that takes quite a long time, and we know that the Rethugs will not support anything that favors consumers, unless it favored Big Business more.

[msanthrope]

17. We don't need legislation to fix it...but we do need Congressional hearings that

support the rule change, provide findings, and are a hedge in any lawsuit.

[2banon]

22. I would agree, if for once the findings were given the weight that is due for implementation

which would effectively support rule changes that favored the consumers over Big Business, which would also be a strong enough hedge against lawsuits, presuming courts that were not already in the pockets of BB.

Another huge problem are corrupt courts, justices.

[JoePhilly]

25. Blasphemer!!!!

[sabrina 1]

127. What is your position on Net Neutrality? n/t

[2banon]

32. It's kind of interesting what constitutes as "Well Qualified" ..

It would seem to me, that watchdog advocates (who are also legal scholars) would be Well Qualified for these appointments. People who are very knowledgeable in the field, but have the public interest as their primary objective.

Confirmation process by a corrupted Congress might pose a problem to a degree, but if every appointee was from the public interest sector, as opposed to former lobbyists and CEO's of the Cable Industry....

just sayin' would have been better for consumers.

[Phlem]

38. you have to understand.

When they say it, it's true!



-p

[madville]

90. Plus raising over $700,000 for President Obama's

presidential campaigns doesn't hurt either

[Rex]

9. Sometimes you have to let the sharks feed.

Or they might eat you next.

[2banon]

11. Yeah, there is that too.

[Rex]

12. I give the man hell for being a corporate suit sometimes. Then I remember he is just a small fish.

When I was a younger person I thought the POTUS could do anything, but everyone knows the Devil will get his dues one way or another. If the PTB want another Goldman Sachs suit in his cabinet, they get the appointment. Why? Because the MIC has one true friend named Wall Street.

As for Main Street I hear he was foreclosed on years ago, lives in the forest now with the rest of the homeless.

[2banon]

33. I wouldn't mind living in the forest, if I could trust it wasn't going to be mined or fracked.. ;)

[Rex]

36. If we could get back to the days of enforcing laws against near monopolies

it would help chip away the cynicism. We need a strong government that will take an adversarial stance toward Big Biz when the need arises.

[Armstead]

43. BINGO!

I am among those who have been harping on this for years (decades).

It's been a drip,drip,drip...a merger here, a slightly bigger merger there...on and on until they have almost all merged into these fucking monsters that are eating us all, and throwing toxic waste into "democracy."

These mergers do not have to be an unstoppable fore of nature. But the sad part is we all allow them to happen -- and still keep allowing it, even as we see the devastating results.

[2banon]

49. Exactly so. I'm tired of being shafted, and I'm tired of being cynical..

I'm seriously getting tired of the constant fight on all these fronts.

It's so far beyond "Run-amok Capitalism" People draw a blank expression when the word Plutocracy is tossed out there to define our "governance" system. Like "what does that even mean?".

But the notion that we live in a "democracy" is a fallacy on the other hand seems to be fairly well undersstood by the masses as evidenced by the serious lack of electoral participation vis a vis elections.

[Autumn]

27. Rex!!!!!!!!

Sharks

[Rex]

29. Did you hear? They are coming out with a new movie called Shark of Wall Street!

It last 5 minutes, he eats everyone - the end.

[Autumn]

30. Ohhh I love real life documentaries. I hope Timmy plays the lead.

[Rex]

31. LOL!

He eats them all then goes after the camera!

[msanthrope]

10. Unrec ...and FYI, Wheeler is working with Congress on net neutrality. Don't forget

that it's a pretty complex problem.....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57618748-94/amid-political-pressure-fcc-to-propose-net-neutrality-fix/

[2banon]

14. Doesn't need to work with a corrupt congress. The FCC can "fix" this issue quite simply and quickly

All the FCC needs to do is to re-classify broadband as Common Carrier Service. That's all the fix this issue needs.

Working with Congress to fix this problem is laughable on it's face.

[msanthrope]

16. Sorry...but I think he should work with Franken and Wyden on this. I agree that the FCC

can reclassify, but I think it's important to have Congressional hearings that support the rule-change.

[2banon]

20. Re-Classify first, then we can have our dog and pony show..

Congressional hearings will not effect the change the people actually want.

That we know is certain.

Some of us have witnessed these kinds of hearings far too many times to place any faith or trust in the outcomes that actually benefit the citizens.

[msanthrope]

21. You're missing the point of hearings...to provide Congressional findings

that will support the FCC in any court challenge. This will be fought in the courts...and the FCC needs to be bulletproof on this.

[2banon]

28. I get the point, I just don't have faith in the outcome.

I don't know how many judicial challenges were made against FCC rules and regs BEFORE Reagan and Clinton obliterated them, never heard or read reports of any. I grant you I might have missed them, wasn't paying attention to the issue before the mid - 90's.

But since the mid-90's I've been struggling to understand these actions, and it's been quite the eye opener.

[Armstead]

46. It should with President Obama setting a direction....

and appointing people whose background is more than shilling for The industry.

Net Neutrality may be technically complex, but principles are simple. Same principles that used to be used to regulate all vital public utilities. How's this?

"Information and communications are a vital element of our national infrastructure. While private corporations may develop and earn a reasonable return on their investment, because of the importance and nature of that infrastructure, they must be accountable to serving the public interest and necessity, and thus are subject to government regulation to ensure that they adhere to that."

Admittedly I just made that up off the top of my head. But I am sue that the politicians and others in Washington can come up with an equally succinct framework that would pass legal muster.

We DON'T have to sacrifice everything to the GOD OF LIMITLESS PROFIT by claiming it is too complicated to deal with in a common sense way.

[2banon]

65. Hear, Here! n/t

[msanthrope]

136. Then who should he have appointed? nt

[2banon]

143. People who have dedicated their lives in the Public Interest

and in this field, with deep legal and technical background, but not tied to the industry.

Why not choose to appoint the EFF Director or assistant(s) to serve as one example.

[msanthrope]

144. an here's TOM WHEELER----doing everything you could ask---

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014732126

[2banon]

146. I hope you're right.

[cali]

23. Why? You say you think it's important but you don't say why. just repeat that it's important

so why do you think it's so important?

[okaawhatever]

111. I think your assessment is incorrect. Reclassifying the internet only gets them back to where they

started. The case was originally about net neutrality, specifically Verizon's argument that the government doesn't have the authority to enforce net neutrality. Verizon's position is that they own the pipes, and Google and Facebook shouldn't make billions without paying them to use the pipes. So they're arguing property rights, but also first amendment rights. That just sounds stupid to me, but hey I'm not an attorney.
The judge didn't answer the question about whether the gov't had the authority to enforce net neutrality. The opinion said since internet carriers weren't classified as common carriers, and the authority to regulate created by Congress applied only to common carriers, they couldn't use the law to enforce net neutrality. Basically, you wrote a law that pertains to oranges and you're calling this a orange colored citrus fruit so the law doesn't apply;. Once it's reclassified, they will go back to court and decide the original case. Another option, is to have the case appealed as it sits now. That is likely one of the considerations based on what I've read. If they don't appeal the case as is, they can change the classification but then they'll still go to court and we don't know how it will be ruled.

Comcast is already locked in due to a prior agreement. In fact, I wonder if that's what the merger is about. I also wonder if Obama would use the net neutrality ruling to do what he's always wanted to do and create a free high speed internet as a federal project. This may be the catalyst he needs to make it happen. We'll see, but there's a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Obama and the FCC chairman are dedicated to net neutrality. Obama and the current chairman created this law and have enforced it. This isn't about Obama or the Chairman wanting what the corporations want. This is about the corporations suing the Obama administration for writing a law that protected the American citizen. The Open Internet, or net neutrality law didn't exist under Bush. Think about that. You're bashing the person who created net neutrality in the first place for having the law challenged in court. C'mon...And by the way everyone who is screaming about a revolving door...Obama made rules about who could leave his office and go back to work in the private sector. I'm not sure of the details, but there is a waiting period for many positions so he wouldn't have the revolving door issue.

[2banon]

115. hmm. You make some very good points

I just learned that EFF is not on board with FCC reclassification of the common carrier rules & regs. From what I can determine they don't seem to be on board with the FCC having much if any authority over the internet, and for very important reasons.

Here's an excerpt from some of their thoughts they have posted on the site on the subject dated January 27, 2014:

Why the FCC Can't Actually Save Net Neutrality

What was wrong with the FCC’s network neutrality approach

The Open Internet rules of 2010 that were rejected by the court last week were deeply flawed and confirmed our fears about heavy-handed Internet regulation. The FCC initially claimed that it had “ancillary” authority under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to enact the Open Internet rules. That means that although the FCC did not have explicit authority from Congress to issue network neutrality rules, especially after classifying Internet service as an “information service” and not a telephone-like “common carrier” in 2002, they still professed a broad authority to regulate the Internet.

That claim of ancillary jurisdiction, if accepted, would have given the FCC pretty much boundless clearance to regulate the Internet, and to claim other ancillary powers in the future. Even if you happen to like the FCC’s current goals, who’s to say we will still like whatever goals the agency has next year and the year after that?

We had serious issues with the initial Open Internet Order, as we explained in our comments to the FCC. For one, the Order allowed ISPs free rein to discriminate as long as it was part of “reasonable efforts to… address copyright infringement.” This broad language could lead to more bogus copyright policing from the ISPs. We’ve already seen companies use inaccurate filters to block non-infringing fair use content online, a practice we continue to fight.

The FCC’s rules also had troubling exceptions for law enforcement, permitting ISPs to engage in voluntary, non-neutral network management practices to fulfill any law enforcement requests. We opposed this exception when the rules were being considered, but the FCC did not adopt our recommendations. And by now we all know how overbroad law enforcement exceptions to gather user data can be. If you have any doubt, pick up a newspaper and read about how the U.S. government unconstitutionally collaborates with Internet companies for law enforcement purposes.

As to the comments regarding Obama and Wheeler's good faith intentions wrt to net neutrality that remains to be seen. I'm willing to admit when I've been wrong and once evidence is presented, I'll be the first to sing their praises.

[okaawhatever]

117. i've been reading more since my last post. Last night I read probably ten or twenty articles, but

they focused more on the merger and the court ruling. Tonight I was reading up on net neutrality and the specifics of that. Actually, wikipedia does a pretty good job of giving all the viewpoints.
What I noticed was the term net neutrality is somewhat generic. A lot of anti-net neutrality folks say they're for n.n. but they don't mention the part about being able to charge content providers for fast access. There are 4 basic concepts in n.n. so they may say they support it, but only support 3. You know, typical b.s.

One thing I do kind of understand from the anti-side is that a lot of this came about when YouTube and bit torrent were taking up almost all of the bandwith. In France, their leading wireless internet provider Orange threatened to sue Google because YouTube alone was taking up 50% of their bandwidth. Now, we could make the argument that they should charge the individual user for excessive usage, but I hate those agreements because you know they're going to screw somebody. So that is one honest concern. The only other legit thing is that the law be written in such a way that it allows the provider access in the event of an denial of service attack to do what's necessary to save the system.

Believe it or not, the main opponents aren't just computer companies. Surprise, it's Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and the other neo-con orgs that don't want the federal government to have any power. Verizon has promised to take this to scotus and filed patents shortly after the court decision for software that would slow down certain providers.

There seems to be another element that i've read some tech types discuss and that is government subsidies to build the infrastructure. what I read was that Verizon wouldn't take any of the money, apparently so they wouldn't have any issues down the road. I guess the gov't can't claim partial ownership or whatever. Just wanted to throw that out there because I've read that twice.

A bill was introduced in Congress on Feb 4 to overturn the court ruling. Markey is supposed to introduce a similar one in the Senate, but the Republians have promised to fight it the entire way. Of course, the Republicans also promised to overturn the 2010 amd 2009 legislation that allowed all of this to happen in the first place. If they retake the Senate they may try but Obama would veto it.

Chairman Wheeler is looking at different options, he mentioned earlier today that the best route may be to monitor each provider and sue each one individually. That would avoid the regulatory fight in the courts, and the legislative fight in Congress. That is how they got Comcast. They took Comcast to court and Comcast agreed to make some changes. They signed a net neutrality agreement until 2018 no matter what the outcome of this recent case, they agreed to offer a low cost package for low-income individuals and I can't remember the other stuff. Because Comcast is locked into this agreement until 2018 I wonder if that's why they want to merge with Time Warner. If net neutrality doesn't pass, they're at a disadvantage. I don't know I could be imagining things. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Sorry for such a long post, but you seem interested in what's going on so I wanted to share what I learned. Please pass on anything you learn if you have the time.

[2banon]

118. I have to also concede this issue is more complicated than I previously considered.

Reading EFF's analysis on this issue has been quite enlightening as well. They've been battling in the courts on a number of fronts. You referenced Wheeler speaking about this today. Did he make an appearance on a news program? I'd like to see/hear it if there's a link.

It doesn't surprise me that Cato institute would oppose Net Neutrality, of course they don't trust government, but then EFF argues maybe we shouldn't trust FCC either.

excerpt (emphasis mine)

What was wrong with the FCC’s network neutrality approach

The Open Internet rules of 2010 that were rejected by the court last week were deeply flawed and confirmed our fears about heavy-handed Internet regulation. The FCC initially claimed that it had “ancillary” authority under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to enact the Open Internet rules. That means that although the FCC did not have explicit authority from Congress to issue network neutrality rules, especially after classifying Internet service as an “information service” and not a telephone-like “common carrier” in 2002, they still professed a broad authority to regulate the Internet.

That claim of ancillary jurisdiction, if accepted, would have given the FCC pretty much boundless clearance to regulate the Internet, and to claim other ancillary powers in the future. Even if you happen to like the FCC’s current goals, who’s to say we will still like whatever goals the agency has next year and the year after that?

We had serious issues with the initial Open Internet Order, as we explained in our comments to the FCC. For one, the Order allowed ISPs free rein to discriminate as long as it was part of “reasonable efforts to… address copyright infringement.” This broad language could lead to more bogus copyright policing from the ISPs. We’ve already seen companies use inaccurate filters to block non-infringing fair use content online, a practice we continue to fight.

The FCC’s rules also had troubling exceptions for law enforcement, permitting ISPs to engage in voluntary, non-neutral network management practices to fulfill any law enforcement requests. We opposed this exception when the rules were being considered, but the FCC did not adopt our recommendations. And by now we all know how overbroad law enforcement exceptions to gather user data can be. If you have any doubt, pick up a newspaper and read about how the U.S. government unconstitutionally collaborates with Internet companies for law enforcement purposes.

More

[okaawhatever]

120. I couldn't find the article excerpt I just read, but I think this one is similar.

You know, this is why the Citizens United ruling is so messed up. I was thinking earlier how much Verizon could earn from charging websites to fast access to it's networks. Even if all they made was $5 per phone per month, times ten million phones per month easily. That's an additional 50 million per month without additional expenses. Yeah, I'm sure they could drop a few hundred million to buy a seat in congress for a few anti-net neutrality friends. Sickening.


http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Prepares+to+Try+to+Rewrite+Reboot+Net+Neutrality/article34317c.htm

[2banon]

18. Not really all that complex, from the pov of the consumer, it's really quite simple.

What makes everything so complex is all the DE-REGULaTIONs which started with Reagan, finished off with Clinton, if the fcc rules and regs were restored to pre-Reagan/Clinton years.. well that's never going to happen.

but that's why things are "complicated" - it's all bs

[msanthrope]

19. It is complex if you want to win the eventual court challenges. I agree with the idea of a

regulatory reclassification..but let's not fool ourselves. It's got to survive the courts.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. probably because Obama is the antichrist

or because years ago, Obama saw $$$ in public office. He just knew if he could scratch and claw his way to the presidency, he could make bank.

That is really all he was ever after. Mission Accomplished!!

[Armstead]

47. Do YOU think it is a good idea to appoint lobbyists to regulate the industries they represent?

Just askin

[Pretzel_Warrior]

53. it always has to do with each specific individual and each specific case.

[Armstead]

57. How about this individual and this case?

Your mileage on this may vary but the quotes below, coming from someone in the industry and one of the major lobbyists for the industry, sound a lot like code for "Let the markets determine everything. Government should not do shit."

http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/15/why-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-isnt-big-on-net-neutrality-rules/

"The government, in the form of the FCC, is not going to take over the Internet,” Wheeler wrote in a blog post published late Tuesday. “It is not going to dictate the architecture of the Internet. It is not going to do anything that gratuitously interferes with the organic evolution of the Internet in response to developments in technology, business models, and consumer behavior.”


“How we encourage economic growth using these [broadband] networks is crucial. And the key to that is competition, competition, competition,” Wheeler said during an event at CES 2014 last week. “Because competition is so much better than even the best, wisest, well-intentioned policy maker.”

[treestar]

79. why not?

If I were appointed to a position affecting my profession, I could manage to enforce the law fairly. Is everyone corrupt? Is this projection?

[Armstead]

82. Everyone is potentialy corrupt....or just myopic

A regulatory body should be a mix of viewpoints, so that all sides and interests are represented.

But why appoint someone who has been so embedded in the business and lobbying side for so long to head the commission that is supposed to be regulating that industry?

One would have to be a saint, or profoundly wise to overcome the inherent biases that are the result of one's life experiences.

There are many people who have the necessary knowledge, who came from more objective settings, who could have been equally qualified. And if it is impossible to avoid any biases, I would prefer to have someone whose experience puts them more in the camp of actually PROTECTING the larger public interest, not just the industry.

And your snide little comment "is this projection" is not necessary to make your point.

[treestar]

97. It is, because when one assumes that everyone would do a thing

I figure they are telling me that's what they would do.

Even lobbyists have their uses. I know in my field there are some - we know what goes on in that field, so we should be heard, not just people who don't like it but know nothing about the day to day in it or have wrong impressions from biased media.

There seems to be this mentality that just because someone was in an industry they will corruptly fail to enforce the law properly. Not everyone is like that.

Nobody could become a judge. If I was a plaintiff's lawyer for years and then became a judge, I couldn't just favor plaintiffs without that being noticed. And these people are just enforcing a law. People without experience in the field might well be ineffective at it.

[Armstead]

103. It's the extent and a matter of balance

I am not suggesting that industry should not be represented at all. But the balance is very top heavy in that direction, rather than a balance or tilt in the direction of the larger public interest.

At the moment in this specific issue, for example, the chair of the FCC is a former member of the industry and a major lobbyist and industry representative. Tht's just who he is. He ight be a very nice man, but that is his filter.

Obama also appointed a lawyer who represented GE and Comcast in the sale of NBC to head the justice department anti-trust division, which will be ruling on the Comcast Warner merger.

PERHAPS that is a coincidence. But when you look at this particular issue and the forces involved, there are too many potential red flags and conflicts of interest to gloss over.

And in a bigger picture, when you look at the same tendency in other sectors, it is bothersome. At least worth questioning.

[2banon]

107. OMG. Obama appointed the GE and Comcast Atty to the Anti-Trust division of the Justice Dept!!

Sir, that major fact deserves a thread of its own!

[LiberalArkie]

24. I quit believing in our president when he appointed Rahm.

I kept voting against his opponents. I think the US is almost ready for a liberal populist candidate instead someone in the center or right of center. But I also know that the ones that do the picking are the ones hoping to get into Kappa Beta Phi.

[2banon]

35. It's funny, I didn't know much about Rahm until his appointment..

Saw him do stuff in Congress, seemed like a scrappy fighter for "progressive causes" but I didn't really know what he was about until after.. what was revealed was not a pretty sight.

[Phlem]

39. PBO had 2 tells during his acceptance speech.

"I am a new Democrat" and "Bipartisanship". And the rest is history.



-p

[ProSense]

26. Because

"Why did President Obama appoint Tom Wheeler to head the FCC?"

...he's the President. It could also be that the President knew that by appointing him, a court somewhere would strike down the very rule proposed by the his administration.

Setting the stage for a net-neutrality fight

By Steve Benen

During a Google+ “hangout” last week, a voter in Arizona asked President Obama if he supports net neutrality. Obama said the policy is “something that I’ve cared deeply about ever since I ran for office” and he continues to be “a strong supporter of net neutrality.”

As for the recent federal appeals court ruling against the policy, the president added that FCC Chairman Ted Wheeler, who also supports net neutrality, and his team are “looking at all the options at their disposal – potential appeals, potential rule making, a variety of tools that they may have in order to continue to vindicate the notion of a free and open Internet.”...Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a long-time opponent of net neutrality and the co-chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, spoke at the annual State of the Net policy conference and called for fewer consumer safeguards.

“I wish more government officials shared my optimism about how successful the Internet is about facilitating individual economic empowerment,” he told the conference, which was hosted by the nonprofit Internet Education Foundation.

“There are exceptions of course, but far too often, when you hear someone say, ‘We need regulations to protect the Internet,’ what they’re actually saying is they don’t really trust the entrepreneurs and Internet technologists to create the economic growth and to increase public welfare.” <…>

The remarks from GOP lawmakers seemed to be a direct challenge to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, who spoke at the event earlier in the morning. Wheeler made the case for government action to ensure equal treatment of content online as well as oversight of the ways that networks connect to each other on the Internet, known as peering.

It would seem from his comments that Thune may not fully understand what net neutrality is...the general thrust of the policy is about making online content equally accessible to users, regardless of service providers...imagine an online landscape in which your service provider had a package of preferred websites – customers could access those sites quickly and easily, and they would function as they’re supposed to. But the ISP also had websites with unfavorable status – when customers tried to access sites the service provider doesn’t like for whatever reason, maybe the sites would load slowly. Maybe consumers would have to pay more to access them. Maybe both.... consumer advocates think that’s unfair – service providers shouldn’t be in a position, the argument goes, to make website access easier or harder based on the ISP’s business decisions. The point of net neutrality is to create a level playing field, prohibiting service providers from playing favorites.

That’s the policy the Obama administration adopted, and it’s the same policy the D.C. Circuit struck down last month, leaving officials scrambling for an alternative.

- more -

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/setting-the-stage-net-neutrality-fight

FCC chair exploring net neutrality enforcement options
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024417388

Next up: Why does Obama like pie...WalMart sells pie!

[JDPriestly]

50. Do you have the inside scoop on why Obama appointed Wheeler as FCC chairman?

Is Obama, like Clinton before him, willing to go along with more media consolidation, in this case approaching media monopolization?

And Wheeler, he gives lip service to net neutrality, but all he has to do is drag his heels and we will lose it forever. Why did Obama entrust the FCC to a Comcast employee?

This article is interesting and does not speak well of Wheeler's intentions in my view.

While Democratic senators continue to press for changes to the Telecommunications Act, Wheeler indicated that this isn’t a practical option in the short term. While he welcomed it as the “best and ultimate” solution, he pointed out that it could take years – and result in a law that was out of date the minute it came into effect. As he pointed out, “The 1996 re-write was eight years in the making.”

Meanwhile, evidence that all this is more than a theoretical issue comes in the form of a little spat between Verizon and Netflix . In its latest speed index, Netflix places Verizon’s DSL service right at the bottom of the list, with its fiber service falling from sixth to seventh place.

. . . .

It has to be said that by challenging the net neutrality rules in the first place, Verizon has brought this scrutiny on itself: from now on, every time a video stutters, consumers will get suspicious. And with its denial highlighting just how difficult it can be to establish whether traffic really is being treated equally, Wheeler’s right to push for a quick resolution.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/02/12/fcc-readies-new-network-neutrality-plan/

Wheeler, "The (gentleman) doth protest too much."

Wheeler describes himself as looking for a quick resolution. How much of another Obama "compromise" meaning a tiny bit of net neutrality but mostly letting the internet providers' greed reign unchecked, are we going to get?

Wheeler and Obama could be far firmer about net neutrality than they have been.

It should be not only very easy, but a national security priority, to continue to insure the net neutrality that we have enjoyed in the past and to push for increasing government support for broadband across the country. We are way behind with regard to it and one of the reasons is the role that private companies are playing in trying to grab the internet for profit.

The internet is a major educational tool. Compared to other education mediums, it is cheap. Having net neutrality and enough bandwidth for every kid in America should be a national priority.


I remember when Obama called an online conference with his supporters and said he favored a public option. Within a short time, he was accepting with not much complaint a bill that had no public option. The outcome was very disappointing. Very disappointing.

It isn't that what Obama gets is not always what he wanted when he "compromises." The problem is that he appoints people who, from the beginning are clearly or secretly opposed to what he says he favors, sometimes people who talk out of both sides of their mouths. People who say they want something and then turn around and do the opposite. People like Larry Summers who is now expressing amazement that the resuls of his own economic policies are increased and unhealthy disparity in wealth and stagnant wages. Is Wheeler another Larry Summers who professes goals that sound wonderful but, perhaps because of conflicting personal interests, devises policies that lead to bad results? If so, that makes no sense.

You seem to be the expert on all things Obama. What is the story here? Why did he pick, out of the entire country, this man, Wheeler to head the FCC at a time in decisions that are so important to the millions of Americans who use the internet? Doesn't look like a good decision to me. I would have preferred someone who was very clearly on the side of consumers, not someone from the telecommunications industry. So why?

[ProSense]

55. Who cares? He nominated him, he was confirmned and now he's working for the President.

"Do you have the inside scoop on why Obama appointed Wheeler as FCC chairman?"

What the hell difference does it make why he appointed him? Is this appointment supposed to be nefarious?

"The internet is a major educational tool. Compared to other education mediums, it is cheap. Having net neutrality and enough bandwidth for every kid in America should be a national priority."

Again, what's the point?

That’s the policy the Obama administration adopted, and it’s the same policy the D.C. Circuit struck down last month, leaving officials scrambling for an alternative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140#post26

[JDPriestly]

67. I care. A lot of internet users care. Do you know why Obama appointed Wheeler?

It's a simple question. If you like Wheeler, why? What is it about Wheeler that you like other than that Obama appointed him? What do you know about Wheeler other than his past employment record and Obama's appointment?

Could you maybe ask the Obama administration, whatever source you might have for the many quotes you post? Thanks.

[ProSense]

68. About the

"Well THIS is really encouaging. I feel better now"

...same number who care why he appointed any member of his cabinet or for any other posts.

I mean, he was confirmed last October.

[2banon]

58. Nothing to add to this well said synopsis.

[Cha]

86. I like to think President Obama has more discriminating

taste in his affinity for pie than walmart.

[JDPriestly]

40. We are told repeatedly that we should have known when we voted for him. . . . .

Well, so we can't change the past. But, to take a page from Obama's book, let's look "forward." Let's don't make that same mistake in 2016. Let's give Hillary a thumbs down and find a candidate with some fresh ideas that were not cooked up in Wall Street's boiler room.

Let's nominate someone like Elizabeth Warren. We have been sending money to her campaign, not a lot, but repeatedly. Let's do that and try to get some real change, not Obama's short-change.

And I must say that Obama has done a lot of things right. But the country is ready for much, much better and needs a new direction in a lot of areas. We need policies that encourage us to pull together, not these corporate policies that divide us.

[Enthusiast]

122. Hillary.....

[bvar22]

150. Change you can believe in!!!

[font color=white]......[/font][font size=4]Obama's Army for “CHANGE”, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font color=white].....................[/font][font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[JDPriestly]

151. Right. I traveled half-way across the country to help insure his win, and he has done many

things right, but he certainly has not delivered on his promise to change how things work in D.C.

Same old lobbyists running the show. Same old pay-offs and dream jobs for ex-office holders and their staffs. Same old corruption. He did not clean house. He was too busy trying to move forward and getting blocked at every step.

Had he cleaned house, the Republicans would not have dared to block him. The secret to FDR's success was that he investigated the bankers who caused the crash and even sent some of them to jail. No such action here.

Lesson learned: if you try to move forward fast without dealing with that heavy weight on your shoulders from past mistakes and crimes, you won't get anywhere.

Obama needed to deal with some heavy weight like torture, like bank fraud, like NSA spying on innocent people without a warrant. All those things needed to be cleaned up before he could move forward. That was the big mistake.

[DeSwiss]

41. K&R

"Every nation gets the government it deserves." ~Joseph de Maistre - 1811

[jwirr]

48. With many of his appointments it seems like he thinks what is needed is the knowledge of the ins and

outs of the business. What we want is someone who sees the problems and is willing to fight to change them.

[Armstead]

64. good observation

[Armstead]

54. One reason no critical mass is a lot of peope don't know anything about it

To be honest the only way I know about these is that because of my interest in politics and issues, I happen to visit websites and read places that bring these things into public view.

But I can very easily see how someone who doesn't share that could miss these stories, or her them in passing without recognizing their implications.

[2banon]

71. Good point. Here's to freepress.net for their tireless work on these issue.. here's a link

freepress.net

[Armstead]

60. Troubling quotes from Mr. Wheeler

This sounds like code for "Let the free market determine everything."

http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/15/why-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-isnt-big-on-net-neutrality-rules/

“The government, in the form of the FCC, is not going to take over the Internet,” Wheeler wrote in a blog post published late Tuesday. “It is not going to dictate the architecture of the Internet. It is not going to do anything that gratuitously interferes with the organic evolution of the Internet in response to developments in technology, business models, and consumer behavior.”

“How we encourage economic growth using these [broadband] networks is crucial. And the key to that is competition, competition, competition,” Wheeler said during an event at CES 2014 last week. “Because competition is so much better than even the best, wisest, well-intentioned policy maker.”

[jsr]

132. +1

[ProSense]

61. Here:

We the People Response: Reaffirming the White House's Commitment to Net Neutrality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522134

[Armstead]

63. Well THIS is really encouaging. I feel better now

"A wide spectrum of stakeholders and policymakers recognize the importance of these principles. In the wake of last month's court decision, it was encouraging to hear major broadband providers assert their commitment to an open Internet."

I am so glad that these companies that fought so hard to overturn basic regulation of the Internet have told us they plan to behave themselves once they have taken full control of the henhouse.

[ProSense]

66. Good, because

"Well THIS is really encouaging. I feel better now"

...otherwise, all one would be left with is whining on the Internet. I mean, clearly Wheeler isn't going anywhere, and Obama is President for another three years.

Oh fuck!

[Armstead]

69. And therefore we should all just shut off our laptops and go watch Duck Dynasty...

Let President Obama and The Big Boys do all of our thinking for us. Everything will be just swell if we just shut up and leave it all in their capable hands.

Thank you Pro Sense. I have finally figured out your agenda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. If you do the NSA will give Obama a favorable report and put a gold star by your name.

[2banon]

73. ROFL!

[ProSense]

72. Maybe

"And therefore we should all just shut off our laptops and go watch Duck Dynasty..."

...a good idea unless you're planning on calling for Obama to fire Wheeler or for his resignation.

Why did the President "appoint" him: Who cares?

[2banon]

75. Well thank you for making your position crystal clear.

You're not a person interested in the concerns of the public interest.

Big Business/Corporate rule is good enough for you.

But it isn't for me, and a whole of other people.

[ProSense]

77. What nonsense.

Well thank you for making your position crystal clear.

You're not a person interested in the concerns of the public interest.

Big Business/Corporate rule is good enough for you.

But it isn't for me, and a whole of other people.

Asking why the President, who strongly supports net neutrality, nominated someone who was confirmed five months ago, and who also supports net neutrality, does absolutely nothing to advance the "public interest."

The sole purpose of this irrelevant question is to cast doubt on Wheeler and question the President's motives despite his strong support.

It's beyond silly.

[Armstead]

92. Net Netutrality is Apple Pie and Motherhood. Easy to claim to support it.

But what matters is when push comes to shove and what one does about it.

And push has come to shove on that issue.

And Mr. Wheeler has said in public statements that he believes the "market" not government policy should determine the future of the Internet.

I find that a little troubling. Sorry that conservative free-market GOP approach doesn't trouble you.

[ProSense]

134. You are

"Net Netutrality is Apple Pie and Motherhood. Easy to claim to support it. But what matters is when push comes to shove and what one does about it. "

...are so right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024527280

I mean, here everyone is clammoring for the President to support the 2010 FCC rules that some had no use for when they when they were issued.

Net neutrality rules poised to win FCC approval (WaPo)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x573539

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=573539&mesg_id=573746

FCC Net Neutrality Rules Slammed From All Sides
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x51035

[Armstead]

85. Your philosophy in a nutshell. "Don't Care."

Nothing to see here citizen,. Move on. We got your vote to elect the president. Your job is done. Now just shut up and let him do whatever the hell he wants. You have no further value.

[woo me with science]

113. Yup. It's as close to a core value as the Third Way gets: "Either way!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218

[font size=18]EITHER WAY![/font size]

[Enthusiast]

124. +1

[ProSense]

138. LOL!

Guess what: Obama hasn't cut Social Security, but keep waiting for it.

And by all means, keep posting the entertaining nonsense

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024522796#post2

[bvar22]

152. OMG. I can't believe Pro actually posted that.

[font size=3]My Guy... Right or Wrong!!!
[/font]




[font size=3]3rd Way ... because it is so damned EASY!!!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!!![/font]


Which way to the "Go Centrists" Parade?
I know there must be one around here somewhere.

WHATEVER they do
is GOOD ENOUGH for me!

Who is with me??!!!
and at least 20 DU Members signed on to this Political Philosophy.

(I thought about posting the rofl cartoon, but I'm not laughing.
This one post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021128218
encapsulates everything I despise about the 3rd Way, Sell Out to the Highest Bidder, Centrists
It is A-OK, as long as it is OUR Guy selling us out!
It is tragically sad.)

[Enthusiast]

123. +1

[ProSense]

139. Gee you have a way with words.

[ProSense]

135. Oh, I

Your philosophy in a nutshell. "Don't Care."

Nothing to see here citizen,. Move on. We got your vote to elect the president. Your job is done. Now just shut up and let him do whatever the hell he wants. You have no further value.

...care. In fact, I care a lot more than those who think never being satisfied with anything and perpetual spinning and whinning will lead to a solution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024521140#post134

U.S. telecom regulator will write new 'Open Internet' rules
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024527217

[madville]

87. Over 700,000 reasons

Wheeler raised over $700,000 combined for President Obama's presidential campaigns.

They don't pick the names out of a hat, probably why so many are eager to jump on the Hillary bandwagon early so they can get a place in line at the feed trough through appointments and what not if she wins.

[2banon]

94. That explains a lot.

That's another rabbit hole. won't go into that here. Wonder what the source is? thanks in advance.

[woo me with science]

105. [phone]

[Enthusiast]

125. "a place in line at the feed trough"

True.

[Douglas Carpenter]

108. I stand with President Obama UNCONDITIONALLY - no matter what!! As Job said to the Lord

"Though you slay me, yet shall I serve you," - Job 13:15

[2banon]

109. that really slays me..

What a perfect parable, never heard it before..

[woo me with science]

114. Well done.

Seriously. That's perfect.

[jsr]

133. Most excellent.

[ProSense]

141. A post like this only proves how condescending some people are.

I mean, think about it. That is your response to the OP.

Praise be!

[brentspeak]

154. It's not a response to the OP

It was directed at the Obama shills on this thread who have shamelessly defended Obama's rather shameless corporate hand-puppets.

A little too close to home?

[onenote]

112. A few facts for the record.

First, let me emphasize that (a) I think the Commission should (and to a certain extent) will take action to guarantee the Internet remains "open" and (b) I think that the Comcast/TWC merger should be stopped or, failing that, should be subjected to very strong conditions.

Second, it really doesn't help make the case for net neutrality or against the Comcast/TWC merger to misstate facts in a rant. Tom Wheeler isn't going to go to work for Comcast when he leaves office. He'll be at least 70 when that happens and from those who know him well, there is no doubt in his mind that he won't be going to work for private industry when he leaves office. Far more likely, he'll return to his first love -- writing about history. He is not a lawyer. And his nomination was supported by Susan Crawford and Andy Schwartzman, two well known figures in the public interest community.

In addition, I can't recall any former FCC Chairman who went to work for Comcast. Nor do they generally become lobbyists for the communications industry. Here's the last few Chairs and where they ended up: Genachowski - Carlyle Group (big money investors, but not in Comcast); Copps (acting chair) Common Cause; Kevin Martin - Patton Boggs law firm (he hates, and is hated by, Comcast); Michael Powell -- the exception to the recent rule -- he is now head of NCTA, so in effect he is a lobbyist for Comcast albeit indirectly); William Kennard - Carlyle Group followed by a stint as US Ambassador to the European Union.

Finally, Bill Baer may have represented GE/NBC in their merger with Comcast, but that doesn't mean he's a pushover for the proposed merger. Indeed, he might even recuse himself. But he has been aggressive in the time he's been in office in fighting mergers and getting favorable settlements from the parties; and his recent statements suggest he intends to continue along that course. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/wireless-mergers-will-draw-scrutiny-antitrust-chief-says/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

[2banon]

116. I just learned that EFF is NOT on board

Martin and Copps were awesome, I had an opportunity to meet with them when they were with the FCC during the Bush years, a period of time I was involved in media activism.

Michael Powell is the poster child for the concerns I raise in this OP. How about the others you name come out front and center denouncing the Industry practices and intentions. That will get my attention!

Tonight, I had a looksy at EFF's position on this issue. Net Neutrality was a term I first learned from EFF several years ago.. I recall warnings that this would be coming as it now has. This was the early Bush years.

But I haven't kept up with their ideas on this specific issue since those years, and now I just learned they are NOT on board with the call for the FCC to reclassify. Their point of view is quite compelling, and causing me to rethink my initial position on this.

Here's an excerpt from Why the FCC Can't Actually Save Net Neutralit

What was wrong with the FCC’s network neutrality approach

The Open Internet rules of 2010 that were rejected by the court last week were deeply flawed and confirmed our fears about heavy-handed Internet regulation. The FCC initially claimed that it had “ancillary” authority under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to enact the Open Internet rules. That means that although the FCC did not have explicit authority from Congress to issue network neutrality rules, especially after classifying Internet service as an “information service” and not a telephone-like “common carrier” in 2002, they still professed a broad authority to regulate the Internet.

That claim of ancillary jurisdiction, if accepted, would have given the FCC pretty much boundless clearance to regulate the Internet, and to claim other ancillary powers in the future. Even if you happen to like the FCC’s current goals, who’s to say we will still like whatever goals the agency has next year and the year after that?

We had serious issues with the initial Open Internet Order, as we explained in our comments to the FCC. For one, the Order allowed ISPs free rein to discriminate as long as it was part of “reasonable efforts to… address copyright infringement.” This broad language could lead to more bogus copyright policing from the ISPs. We’ve already seen companies use inaccurate filters to block non-infringing fair use content online, a practice we continue to fight.

The FCC’s rules also had troubling exceptions for law enforcement, permitting ISPs to engage in voluntary, non-neutral network management practices to fulfill any law enforcement requests. We opposed this exception when the rules were being considered, but the FCC did not adopt our recommendations. And by now we all know how overbroad law enforcement exceptions to gather user data can be. If you have any doubt, pick up a newspaper and read about how the U.S. government unconstitutionally collaborates with Internet companies for law enforcement purposes.

There are no easy solutions

In light of these threats it is tempting to reach for easy solutions. But handing the problem to a government agency with strong industry ties and poor mechanisms for public accountability to fix the very real problem of network neutrality is unsatisfying. There’s a real danger that we would just be creating more problems than we’d solve.

One alternative that would go a long way would be to foster a genuinely competitive market for Internet access. If subscribers and customers had adequate information about their options and could vote with their feet, ISPs would have strong incentives to treat all network traffic fairly. The court agreed with us on this point:

“a broadband provider like Comcast would be unable to threaten Netflix that it would slow Netflix traffic if all Comcast subscribers would then immediately switch to a competing broadband provider.”

Another scenario would be for Congress to step in and pass network neutrality legislation that outlines what the ISPs are not allowed to do. But fighting giant mega-corporations like AT&T and Verizon (and their army of lobbyists) in Congress promises to be a tough battle.

Yet another option: empower subscribers to not just test their ISP but challenge it in court if they detect harmful non-neutral practices. That gives all of us the chance to be watchdogs of the public interest but it, too, is likely to face powerful ISP opposition.

These are not the only options. Internet users should be wary of any suggestion that there is an easy path to network neutrality. It’s a hard problem, and building solutions to resolve it is going to remain challenging. But here is one guiding principle: any effort to defend net neutrality should use the lightest touch possible, encourage a competitive marketplace, and focus on preventing discriminatory conduct by ISPs, rather than issuing broad mandatory obligations that are vulnerable to perverse consequences and likely to be outdated as soon as they take effect.

EFF is watching this issue closely, and we’ll continue to share our thoughts on how best to defend the free and open Internet on which we all depend.

[Armstead]

129. There are complexities and dilemmas for sure....

But bottom line I think is straightforward.

If we, as a society are to rely so totally on the Internet for communication, commerce, entertainment and so many other purposes, the backbone should be defined as a vital public service, first and foremost. Like water, electric power, etc.

It is becoming The Modern Commons, a public resource.

It should be regulated as that. The details could be a mix, as something like electric power has been over the years. Combinations of heavily regulated private enterprises, quasi-public providers, municipal or regional authorities, etc.

But ultimately, instead of powerful corporations calling all of the shots, we have to build in accountability and public goals into the system.

The trend towards deregulation and privatization of everything in the last 40 years has changed our mindset to believe that everything is now Private Orofit Uber Alles. But we should remember that it IS possible to make providers of vital services ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, not only to the whims of shareholders.

This may sound "old farty," but I can remember when electricity was such a regulated utility. There were electric companies that had de-facto monopolies, but they had to follow guidelines and -- while making a profit -- had to justify rate increases, etc. Electric companies were known as solid investments for shareholders (which were open to many levels). They didnlt make flashy quartly gains, but they provided steady solid income.

Such systems are not perfect either. They are subject to corruption, abuses, lx oversight, etc. But at least the baseline is public service.

That has to be the basis of the Internet. if we blow that, and allow Big Monry to blow smoke up our butt yet again, we'll have blown a golden opportunity.

[2banon]

130. Completely Agree. The infrastructure should be considered Public Commons, imo.

Verizon et al can claim they "own the tubes" .. and like radio and television owned their transmitter equipment, but the airwaves belong to the public with which they transmit there products. They same principle applies.

In my opinion, the commissioners on the FCC shouldn't be comprised of two political party functionaries, nor should they be comprised of Industry executives and lobbyists. The FCC should be comprised of people who have dedicated their lives in the public interest in the real sense of the word.

When I looked at Electronic Frontier Foundation's website last night to research more background information on current battles, I have to say I was stunned to learn they weren't on board with the call for the FCC to reclassify!
Whoa!

EFF has been on the front lines on all of these battles which I care deeply about.

They take these fights to court, and all the way to the Supreme Court. There are so many to keep up with, and I haven't paid close attention to their current position on Net Neutrality.

It never occurred to me that they wouldn't be on board. After all, it was EFF many years ago that brought that concept on my radar in the first place.

I read their considered opinion and analysis with great trepidation. if they're not on board, this is going to be harder to accomplish I think. They do offer some ideas on how to achieve what we all want, but it's a mixed bag of legal strategies that I really feel uneasy with.

[Armstead]

131. What is needed is an overriding framework...The rest can flow from that

I'm not saying i disagree with the EFF.

But they are focusing on the trees, when we also have to consider the forest.

The first is the need to protect the core value of universal affordable access to the internet, and service that is as high quality as possible. This leads the door open to private profit --- bit only if it is in line with that larger goal.

[2banon]

140. Overriding framework we call Net Neutrality..

I think the most important concern EFF raises (among others) is that the FCC would overstep it's 'mission' (my words) with regard to regulating content, in the 'public interest' .. like they have with Radio & Television on "obscenity" Seven Dirty Words case comes to mind, and that really lame event that happened some years ago on Super Bowl intermission, I forget the name of the singer, wardrobe malfunction or whatever.

I was doing radio at the time, and the new FCC rules in response to that event was beyond the pale ridiculous, very steep fines if the f word slipped out on the air, whether from a recording artist, or an interviewee or even the broadcaster .. we were all on 'heightened alert'.. we didn't have a delay set up (small public radio station)..

Of all the things for the FCC to focus their attention on, it was this kind of bullshit.

But the real concern I think EFF has is regard to government regulating content such political speech, or access to information that government doesn't want people to have access to, and it fall on the FCC to regulate.

Essentially, I think that's the issue, and I am sympathetic to those concerns.

I think the framework needs to include very strong (constitutionally based) language addressing discriminatory service denials, of course free and unfettered access etc.

[Armstead]

142. Me too, but to use the public utility example

Energy regulation (in theory anyway) was designed to guarantee that I can receive electricity in my home.

What i do with that electricity is not their concern. Whether I use electricity to watch a sermon or porn on my TV is not part of the mission. ..Of course, if what i choose to do with the electricity runs afoul of some other laws, that's a different matter.

Should be the same with Internet regulation.

[2banon]

145. Yes..in principle, essentially the same idea.

if only we can institute a mechanism whereby the appointees weren't in the pockets of the industry they're supposed to be overseeing. Oh yeah, that's where we began this discussion!

In California we have what's called the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) .. I can tell you they're pretty much in the PG&E's pocket.. at least the mechanism exist, it just needs a good house cleaning.

[Armstead]

147. These things always need housecleaning

But first of all we need a solid good house instead of some jerryrigged monstrosity that is rotten in its foundations.

[2banon]

148. LOL! Completely Agree..

Now how do we address concerns EFF raises?

Different discussion, different Op and another day.. Thanks for your contributions!

[onenote]

153. Kevin Martin was anything but awesome

He was and is a Cheney protege. One of the right wing yuppies that went to Florida to try to put down the effort to have all of the votes there counted in 2000. He tried to extort companies into doing what he wanted and wasn't the slightest bit embarrassed about it. He hated Comcast, and the rest of the cable industry for one reason, and one reason alone: they wouldn't bend to his will and stop offering adult oriented programming as the right wing nannies wanted.

Just one example, of many:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070226/085400.shtml

[2banon]

155. That's interesting

We were dealing with media consolidation among other things specifically with regard to Radio at the time. I may be miss-remembering the names of each the commissioners who supported our issues, I do recall specifically working with Copps. I recall there were 3 who were our allies.

[Armstead]

119. Why did he have to go to the same corproate trough?

Mr. Wheeler may be a wonderful man who adopts puppies.

But he is a product of the same corporate culture and revolving door that has led to the almost complete monopolization of the telecommunications system and media by a handful of massive corporations -- and with fewer and fewer controls over their abusive behavior.

Instead of bringing in some fresh perspective from people who are oriented to the public interest, why did Obama have to pick another corporate retread who -- no matter how well intentioned he MIGHT be -- is going to be filtered by the culture of "what's good for Big media is good for America."

[Enthusiast]

126. I do not approve of corporate retreads.

We could make a case that the nation has went to shit in direct proportion to the number of appointed corporate retreads.

[KoKo]

128. I signed it and gave comments.

[wocaonimabi]

137. They say you will know them by their deeds

The deeds of the POTUS do not match the WORDS of the POTUS.

They never have.

[villager]

156. A kick in light of the new "net neutrality" rules the FCC is floating

n/t