FCC head may reject Obama's plan for net neutrality

[grahamhgreen]

Yesterday, President Obama took a strong position on net neutrality by supporting calls to regulate the internet more like a utility. Less than 24 hours later, FCC head Tom Wheeler indicated that he would break from the president's proposed plan, moving in a new direction intended to pacify huge internet providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.

The Washington Post reports that Wheeler told a group of internet companies — including Google, Yahoo, and Etsy — that he favored a more "nuanced" solution than that laid out by Obama. Wheeler's plan would acquiesce to some of the president's demands, but would also kowtow to the demands of huge internet providers.



WHEELER WAS A LOBBYIST FOR WIRELESS COMPANIES LIKE VERIZON

The Washington Post says that Wheeler now thinks Obama's plan — something of a hail mary attempt to get young and tech-savvy voters energized to vote for the Democrats — is too simplistic. But there have been worries about Wheeler's corporate focus since he was appointed FCC head in 2013. Wheeler spent many years as a lobbyist for large telecom companies — while working in Washington for The Wireless Association, America's main wireless lobbying group, Wheeler supported limiting net neutrality policies and argued that the FCC should leave big businesses to do what they wanted in the space. President Obama originally stated that he would not hire lobbyists to his administration, but quickly broke that promise.

According to four sources, Wheeler was reportedly "visibly frustrated" during the meeting, telling attendees that "what you want is what everyone wants: an open internet that doesn't affect your business." Wheeler, a Democrat, said he had to work out how to "split the baby" to keep both sides happy, but also repeatedly stated that he did not answer directly to the US government. Sources report the FCC head repeated "I am an independent agency" multiple times during the meeting.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/12/7200815/fcc-head-tom-wheeler-may-reject-obamas-plan-for-net-neutrality

[msongs]

1. dang how did this guy ever get on the FCC during a democratic adminstration? oh..never mind nt

[grahamhgreen]

2. I think president Mcain appointed him on the advice of VP Palin;)

[LondonReign2]

38. Amazing, isn't it?

But the President isn't a corporatist, so stop saying that!

[lsewpershad]

65. Maybe there is a nuanced way to get rid

of this "neusance"

[RoccoR5955]

69. Lead poisoning?

And I don't mean solder lead.

[elleng]

3. Jerk. HE is not an independent agency,

he is CHAIRman of one. I do understand the power the chair has, but there are OTHER members.


Name Position Residence Party Term[5]
Expires
Jessica Rosenworcel Commissioner Connecticut D 2015
Ajit Pai Commissioner Kansas R 2016
Mignon Clyburn Commissioner South Carolina D 2017
Thomas Wheeler Chairman District of Columbia D 2018
Michael O'Rielly Commissioner New York R 2014

[onenote]

21. And only two of those members appear to support the President's position

and even that is not so clear. The two repubs will dissent from whatever Wheeler proposes. The two other Democrats, who might be willing to go farther than Wheeler, have a choice: they can vote no to the Wheeler proposal, in which case there will be no regulation or all, or they can vote yes and get something less than what the president has endorsed but more than nothing.

In the end, it may not matter: whether its the President's approach or Wheeler's that gets three votes from the FCC, it is all but certain that the repub congress next year will include a line item in the budget barring the FCC from spending any money to implement or enforce whatever rules are adopted and that one item by itself won't cause the President to veto a larger bill (although if enough crap is thrown into the budget bill, including ACA related rollbacks, he may have no choice but to veto it and hope that blame for the ensuing government shudown falls on the repubs (as it should) instead of on him (as it might).

[woo me with science]

34. Gotta love that phrase being repeated all over the teevee/internet: "the president's position."

What a brazen propaganda state we live in. "The president's position." What a glorious, brazenly false talking point. Probably the most stunning and widely disseminated example of "2+2=5" we have seen this month.

"The president's position." What a bunch of horseshit.

The president appointed these vipers. This Kabuki was the plan all along.

The corporate narrative is horseshit. If we believed it, we would believe the entire administration had gone "rogue" since 2008. And yet here is another great heaping shovelful of delusion.

"The president's position." What insulting garbage we are fed.

[True Blue Door]

41. How can you lie like that?

Only 3 of the 5 were appointed by President Obama, and Wheeler is the only one of those three that's causing problems.

[Autumn]

59. Who appointed the one causing problems?

[True Blue Door]

60. Who appointed the other two who aren't?

You're making up a mendacious narrative to fit ideological ODS fantasies.

Try doing something rational and constructive.

[Autumn]

61. I didn't make up the fact Obama appointed the one YOU say

is the only one causing trouble. Too cute. Be careful not to tie yourself up in knots with all that twisting you have going on.

[True Blue Door]

63. Congratulations, Carl Bernstein, you've exposed Barack Obama as a President

who occasionally appoints ideologically impure regulators. Now remind me which Democratic President you're comparing him to?

[Autumn]

101. I'm not comparing him to any Democratic President or anyone else.

But your word salad that had no bearing on my posts you are responding to does remind me of someone.

[Dustlawyer]

43. +1!!!

[polichick]

62. Well said! This prez is quite the actor.

[LondonReign2]

40. And therein lies the very problem with the idea of

having the FCC regulate the internet as a utility. Even supposing the Democratic FCC members support net neutrality-- which they've just shown they don't--the moment their would be a Repub majority they'll simply repeal net neutrality.

Its hard to believe Obama is blatantly aware of this.

[Hoyt]

4. I think headline is "more nuanced than that," but why miss an opportunity to bash Obama.

[SamKnause]

6. Who appointed Wheeler ???

Who said that his White House would not be filled with lobbyists ???

Who do lobbyists side with ???

[grahamhgreen]

8. Not my headline. What's the solution?

[upaloopa]

54. That is too cute! We all don't prefer our heads

in the sand or up our backsides.

[davidpdx]

5. A lot of good all those comments that were sent in did

[RKP5637]

55. Frankly, they don't give a sh** what the masses want. Their duty is to serve $$$$$'s in

USA, Incorporated. Those requests for comments are meant to pacify the masses to falsely believe that they have a tiny voice in the fake democracy of today. The masses are ignored and their desires are ignored. Only big $$$$$'s matter to the oligarchy.

[madfloridian]

7. The murder of net neutrality....

The murder of net neutrality....

As Hiltzik points out, Tom Wheeler is blowing smoke when he says he does not want to do away with net neutrality.

This needs to be reposted if for no other reason than the hearty laugh Wheeler seems to be having at our expense.

You couldn't say the crime is being committed by stealth. Quite the contrary: Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is aiming to slay net neutrality in broad daylight. The murder weapon is a proposal to allow Internet service providers to charge content companies more for faster access to their subscribers.

Wheeler's proposal, which is scheduled for a preliminary vote by the full FCC on May 15, has been assailed as a full-scale retreat from the open-Internet principle traditionally upheld by the commission, and explicitly supported by President Obama. Wheeler claims he's not backing away from net neutrality at all, and that assertions to the contrary are the product of "a great deal of misinformation."

He's blowing smoke. The critics are right. Wheeler's proposal will turn the Internet as we know it into the private preserve of a handful of rich and powerful companies. It will make them richer and more powerful. And you'll be getting the bill. If the commission votes for the proposal, it will then be subject to months of public comments. But the risk is it could become law by the end of this year.

First, some background. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers can't discriminate among content providers trying to reach you online -- they can't block websites or services, or degrade their signal, slow their traffic or, conversely, provide a better traffic lane for some rather than others.

Guess who appointed him?

[djean111]

9. Gee, maybe this is why the post about Obama's speech concerning Net Neutrality was met with,

from some, silence or a request to wait and see what actually happens..
Because a lot of us have learned that the words are just that - words. And we saw that a lobbyist was appointed as head of the FCC.
Deeds not words. Always.

I hope Elon Musk's new internet venture blows them the fuck out of the water. Wonder how the government and the Big ISPs are going to try and stop him.

[grahamhgreen]

10. Actions speak louder than words. Can't the fire Wheeler?

[former9thward]

13. No, FCC commissioners are appointed to five year terms.

Like SC Justices they can't be removed unless there is malfeasance. So it never happens.

[belzabubba333]

16. he CAN do this

But the president (and everyone else) seems to be overlooking one power he does have: the authority to remove Wheeler from the chairmanship, promoting another commissioner to that spot and leaving Wheeler as one of the other four commissioners. In particular, both Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, the two other Democrats on the five-person board, spoke out eloquently in official statements on Thursday, criticizing Wheeler’s proposal for authorizing fast lanes and being a “network neutrality” rule in name only. Either Clyburn or Rosenworcel could take over the agency, scrap Wheeler’s plan in favor of an alternative and move quickly to ensure an open Internet, thereby fulfilling the cornerstone of the Obama campaign’s tech agenda after the four-month comment period.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. The commissioners still vote on a plan, though, no?

It still takes three votes to pass any plan, regardless of who the designated chairperson commissioner might be.

At best, such a move could block a Wheeler plan. It would not assure passage of a net neutrality plan, especially if Wheeler then sides with the two Republican commissioners (as the very notion of removing him from the head would suggest he'd do anyway).

[onenote]

22. Removing him as Chairman won't make the slightest difference

Clyburn and Rosenworcel don't have the power to adopt anything without three votes. And if Wheeler doesn't support it there aren't three votes. The author of the statement you cite doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

[belzabubba333]

24. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/obama-should-fire-his-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-106846

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/obama-should-fire-his-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-106846.html#ixzz3ImADps4O

[onenote]

25. As I said, the author of that article doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Yes, she's a law professor. But that doesn't mean everything she writes is correct. I've been practicing law before the FCC for three decades. The Chairman can do a lot of things. But he/she can't pass anything without a majority of the Commission. Wheeler could simply abstain, forcing a 2/2 tie in which case the rules supported by the President don't get adopted. Wheeler holds the leverage.

I'd love to see an explanation of how making Rosenworcel or Clyburn changes the outcome if Wheeler still holds the third vote.

[merrily]

31. Should be done anyway. Also, please see Reply 27.

[onenote]

48. I haven't disputed that the President could replace Wheeler as Chairman

with one of the other sitting Commissioners. But Wheeler would still be on the Commission unless he chose to resign. My point is that it doesn't matter who is Chairman, it takes support of three of the five commissioners. And if Wheeler resigned, there would not be the time to replace him with a new commissioner before the repubs take control of the Senate. And the repubs won't confirm a new commissioner who supports Title II.

[merrily]

50. That was not the only point of my Reply 27. And Wheeler should be switched out as chair no matter

what. As to the rest, I understood it the first time you posted it.

[ieoeja]

98. First, Wheeler loses money. The Chair gets paid more than the other Commissioners.

Second, lots of people refuse to take demotions. They walk. Judging by Wheeler's petulant attitude alluded to in the OP, I think there is a good chance he would walk.

At worst, it does no harm. At best, it gets Obama what he wants.

[onenote]

99. Tom Wheeler is losing money being chairman

The guy is independently wealthy. But he had to divest or put in trust a lot of investments when he became Chairman. His pay as Chairman is $167,000 a year. If he stayed on he'd drop to $157,100. He's not in it for the money. And at age 68, he's set for life with what he has in the bank (at least $10 million in assets according to his financial disclosure form).

He won't stay or leave because of the money. He'll probably leave because he'd be the first FCC Chairman ever demoted by the President that appointed him. (Typically, when the White House changes hands, the sitting Chairman tenders his resignation so that the new President can appoint his own person as Chairman. Sometimes that person is a sitting Commissioner sometimes its a newly appointed Commissioner).

And there is a cost to driving Wheeler from the FCC: the FCC will be deadlocked at 2-2, giving enormous power to the two repubs. They not only could and would block even the type of hybrid approach to net neutrality that Wheeler is proposing (and that the other two Democrats appear prepared to hold their noses and support) but would block anything else the Democrats on the Commission want for the next two years (since the repub-controlled Senate would have no qualms about allowing the FCC to remain deadlocked until after 2016). The two repubs already dissent to almost everything the Wheeler led Commission does, so forcing him out would be, as I said in another post in this thread, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[belzabubba333]

42. i was just showing you were it came from im not disputing what youve said

[NorthCarolina]

70. You assume that Obama wants Wheeler out. I think Not.

This is being played out as intended. I think I read this story once before...it seems so familiar at any rate, but it goes something like this. Scene 1: Obama has a last minute epiphany on net neutrality...you know, he's suddenly on OUR side. Scene 2: Third-Way crew immediately man the computers to talk up news of this Presidents Populist Epiphany on political discussion boards across the Nation, and to Berate Liberals for ever doubting this Presidents Populist Creds. Scene 3: Some folks relax and forget about the issue because, you know, Obama has it covered now. He's against it and has our backs, so lets just go about our day (insert some happy whistling here). Scene 4: Wheeler, fresh in the first half of his five year term, continues his closed door negotiations where the cable execs tell him what he will pen as law. Scene 5: Powerless to stop Wheeler, with heavy heart Obama accepts Tom Wheelers "Split-The-Baby" approach that he's quite sure will be a win-win for EVERYONE!!! YAY

GROUPHUG

[SammyWinstonJack]

83. heh.

[Scuba]

91. Sadly, your scenario is exactly what is happening.

[Marr]

102. lol, yes-- we've seen this little play repeatedly.

I'm almost surprised they still try Step 2.

[merrily]

26. Yes, he can! Please see Reply 27.

[onenote]

49. See post #48

[merrily]

51. I did. Also saw the gist the first time it was posted. Unpersuaded both times.

[belzabubba333]

17. he CAN do this -

But the president (and everyone else) seems to be overlooking one power he does have: the authority to remove Wheeler from the chairmanship, promoting another commissioner to that spot and leaving Wheeler as one of the other four commissioners. In particular, both Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel, the two other Democrats on the five-person board, spoke out eloquently in official statements on Thursday, criticizing Wheeler’s proposal for authorizing fast lanes and being a “network neutrality” rule in name only. Either Clyburn or Rosenworcel could take over the agency, scrap Wheeler’s plan in favor of an alternative and move quickly to ensure an open Internet, thereby fulfilling the cornerstone of the Obama campaign’s tech agenda after the four-month comment period.

[Tatiana]

11. "Nuanced solution," "Compromise," "Negotiate...." I think I know where this is going.

***Sigh***

Instead of believing the rhetoric, I wish some would open their eyes and look at the product and actions by Obama's appointees.

[KoKo]

14. Agree, Obama was doing a pre-emptive strike so when the bad news

comes out about what the FCC really plans to do about Net Neutrality he will be seen as "having tried" but, unfortunately there was little he could do about it. Even though he appointed Wheeler to the job.

The same old, same old.

[merrily]

30. Some do.

[NorthCarolina]

12. I have little doubt the Obama is already fully aware of what Wheeler intends to do.

As usual, we're being played.

“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”

"That doesn't affect your business". Like the profitability of Service Providers?

"Split the baby". I read this as we can assume degree of tiered service will happen.

Of course we will all recall that Obama was against the changes now that he has finally come out on the issue.

[merrily]

29. I think you've nailed it.

[grahamhgreen]

37. I must agree. We've seen this modus operandi time and again.

[woo me with science]

46. +100000 They insult us. They treat us like blithering fools.

The brazen, ludicrous lies to our faces never end.

This is the dripping contempt of an oligarchy for citizens.

[NorthCarolina]

73. All they need is "just enough" to keep buying the BS they're peddling.

I'd love to see the working script, although it's pretty predictable so that may not really be necessary.

[woo me with science]

75. +100000 You nailed it.

Just as there are mysteriously always "just enough" Democrats messing up any vote to ensure that liberal policies are trashed and corporate policies squeak through.


The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/


It's united oligarchy, not gridlocked democracy. What a vicious con game.

[Zorra]

15. Perfect example of Third Way infiltrators helping the RW destroy democracy and the country. nt

[beerandjesus]

19. Now THAT'S what I call 13-dimensional chess.

[mtasselin]

20. fire

Fire the son of a bitch and appoint someone that is going to do the job which is to protect America not the fu king corporations.

[onenote]

23. Can't be fired

An independent agency's independence would be nullified if the President could fire appointees at will.

[merrily]

27. Wheeler does not have to be the Chair, even if he remains on the Commission. The chair is the call

of the POTUS.

Then again, Obama never had to appoint Wheeler in the first place. The acting chair was a vigorous advocate of net neutrality and Obama replaced him with an industry insider.

[SammyWinstonJack]

84. Well that says it all and tells anyone all they need to know about Obama latest feel good bs.

The acting chair was a vigorous advocate of net neutrality and Obama replaced him with an industry insider.

[merrily]

85. His name is Copp, I believe. But North Carolina's replies are far, far better than mine.

No false modesty.

The last time DU had a huge go round on this issue, villager posted a great thread about someone to whom Obama had made a firm, one on one promise to appoint as chair a firm advocate of net neutrality and who was furious about the Verizon case. Instead, though, Obama nominated Wheeler (and, before him, Genachowski the guy who facilitated creation of Fox Broadcasting and is now with the Carlyle Group.

Kind of like when Obama appointed to the Postal Commission the Republican who had practically written the Let's Destroy the Constitutional US Post Office For the Sake of Private Profits Act of 2006 The Post Office and Accountability Act of 2006. (Sue me, I love my mailman and everyone who works in my post office.) But, don't get me started on Obama's nominees.

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. Oh I hear you.

But, don't get me started on Obama's nominees.

[merrily]

108. If it weren't for Lieberman, he would have appointed liberals.

[Maedhros]

44. If the President is serious, he will do this.

If I was in charge of an enterprise (say, the Executive Branch of the Federal Government) and one of my chairmen threatened to oppose one of my directives, that chairman would find himself demoted in a heartbeat and a team player would be installed who would support my policies.

Why is it that Obama doesn't demand cooperation from the bureaucrats he appoints?

[onenote]

52. There are only five spots on the FCC

"Demoting" Wheeler doesn't do anything other than remove him from the Chairmanship. He still remains a member of the FCC. Now, its true that if the President took that step (unprecedented in the 80 year history of the FCC) Wheeler might resign. But then you'd have a 4 person Commission with a 2-2 split on the Title II issue. And Obama can't appoint a temporary replacement -- a replacement would have to be approved by the Senate. And I doubt that there would be enough time to vet, hold hearings on, and have a confirmation vote in the Senate on a replacement (and given that there almost certainly are Democrats in the Senate that aren't strong supporters of the Title II approach, I have my doubts that they would be able to ram it through if they wanted to). And once the new Senate convenes, the repubs are going to block any new FCC appointee that supports Title II.

[merrily]

81. Stop. Demoting Wheeler would do something. It would Obama means what he says, at least a little.

It would tell America where its President stands on this, at least a little.

It would make Obama put his money where his mouth so very belated is, at least a little.

[onenote]

94. Demoting Wheeler would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

President Obama isn't running for anything. His establishing his bona fides on net neutrality by demoting Wheeler would be pointless. More importantly, it likely would trigger Wheeler's resignation, leave the FCC with a 2-2 deadlock. That would hand enormous power over to the two repubs and mean that the FCC wouldn't be able adopt even the half a loaf rules that Wheeler seems to be pushing. Just as importantly, it would mean that for the remainder of the President's term, the FCC would be stymied from doing anything that the two repubs don't like -- and they don't like a lot of things (they have been dissenting in whole or in part on almost every decision that has been made by the Wheeler-led Commission since Wheeler got there.

I'm not saying I like what Wheeler is doing. I'm just saying that demoting him would accomplish nothing positive and actually be quite damaging.

[merrily]

109. Wheeler's resignation would be no loss. Obama has no bona fides on net neutrality.

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

If Wheeler resigns, Obama can appoint a replacement, hopefully someone who is not a shill for the telecommunications industry, someone who will clean out the industry lawyers from the legal department.

P.S. What makes you think Wheeler is not a Republican? In any event, the worst a 2-2 split would do is level the playing field. Wheeler's a voice for the industry, not for the left.

[onenote]

111. The repubs won't confirm Obama's replacement

Why should they? A 2-2 divide works to their advantage.
And I suspect you don't know much about the FCC beyond the net neutrality issue. There is a reason the 2 repubs so often dissent from what the three Democrats do.

You're thinking with your heart, not your head.

[merrily]

113. Democrats still control the Senate and Reid did away with super majorities for confirmations.

If Obama had removed Wheeler as chair over the Verizon case, as he should have, we would not even be discussing Republicans today.

And I suspect you don't know much about the FCC beyond the net neutrality issue.

As if the net neutrality issue is that easy to grasp? If you google, you will find threads where the board's lawyers got it wrong, including one who claims to have at least post-graduate degrees besides a law degree.

And why are going ad hom, anyway? Net neutrality is not about me or, for that matter about you. It's odd that the one claiming superior knowledge of the facts and law is the one who found it necessary to go ad hom. Not usually how it goes

There is a reason the 2 repubs so often dissent from what the three Democrats do.

You still haven't told me how you know Wheeler is a Democrat. Obama has appointed plenty of Republicans.

You're thinking with your heart, not your head.

Just like a woman?

At the very least, I haven't been the one resorting to "rational" comments like that to attempt--um, just what is it that you are attempting, anyway?

Please don't be so presumptuous and condescending. You know nothing about me.

[onenote]

114. Well here's a little something about me

Last edited Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

I've practiced before the FCC for over three decades. So when I suggested that you probably don't know much about the FCC beyond net neutrality, it wasn't intended as an ad hominem attack. It was a statement based on my experience, which is that most people don't follow what the FCC does very closely. For example, your statement that Obama should have removed Wheeler as Chair "over the Verizon case". I assume you are referring to the case that struck down the previous set of net neutrality rules. Removing Wheeler on account of the outcome of that case would have been an odd thing to do, since the briefing and oral argument in the case all occurred before Wheeler was confirmed as Chairman.

How do I know Wheeler is a Democrat. Well, for one thing he has consistently donated to Democrats; even as a trade association head, his personal donations were almost exclusively to Democrats. He progressive on social issues -- even back in the 1980s when he was president of the cable trade association (when cable was a new industry struggling to survive against hostile broadcasters, phone companies, and government policies) most of the departments in the organizations were headed by women -- something that was not common in the trade association world in those days. He was an early supporter of Obama's first campaign, raising between $200,000 and $500,000 in the 2008 cycle. He personally donated over $25,000 to Obama in the 2008 campaign and then, in the 2012 campaign, helped raise another half million or more. After the Court of Appeals struck down the net neutrality rules adopted by Wheeler's predecessor, a republican FCC chairman would have done nothing to reinstate any rules. While Wheeler's "fast lane" proposal if fraught with peril, it and the other rules he has proposed are better than what a republican FCC would give us (and if the next president is a republican, you can expect to kiss any form of net neutrality regulation goodbye.

The folks that Wheeler has appointed as his top staff have pretty decent Democratic chops as well. One was the President of Public Knowledge. One earned his reputation helping to lead the fight to break up the Bell phone monopoly while at DOJ; his wife is a major Friend of Hillary who got her start working for McGovern and People for the American Way. Two other senior staffers worked at various times in the past for a combined total of four Democratic FCC commissioners.

As I have pointed out, there is a pretty stark difference between Wheeler and his two Democratic colleagues and the two repubs. Just last month, the FCC issued a $10 million dollar fine against a company for a data security breach. The two repubs dissented. The three Democrats voted to restrict "duopoly" ownership of local broadcast stations. The two repubs dissented. The three Democrats voted to differentiate between large corporations and small companies in order to increase the opportunities available to small companies in the upcoming spectrum auction. The two repubs dissented. The list goes on.

The reality is that while there might be a form of net neutrality that would really benefit consumers, the battle now is over whether the big cable and telco broadband providers or the big "edge providers" -- Google, Netflix, etc. will make out like bandits. The consumer, as usual, will take the hit either way. Even the President, while endorsing a Title II approach made it clear that he wasn't endorsing retail price controls.

Finally, I know a lot of guys that think with their hearts not their head. Hell, I do it sometimes myself.

[woo me with science]

28. The oligarchy and their purchased administration treat us like blithering idiots.

Only blithering idiots and corporate shills will claim this was not the plan all along.

United oligarchy, not gridlocked democracy.

Can we, as a nation, stop pretending now, please? Because the constant LYING is hurting my brain.

[merrily]

82. With all due respect to your brain, it's hurting America.

[raindaddy]

32. Typical...

This shouldn't even be an issue. If you feel strongly about an issue enough to campaign on it wouldn't you appoint someone who shares the same view?

Obama gets to make a strong principled statement only to compromise it away with with an industry insider. This is so indicative of the third way Democratic party. Just enough people remember his strong statement but ignore the power of the presidency to continue the illusion.. The same people who get indignant when his commitment is questioned.

People wonder why the Democrats can't seem to get people to the polls in a shit middle class economy, 16 years of this BS.

[woo me with science]

36. Yes, typical. "Obama gets to make a strong, principled statement..."

while doing exactly the opposite.

And it's a pattern. This is how corrupt governments treat their people. With utter, dripping contempt.

[Baitball Blogger]

33. I wonder if Verizon is already starting a campaign.

They just called, but I didn't answer because I don't have any immediate business with them that I know of.

I did sign a petition in favor of net neutrality the other day, however.

[TBF]

35. The CEO of AT&T has decided extortion

is the way to kill net neutrality. "We won't invest in new technology if we don't get our way" ...

Fuck you Stephenson.


ETA - edited to add cite for those who are interested: http://www.cnet.com/news/at-t-ceo-net-neutrality-uncertainty-puts-a-pause-in-investing/

[grahamhgreen]

39. Good. We can use the post office to provide cell service to all. We should have bought T-mobile for

20 billion when it was on the chopping block.

[Ampersand Unicode]

45. Oh well. I guess carrier pigeons are the new old Twitter.

I think old Beatrice here has got the analogue equivalent of the Internet down pat.

[Ampersand Unicode]

47. Hey Ma Bell, reach out and touch THIS!

[MisterP]

53. don't worry: Comcast and Verizon will write a bill, everyone will have to have a broadband

connection at the current rates, Ted Cruz will oppose it so the Dems will crap themselves with how miraculous it is and how it's a step to getting the carriers out of the biz, etc. etc.

[historylovr]

57. +1

[mwrguy]

56. He can be pressured into resigning

If not fired outright.

[cascadiance]

58. Perhaps Obama could threaten a Justice Department investigation in to his "independence"...

If the FCC is truly supposed to be an independent agency, it would seem even more important than being independent from being fired, etc. by the administration would be their independence from influence from other entities like corporations that want to steer their decisions to their benefit (aka CORRUPTION that our government seems to have forgotten about or ignored too much recently). Wouldn't there be reasons to remove commissioners if they could be found to be have corrupt influence from other corporate entities as well? Bribery, etc.? Perhaps the threat by Obama at looking at Wheeler and other more corporate friendly allies on the commission of his might have them rethink their "independence" in opposing his (AND America's!) position on net neutrality.

We should push up the ladder the need to do such things to stop this in its tracks while we might still have more options in the lame duck session.

[brett_jv]

107. Might be a good plan if not for the minor detail that ITS HIS GUY ...

Ergo, the 24/7 news take would be "OBAMA'S APPOINTEE ... is being investigated for ..."

You would never, ever, EVER hear the name "Wheeler" without the name "Obama" in the exact same sentence.

This idea, therefore, will prove to be a non-starter. Regardless of the facts.

[dbackjon]

64. There are two takeaway outcomes from this:

1) Obama is reaping what he sowed by appointing a corporate shill to the FCC
2) Obama really doesn't want net neutrality, and had appointed said shill to make sure it doesn't happen.

[xxqqqzme]

66. Anxious to get to that

cushie job comcast has promised. Watch him resign in 3 months.

[Dont call me Shirley]

67. Wheeler-Dealer

[blkmusclmachine]

68. Obama can have his cake and eat it too. How convenient for him and the DC DEMS.

[QC]

72. HE DOESN'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND!!1!!11

[merrily]

86. Are you sure? Because this seems to me like a whole bunch of hocus pocus.

[LuvLoogie]

71. Too late for the bully pulpit.

The only hope that I have for America is that reality and survivability favor a progressive agenda. My focus will have to be on keeping my young daughters safe and inspired while we flounder through another 12 years of GOP dominance over Democratic punk bravado in garbage time.

Politicians' lives are not affected by their "patient resolve." Their families dine at $300 a pop while America downgrades to ground round.

I don't know with whom I am more pissed, the laissez faire proles or the leaders who allow our values to become the GOP's bitch.

[merrily]

87. Never too late for good cop, bad cop, though.

Even when the "good cop" is the one who hired the "bad cop," knowing fully well who he was.

[lexington filly]

74. Past lobbyist. Near future Comcast Senior V.P ???

[babylonsister]

76. You guys crack me up.

#blameObama

Some of you have absorbed the message. Good job.

[merrily]

89. Who passed over vigorous advocates of net neutrality to appoint Wheeler?

[SammyWinstonJack]

93. *crickets*

[easychoice]

77. I thought it was a given

Remember how tough he was on the Banks?

[Lithos]

78. So looking forward to Google Fiber later this year

...

[Odin2005]

79. A rogue agency staffed by seditionists.

[w4rma]

80. Update November 12th, 3:50PM ET: FCC says that Wheeler's comments were taken out of context and that

Update November 12th, 3:50PM ET: this story has been updated to note that the FCC says that Wheeler's comments were taken out of context and that a decision has not yet been made.

[merrily]

88. And we know from experience that we can trust Wheeler re: net neutrality.

Let's just wait for the outcome. If the internet as a whole gets faster--as it already is in other countries--and remains neutral, we'll know Obama and both mean what they've said about net neutrality.

[Babel_17]

90. What was the understanding about Wheeler's positions when he was appointed?

Let's find that out.

[onenote]

96. He wasn't asked about net neutrality in his confirmation hearing

Probably because the FCC had adopted rules in 2010 and there wasn't a significant push to change them. It was only after the Court of Appeals struck down the 2010 version (which did not rely on Title II) that the issue ended up back in front of the FCC, which had the choice of doing nothing or coming up with a new rationale for the rules that were struck down (which might include Title II), or adopting even more stringent rules (which almost certainly could only be done by reclassifying the service as a Title II service). Wheeler is apparently proposing what has been described a hybrid approach that relies in part on Title II, but does not go as far as Title II would allow the FCC to go.

[Babel_17]

105. Thanks

I'm also wondering about what was asked when he was vetted by the administration. If Wheeler is going back on what he asserted during the process, shame on him. If the questions weren't asked, shame on us ... if we don't get some more geeks in the administration. We can't afford to be less informed than a place like slashdot.

[woo me with science]

95. kick

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. Kabuki

If Obama were serious about this, he wouldn't have hired an industry lobbyist to run this "independent agency".

[grahamhgreen]

100. He could have appointed the head of the EFF, and we'd have NN.

[onenote]

103. the head of EFF would never have been confirmed

Sad but true fact. Hell, Ted Cruz held up Wheeler's confirmation for a couple of weeks. The repubs would've blocked the head of EFF (at the time, Shari Steele) from being confirmed.

[grahamhgreen]

104. We'd be better off without him, or anyone in that position. And why appoint the lobbyist as the top

Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

dog?

I mean, if you're only going to appoint people that the Republicans want, what's the point of having Dem's at all???

[woo me with science]

106. kick

[spanone]

110. 'may' ?

[grahamhgreen]

112. Good catch. Like Obama may stop it, after waiting Til after the elections to come out with a popular

position.