General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFCC Chairman Splits From Obama on Rules for the Web
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/26925-fcc-chairman-splits-from-obama-on-rules-for-the-webours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agencys Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction.
Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he has preferred a more nuanced solution. That approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T.
What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesnt affect your business, a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. What Ive got to figure out is how to split the baby.
The dissonance between Obama and Wheeler has the makings of a major policy fight affecting multibillion-dollar industries. The president wants clear rules to prevent Internet service providers from auctioning the fastest speeds to the highest bidders, a scenario that could favor rich Web firms over start-ups.
Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industry, has floated proposals that aim to limit the ability of service providers to charge Web companies, such as Netflix or Google, to reach their customers. But critics have argued that his approach would give the providers too much leeway to favor some services over others.
Given the high stakes, White House aides had wrestled over whether Obama should publicly prod the FCC to adopt the strongest rules possible on the net neutrality issue. Ultimately, aides felt that a public stance would galvanize allies in Congress as well as young, tech-savvy progressives, a key part of the Democratic base, according to several people familiar with the matter. The decision to speak out also comes as Democrats are aggressively courting Silicon Valley in preparation for the 2016 campaigns.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)onwardsand upwards
(276 posts)As John Oliver said, it's like making a dingo a babysitter.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)his corporate employers? Why on earth did the President appoint him in the first place?
malaise
(269,045 posts)after the comment. A Federal government employee works for the Executive Branch and enforces its policy directives.
These fuggers are owned by corporations and their lobbyists.
onenote
(42,714 posts)As has been explained in several other threads, the FCC was established as an "independent " agency. It's members do not serve at the pleasure of the president. They don't enforce the presidents policy directives. They interpret implement and enforce the Communications Act.
Response to eridani (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bye-bye!
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Obama could have nominated a fierce internet neutrality advocate to the FCC. Instead, he nominated Wheeler, a telecommunications industry insider, big time.
The SCOTUS told the FCC that it could not regulate the industry heavily unless it reclassified to a public utility. The FCC's response was to ignore the SCOTUS--let that sink in--ignore the SCOTUS and attempt heavy regulation without reclassification. The very predictable result was that Verizon and others sued, citing the SCOTUS and the federal Circuit Court of Appeals followed SCOTUS precedent, as it is bound to do, and Verizon won.
Result: It was highly touted then, including by DU's lawyer posters, that the Court had tied the hands of the Obama's FCC as to net neutrality. Not true. (When called on this, come DUers claimed reclassification was not a realistic possibility, but, oh look, Obama has called for it, or so it would seem.) And now, DUers are claiming Obama can do nothing about this, other than fire Wheeler as chair, which would make no difference anyway, so why should Obama do even that?
We're being set up. Again. Please see replies 12 and 70 of North Carolina on another thread on the same subject.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025804857#post12E
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025804857#post70
Oh, hell, just see the entire thread. Except for the usual unconditional supporter postersplaining, it's full of good replies.
And the people who see 3 dimensional chess in every move of Obama that gets criticized either won't see it this time or won't admit they see it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)the dingo would eat the baby even if asked not to.
Obama suffers terribly, trapped in aworld full of meanies over which he has no control.
merrily
(45,251 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)A classic as old as time itself.
Well played, Mr. President. Well played.
Now you can just shrug your shoulders, say "Well, I tried. I really wanted it, but....hey you know this guy over here, amiright?"
You've definitely perfected that routine.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)any sense that the President coordinated with Wheeler. Did the President at any time pick up a phone, call Wheeler and ask for his thoughts? Why would Obama make a major policy announcement like this only to be publicly embarrassed by his own appointee?
These are honest questions I can't even begin to find a logical answer for.
vi5
(13,305 posts)That's his role in this. Same thing with all of the other things over the years that he's supposedly been in favor of, but goshdarnit someone is always getting in the way. And then....you know, what can he do? It's out of his hands?
The other question on this and immigration reform is why the hell did he wait until after the election to stake positions and/or threaten exec order? It's almost like....I don't know....he didn't WANT to motivate 2 big voting blocks (latinos and young people/tech libertarian types).
But again, us asking these questions misses the point to the same degree that asking why the Washington Generals don't just hire some better players or complain to the refs.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)vi5
(13,305 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Not an open internet that doesn't affect business.
Businesses are voracious and insatiable. No matter how much money profit they make, they always want more. In regard to the open internet, the open internet is not hurting their insanely high profits.
But they want more profit. They always want more and more, and will get it any way they can, no matter how unethical the means and gains. And they can get this by leveling discriminatory fees to make direct and collateral profits, and wipe freedom of expression off the internet at the same time.
What they really want here is total control of the public mind through media manipulation, the type of mind control they employ with television. The internet is the last bastion of mass freedom of speech, and this poses a threat to their agenda of creating a completely docile, unquestioning, fully controlled consumerbot society.
If Wheeler gets these giant media corporations what they want, eventually our only options for the mass dissemination of information will be corporate propaganda brought to us by various forms of Fox News, all basically owned by the same people with the same agenda.
To work us like draft horses, milk us like cows, shear us like sheep, and then dispose of us like cockroaches.