[The Final Dakar]

Obama: Obama: Treat broadband—including mobile—as a utility | Ars Technica

Wheeler responds: Obama’s call for an open Internet puts him at odds with regulators - The Washington Post

“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.”

But the move by the White House has put Wheeler in an uncomfortable spotlight. The two men have long been allies. Wheeler raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaign and advised the president on his transition into the White House. Obama last year appointed Wheeler to lead the FCC as it was poised to tackle its biggest issue in years — the rules that govern content on the Web.

And, as Wheeler reminded participants at his meeting with Web companies Monday, the FCC does not answer to the Obama administration.

“I am an independent agency,” Wheeler told them repeatedly, according to several officials.

…and he's absolutely right.

This is what you get when you appoint a corporate stooge to be FCC chairman.

[The Final Dakar]

Still, for some reason I hear Wheeler's declaration like this:

[osiris]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Obama: Obama: Treat broadband—including mobile—as a utility | Ars Technica

Wheeler responds: Obama’s call for an open Internet puts him at odds with regulators - The Washington Post





…and he's absolutely right.

This is what you get when you appoint a corporate stooge to be FCC chairman.

Corporate stooges are a dime a dozen, the last place they should be is in any government agency, making policy no less.

[Jawbone54]

What I'm afraid of his Ted Cruz's response being the standard opposing argument, as it's just embarrassing.

I spent five minutes explaining why net neutrality was important to a group of about ten people. Their eyes glazed over within 30 seconds. This is going to be a tough battle.

[The Final Dakar]

Ted Cruz is masterful. I don't think there's been a national politician with more power the past year or so.

As far as neutrality goes, I'm not sure how proponents could reframe it, and simply at that.

[OAW]

I utterly fail to see anything "political" about net neutrality from a "policy" perspective. Now if we are talking about rank "partisanship" well then that's another matter entirely. If President Obama made a public statement in favor of breathing tomorrow the people that Ted Cruz appeals to would start holding their breath. And when they passed out they would convince themselves it was all Obama's fault. Given the natural monopolies involved with last mile ISP connections there is simply no logical justification to be opposed to net neutrality regulation as outlined by the POTUS.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I utterly fail to see anything "political" about net neutrality from a "policy" perspective.

We live in era where any regulation is seen as an affront to capitalism, stifling the free market and expansion of "big government." Policy that gives any power to the government is 'bad.'

Want to make the argument that the regulation is necessary and if anything the FCC is exercising power it already has? Good luck.
Want to argue that we've reached a point with the current ISP oligopoly that it needs to be broken up like Reagan and AT&T? Again, good luck.

The Republican M.O. has devolved into if you're not bowing to corporate interests you're sabotaging the economy.

[The Final Dakar]

My favorite so far isn't Cruz, but Boehner.

"It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obama administration continues to disregard the people’s will…"

Net neutrality is the people's will.

Conservatives Like Net Neutrality, Poll Shows

Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.

The poll did not ask participants about specific methods of regulation, like whether the Federal Communications Commission ought to reclassify consumer broadband Internet as a utility under “Title II”—as Obama has called for—or whether it should use “Section 706″ of the Telecommunications Act, another statute relating to broadband infrastructure.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

What I'm afraid of his Ted Cruz's response being the standard opposing argument, as it's just embarrassing.

I spent five minutes explaining why net neutrality was important to a group of about ten people. Their eyes glazed over within 30 seconds. This is going to be a tough battle.

Can't you just say...

Pretend you want to make a phone call. Net neutrality is the phone call costs the same regardless of who you call. Non-net neutrality is AT&T saying "wanna call someone on Verizon? Cough up extra".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can't you just say...

Pretend you want to make a phone call. Net neutrality is the phone call costs the same regardless of who you call. Non-net neutrality is AT&T saying "wanna call someone on Verizon? Cough up extra".

I don't think it works.

Net neutrality is making sure Netflix works flawlessly all times of day.

[subego]

Which, in a non-net neutral world, will happen if you cough up enough dough.

Or am I mistaken?

[The Final Dakar]

Let me rephrase, then.

In a net neutral world, netflix works the same as any other website, any time of day, without extra cost to Netflix or user.

Better?

[subego]

I feel like you're trying to tell me there's this yawning chasm between "netflix works the same as any other website, any time of day, without extra cost to Netflix or user", and "phone call costs the same regardless of who you're calling".

The concepts are similar enough to be within the bounds of analogy, no?

What am I missing, then?

[The Final Dakar]

Honestly? The phone call analogy feels very 80s to me. I'm not sure it's something that crosses the generational divide. (After all, 10 years ago if you were using a cell phone, you did pay different depending on what company the person you were calling was on).

[subego]

Oh, I get you. I thought you were saying the analogy was conceptually flawed, as opposed to there potentially being better analogies.

I do think my example offers a low eye-glaze quotient, as well as including an existing regulation model for people to identify with.

Maybe a power company analogy would be more "hip".

[reader50]

The power analogy might work. Or a power/TV tie, since this is about content.

"Net neutrality is like power neutrality. The electric company can't charge high rates to run a TV showing programs they dislike, while giving you free power to watch programs the power company owns."

[The Final Dakar]

We're no Ted Cruz.

Net neutrality is like equal opportunity.

Scratch that, we're going to lose the racists.

[subego]

Net neutrality is like the Defense of Marriage Act for the Internet.

[OAW]

The simplest analogy to me is should cable TV providers like Comcast, AT&T, Charter etc. be able to slow down the internet connection you pay them for when connecting to websites like Netflix or iTunes or Hulu that compete with their TV services? I think most people ... especially the younger and more tech-savvy ... get that. For the crowd that has no clue what internet streaming is then another analogy would be should cable TV providers like Comcast, AT&T, Charter etc be able to levy a surcharge whenever you watch a TV show produced by one of their media competitors when you are already paying them for a cable package?

OAW

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can't you just say...

Pretend you want to make a phone call. Net neutrality is the phone call costs the same regardless of who you call. Non-net neutrality is AT&T saying "wanna call someone on Verizon? Cough up extra".

What I said was easily as simple as that. They just don't care.

[Jawbone54]

What I opened up with was something like this...

Comcast slowed Netflix down because they don't want their customers using it. They coerced them into paying them tens of millions of dollars for "regular" speeds, and that cost is eventually going to get passed down to us.

[OreoCookie]

Yeah, it's so sad when people just rely on political reflexes: I can't possibly have something in common with Obama. Regardless of what philosophy you have, the American internet provider landscape is horrid for consumers: Free market folks would claim that you need more competition while others would say you need more regulation. Right now you guys have neither. Sadly, I think the only realistic solution I see if for the new economy to band together and make politicians realize how big they are. I never thought I'd say that more lobbying is the solution to something

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I have to admit, when I saw Obama weigh in I did a RL facepalm, "Oh no, why couldn't he just keep his damned mouth shut?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I have to admit, when I saw Obama weigh in I did a RL facepalm, "Oh no, why couldn't he just keep his damned mouth shut?"

He was just tryin' to lead, man!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I have to admit, when I saw Obama weigh in I did a RL facepalm, "Oh no, why couldn't he just keep his damned mouth shut?"

Why? It's way too late to be serious about this, and just brought idiots out of the woodworks who are against it because Obama is for it, isn't pushing for net neutrality and recognizing internet service as a utility a step in the right direction?

My criticism of Obama's initiative that is that it's too little, too late, and a bit of a futile effort after the Democrats's loss in the mid-term elections. And Obama has appointed -- and both parties in Congress have approved -- a friend of the internet providers to the top of the FCC, so fat chance he's going to be tough on them. But on the other hand, the people who are either opposing net neutrality because their pockets are lined with cash from internet providers or who are against it because Obama is for it, are also full of sh*t.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Net neutrality is like the Defense of Marriage Act for the Internet.

Yeah, it's going to be challenged in courts alright

[The Final Dakar]

Republican lawmakers tell FCC it can’t treat broadband as a utility | Ars Technica

"under Title II of the Communications Act to create legally enforceable rules to regulate Internet access... is beyond the scope of the FCC's authority and would defy the plain reading of the statute... Put simply, reclassification would require the Commission to find that Internet access is a telecommunications service, not an information service."

Yes, Rs, that's exactly what the people think it is.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why? It's way too late to be serious about this, and just brought idiots out of the woodworks who are against it because Obama is for it, isn't pushing for net neutrality and recognizing internet service as a utility a step in the right direction?

My criticism of Obama's initiative that is that it's too little, too late, and a bit of a futile effort after the Democrats's loss in the mid-term elections. And Obama has appointed -- and both parties in Congress have approved -- a friend of the internet providers to the top of the FCC, so fat chance he's going to be tough on them. But on the other hand, the people who are either opposing net neutrality because their pockets are lined with cash from internet providers or who are against it because Obama is for it, are also full of sh*t.

Because most Americans think he's a crook and don't trust him, he has no political capital or public goodwill to spend, so whatever he endorses automatically becomes suspect. Why do you think congressional Dems were practically begging him not to endorse them in their campaign races? He's a political pariah.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Republican lawmakers tell FCC it can’t treat broadband as a utility | Ars Technica

Well, they're wrong, because the courts have already told them they can. So...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He's a political pariah.

He's been since he was elected.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He's been since he was elected.

Hogwash. He damned himself by acting like a spoiled monarch.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Hogwash. He damned himself by acting like a spoiled monarch.

I hogwash your hogwash. The New New Deal: Why the GOP Became the Party of No | TIME.com

Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

Lewis blames Obey and the Democrats for the committee’s turn toward extreme partisanship, but he doesn’t deny that GOP leaders made a decision not to play. “The leadership decided there was no play to be had,” he says. Republicans recognized that after Obama’s big promises about bipartisanship, they could break those promises by refusing to cooperate. In the words of Congressman Tom Cole, a deputy Republican whip: “We wanted the talking point: ‘The only thing bipartisan was the opposition.’ ”

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I hogwash your hogwash. The New New Deal: Why the GOP Became the Party of No | TIME.com

We all know that the pen is mightier than Obama's humility. He'd rather sign EOs for what he wants rather than bargain with anyone. He's a f**king brat who only knows how to exploit a system, rather than try to work with, or god forbid, even try to reform it. He doesn't know WTF he's doing and never has, which has led to him setting dangerous precedence and mucking the whole democratic process.

"But the obstructionist Repubs wouldn't work with him!" He didn't even try, it's his job to find legal solutions. Also, there was a time when he had Dem majorities in both houses and he still couldn't get anything done. All of this comes down to his utter lack of experience as an executive, the man has no business being in that office. He's the epitome of entitlement, thinking that simply because of who he is, he should also be obeyed, his ego won't accept less, and that perfectly frames the situation with Americans as a whole. "Why should I change?! I should be well off just the way I am!" If you want more, then you need to learn more, you have to learn flexibility. Otherwise you will struggle to make ends meet, that's just reality.

[OAW]

Now that the forum's foremost internet expert on every topic imaginable has rendered his latest armchair psychoanalysis ... perhaps we can now return to the topic at hand?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

We all know that the pen is mightier than Obama's humility. He'd rather sign EOs for what he wants rather than bargain with anyone. He's a f**king brat who only knows how to exploit a system, rather than try to work with, or god forbid, even try to reform it. He doesn't know WTF he's doing and never has, which has led to him setting dangerous precedence and mucking the whole democratic process.

"But the obstructionist Repubs wouldn't work with him!" He didn't even try, it's his job to find legal solutions. Also, there was a time when he had Dem majorities in both houses and he still couldn't get anything done. All of this comes down to his utter lack of experience as an executive, the man has no business being in that office. He's the epitome of entitlement, thinking that simply because of who he is, he should also be obeyed, his ego won't accept less, and that perfectly frames the situation with Americans as a whole. "Why should I change?! I should be well off just the way I am!" If you want more, then you need to learn more, you have to learn flexibility. Otherwise you will struggle to make ends meet, that's just reality.

Oh ok

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now that the forum's foremost internet expert on every topic imaginable has rendered his latest armchair psychoanalysis ... perhaps we can now return to the topic at hand?

OAW

Go troll youtube if you want to start shit, we don't want it here.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now that the forum's foremost internet expert on every topic imaginable has rendered his latest armchair psychoanalysis ... perhaps we can now return to the topic at hand?

OAW

But it's Obama's fault because he endorsed net neutrality, thereby poisoning the well. Because if republicans knee-jerk oppose Obama, it's his fault because he just didn't do enough to make them like him. This is the logic we're dealing with here.

[OAW]

^^^^

Exactly.

OAW

[CCRyder]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

What I'm afraid of his Ted Cruz's response being the standard opposing argument, as it's just embarrassing.

I spent five minutes explaining why net neutrality was important to a group of about ten people. Their eyes glazed over within 30 seconds. This is going to be a tough battle.

It was a good line. Now conservatives who hate Obama for his "socialized medicine" will pick up the "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet" and run with it. Even though it's a complete falsehood. It makes net neutrality a government-vs-business issue when it's really a bigbusiness-vs-startups issue.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

We live in era where any regulation is seen as an affront to capitalism, stifling the free market and expansion of "big government." Policy that gives any power to the government is 'bad.'

I disagree. We live in an era where the ruling class (in this case the GOP) wants you to believe that to protect their corporate crony interests. As a republican and social libertarian, I am aghast with how soon the GOP stooped so low as their democratic counterparts. I am not pleased.

Want to make the argument that the regulation is necessary and if anything the FCC is exercising power it already has? Good luck.

Yes. I do. And I am.

Want to argue that we've reached a point with the current ISP oligopoly that it needs to be broken up like Reagan and AT&T? Again, good luck.

Yes. I do. And I am.
I know several others with similar ideology to me that are just as pissed. The ISP oligarchy does need regulation because the free market does not exist in that space. Comcast et al are taking public money to invest in infrastructure just to hold it hostage and make us pay a monopoly rent on the lines we already bought. This is a case where I am all for the government taking over the lines with eminent domain, and opening them up to ISP startups that could compete for the last mile service to our citizens. I say we break out the antitrust hammer and strip the ISPs of the infrastructure that we paid for by breaking them up and setting them against each other, in the same markets.

Watch how fast metered data and paid prioritization drop out of the discussion.

The Republican M.O. has devolved into if you're not bowing to corporate interests you're sabotaging the economy.

Whereas the Democrat M.O. has devoted into if you're not bowing to government interested you're sabotaging the nation. Rock and a hard place, and I am f*cking sick of it.

It took the GOP 1 week to squander their new found gains, while the democratic juggernaut continues to engage in folly after folly. I am not excited about the future of this country.

I said a while back and I'll say again. This is no longer about Republicans and Democrats but instead about the ruling class vs the people. Whichever ruling class you support now (R or D), I ask that you join me in demanding our elected officials to listen to the people, else we will take away everything they have. I mean it, the current path is untenable and you can see our foreign rivals getting more aggressive each passing day sensing the weakness of the once-great US. It is up to us to change our destiny, as our elected officials prove time and again that they are out for themselves, and could give a f*ck about the rest of us.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But it's Obama's fault because he endorsed net neutrality, thereby poisoning the well. Because if republicans knee-jerk oppose Obama, it's his fault because he just didn't do enough to make them like him. This is the logic we're dealing with here.

Obama had 6 years to embrace net neutrality and waited until just after the election where the Republicans retook the house and senate to speak up. He also appointed the industry lobbyist to the FCC. So yeah, Obama didn't do anything when he had the chance and is now taking a stance on the issue knowing that it's an empty stance. I'm sorry, but Obama is all about protecting the poll points in public and protecting his friends in private. He gives as little of a shit about us as the GOP does, he's just better at making you believe otherwise because he thinks you're stupid. One of the ACA architects even said as much.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by CCRyder 

It was a good line. Now conservatives who hate Obama for his "socialized medicine" will pick up the "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet" and run with it. Even though it's a complete falsehood. It makes net neutrality a government-vs-business issue when it's really a bigbusiness-vs-startups issue.

No, we won't. If you hear otherwise, close your ears to the noise. We want net neutrality - at least a vast majority of us do. Both sides have their wing nuts and predatory politicians. We want start ups to compete with the big guys. We want the lines we paid for to be opened for competition, and for the FCC to stop being a revolving door with the ISP lobby.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Because most Americans think he's a crook and don't trust him, he has no political capital or public goodwill to spend, so whatever he endorses automatically becomes suspect.

Nevertheless, Obama's approval rating (41 %) is three times as high as that of Congress (14 %). If anything, it's the other way around, Obama shouldn't associate too closely with members of Congress.

And besides, the reaction you describe is completely brain dead.

Originally Posted by CCRyder 

It makes net neutrality a government-vs-business issue when it's really a bigbusiness-vs-startups issue.

I don't think it's big business vs. start-ups, companies like Apple, Google, Amazon and Netflix aren't start-ups anymore. It's one branch of big business vs. another.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But it's Obama's fault because he endorsed net neutrality, thereby poisoning the well. Because if republicans knee-jerk oppose Obama, it's his fault because he just didn't do enough to make them like him. This is the logic we're dealing with here.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there was more traction for NN before the Clown-In-Chief opened his mouth. I can't speak for your logic, you aren't applying very much.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama had 6 years to embrace net neutrality and waited until just after the election where the Republicans retook the house and senate to speak up. He also appointed the industry lobbyist to the FCC. So yeah, Obama didn't do anything when he had the chance and is now taking a stance on the issue knowing that it's an empty stance. I'm sorry, but Obama is all about protecting the poll points in public and protecting his friends in private. He gives as little of a shit about us as the GOP does, he's just better at making you believe otherwise because he thinks you're stupid. One of the ACA architects even said as much.

Ayup, very well said.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Nevertheless, Obama's approval rating (41 %) is three times as high as that of Congress (14 %). If anything, it's the other way around, Obama shouldn't associate too closely with members of Congress.

You're confusing approval rating with general trust, and some would approve of Obama even if he walked out and took a big dump in the middle of the state of the union address.

And besides, the reaction you describe is completely brain dead.

What, his presidency has been a complete clusterf**k, an epic failure. The man lies every time he's in front of a camera. Why should anyone trust him?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama had 6 years to embrace net neutrality and waited until just after the election where the Republicans retook the house and senate to speak up. He also appointed the industry lobbyist to the FCC.

… and the lobbyist was confirmed with broad bipartisan support by Congress as head of the FCC. In the Senate, support was unanimous.

You're right that Obama has done nothing up until now to further net neutrality, but the GOP doesn't even have net neutrality on their agenda. Instead, you have people like Tom Cruze coming out against it because Obama is for it, comparing it to Obama Care. I am not quite sure which is attitude is worse.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I disagree. We live in an era where the ruling class (in this case the GOP) wants you to believe that to protect their corporate crony interests.

You're splitting hairs. I said is seen. Not is reality.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

As a republican and social libertarian, I am aghast with how soon the GOP stooped so low as their democratic counterparts. I am not pleased.

Huh? What were their counterparts stooping about and what did the GOP stoop to?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Whereas the Democrat M.O. has devoted into if you're not bowing to government interested you're sabotaging the nation.

Is it? On what subject?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It took the GOP 1 week to squander their new found gains, while the democratic juggernaut continues to engage in folly after folly. I am not excited about the future of this country.

Nothing has changed. If you thought the majority change in the Senate would amount to something, you haven't been paying attention to how congress has been functioning the past 6 years.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I said a while back and I'll say again. This is no longer about Republicans and Democrats

The hell it isn't. The "everybody is the same" is asinine, doubly so when coupled with a specific topic where the stances of each party are pretty stark.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

but instead about the ruling class vs the people

Oh right, your bush league illuminati.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I mean it, the current path is untenable and you can see our foreign rivals getting more aggressive each passing day sensing the weakness of the once-great US.

Oh good, fearmongering.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

You're confusing approval rating with general trust, and some would approve of Obama even if he walked out and took a big dump in the middle of the state of the union address.

I'm not confusing anything: approval rating is something you can measure while »trust« means nothing. People who didn't like Obama before still don't like him, and many people who believed in his message are disillusioned by his politics. But nevertheless, he's doing much better than Bush was at the same point during his second term.

What has gotten worse is the polarization (and Cruze's reaction exemplifies this), this sports team mentality where people only cheer for their team while forgetting what it exactly is they are cheering for.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What, his presidency has been a complete clusterf**k, an epic failure. The man lies every time he's in front of a camera. Why should anyone trust him?

Actually, if you look at the numbers (and other important events), Obama's presidency is alright: Osama Bin Laden got caught, the economy is growing again, the giant stimulus package has worked in the sense that the Big Three American auto makers are still in business as are the important banks, unemployment is low. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of bones to pick,* but I don't think your mental image and »feelings« are close to reality. People tend to forget, though, that the big clusterfukcs were supported by both parties in Congress, and that Congress has much more of a say than the POTUS.

* To name two: continued erosion of privacy and net neutrality.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama had 6 years to embrace net neutrality and waited until just after the election where the Republicans retook the house and senate to speak up. He also appointed the industry lobbyist to the FCC. So yeah, Obama didn't do anything when he had the chance and is now taking a stance on the issue knowing that it's an empty stance. I'm sorry, but Obama is all about protecting the poll points in public and protecting his friends in private. He gives as little of a shit about us as the GOP does, he's just better at making you believe otherwise because he thinks you're stupid. One of the ACA architects even said as much.

Save your rant/lecture for someone who didn't specifically point out it's his fault in the OP.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is what you get when you appoint a corporate stooge to be FCC chairman.

I'd like you better if you didn't seem contrarian for the sake of illuminating us with your overarching philosophy that both sides are the same.