Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash FCC: You know how we said we'd reconsider this net neutrality paid priority thing? We lied   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 886
    More: NewsFlash, Federal Communications Commission, net neutrality, internet, new economy  
•       •       •

19229 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

886 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
m00
2014-05-16 01:41:53 AM  

ox45tallboy: Take your pick.

I'm saying that the only thing I don't like about this whole shebang is that the chairman chose to include in the proposal an idea about a "limited" violation of net neutrality principles. I don't like that part. At all. But there is quite a bit to like about the rest. And none of it is law yet, it's just moved into the "public comment" phase. I don't see what the FCC could have done differently today, except for including the NN violation. Then again, it might be best if that it is commented in and then voted down, since then it will be far less likely to come up for a vote the next time a Republican appoints the FCC commission.


Well, if I were a benevolent dictator I'd say "Fark you telecoms. Prepare to be regulated." If I was Obama I'd do everything in my power to push Net Neutrality a la Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln. Very rarely in politics does an issue come up with a clear right and a clear wrong that should (but doesn't) transcend sides or political parties, and this is one of those times. This isn't a issue where there are two sides, and you're trying to find a compromise -- which is what the FCC seems to be doing. If I were the FCC chairman I would stake my job and my reputation on this issue, because quite frankly if the FCC can't protect citizens from monopolistic, extortive, and collusive practices of telecoms (that also happen to stifle innovation and harm the economy in general), it has no purpose whatsoever. Take a stand. But clearly, this is why I'm not a political appointee to a regulative body... because I actually happen to care about people getting screwed.
 
2014-05-16 01:57:10 AM  

m00: Well, if I were a benevolent dictator I'd say "Fark you telecoms. Prepare to be regulated." If I was Obama I'd do everything in my power to push Net Neutrality a la Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln. Very rarely in politics does an issue come up with a clear right and a clear wrong that should (but doesn't) transcend sides or political parties, and this is one of those times. This isn't a issue where there are two sides, and you're trying to find a compromise -- which is what the FCC seems to be doing. If I were the FCC chairman I would stake my job and my reputation on this issue, because quite frankly if the FCC can't protect citizens from monopolistic, extortive, and collusive practices of telecoms (that also happen to stifle innovation and harm the economy in general), it has no purpose whatsoever. Take a stand. But clearly, this is why I'm not a political appointee to a regulative body... because I actually happen to care about people getting screwed.


I understand what you're saying. But if we pretend for a moment that the chair of the FCC wanted to implement ISP regulation as Title II entities, I don't believe there is a thing in the world he could do beyond what he is doing right now. It's been voted on and now has proceeded to the public comment phase. This is how everything must proceed in the FCC according the APA. While I disagree with his choice to also include a separate provision in his proposal to possibly violate an aspect of net neutrality, it has not yet become law, and that aspect will be voted on separately from the Title II regulation proposal.

I suppose he could have dropped the public comment phase down to 30 days, but I don't see that as a really big deal. It certainly appears that Title II regulation stands a pretty good chance of passing when it is voted on at the end of the year.
 
m00
2014-05-16 02:07:55 AM  

ox45tallboy: I understand what you're saying. But if we pretend for a moment that the chair of the FCC wanted to implement ISP regulation as Title II entities, I don't believe there is a thing in the world he could do beyond what he is doing right now. It's been voted on and now has proceeded to the public comment phase. This is how everything must proceed in the FCC according the APA. While I disagree with his choice to also include a separate provision in his proposal to possibly violate an aspect of net neutrality, it has not yet become law, and that aspect will be voted on separately from the Title II regulation proposal.

I suppose he could have dropped the public comment phase down to 30 days, but I don't see that as a really big deal. It certainly appears that Title II regulation stands a pretty good chance of passing when it is voted on at the end of the year.


Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the telecoms. And before that, a CEO of a telecom. You honestly think he's going do to anything other than give Comcast what it wants?
 
2014-05-16 02:29:04 AM  

m00: Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the telecoms. And before that, a CEO of a telecom. You honestly think he's going do to anything other than give Comcast what it wants?


Considering that the last chair of the FCC skated that gig and took a rather high-paying job with Comcast after approving the NBC merger, I will readily agree that there is some cause for concern.

But that hasn't happened yet, and the alternative proposed by the Republicans is to let Comcast do whatever the hell it wants with absolutely zero oversight. The fact is that there will be a vote on the Title II issue, as well as other regulations, thanks to the three Democratic committee members. That vote wouldn't happen if a Republican had appointed the FCC committee.

This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.

Honestly, though, I predict that he will vote with the Republicans to approve the Net Neutrality violation, and with the Dems for the Title II scheduling and other regulations in the proposal. It won't be what's right or what's best for the consumer, but it won't be entirely evil. ISP's will still have to ask for approval of any traffic shaping instead of being able to arbitrarily institute it on their own, so it might stave off functional dystopia for at least a decade or so.
 
2014-05-16 02:29:31 AM  

neenerist: Point granted, I sometimes forget how seamlessly rightards toss former heroes into the dustbin of history with Reagan and Goldwater.


Cheney was never a hero.  Goldwater predates my political knowledge, I wasn't even a teenager when he left office.

Reagan, well, I remember him, but I didn't start looking into politics until I was in high school.  My opinion of him is more along the lines of 'he did some good things, some bad things, and was POTUS during a very interesting period of history'.

Nor is my athiest, anti-drug war, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage self particularly 'right' politically speaking.

ox45tallboy: Is 'common carrier' the best classification? Or might it be better for the consumer if they are classified as a utility? Or as something else entirely, perhaps a brand-new classification with a different sort of regulation?


A 'common carrier' is a sort of utility.  It's sort of like how the electric company isn't on the hook if somebody uses their electricity for operating a grow farm.  Same deal with a common carrier - they're not expected to inspect packets to make sure they're not allowing somebody to download illegal stuff such as child porn.

Brand new classification?  Perhaps, but that's a whole new ballgame.

MadHatter500: If you think it is so cheap to run a broadband network, and the carriers are rolling in so much stolen money and gouge their customers, why haven't you started a competing carrier?


Regulatory capture.  If you dare start up your own broadband network, expect to be sued into oblivion.  Heck, they might even encourage laws to be written against you.
 
2014-05-16 02:41:52 AM  

Firethorn: ox45tallboy: Is 'common carrier' the best classification? Or might it be better for the consumer if they are classified as a utility? Or as something else entirely, perhaps a brand-new classification with a different sort of regulation?


A 'common carrier' is a sort of utility.  It's sort of like how the electric company isn't on the hook if somebody uses their electricity for operating a grow farm.  Same deal with a common carrier - they're not expected to inspect packets to make sure they're not allowing somebody to download illegal stuff such as child porn.

Brand new classification?  Perhaps, but that's a whole new ballgame.


I was referring to classifying them as a "public utility" like the electric company in most areas - there might be several electric companies you choose from, but all they really do is handle the billing for the main company that owns the power plant and all the electrical wires. Some areas actually have electric companies that have their own power plants, but they still have to deliver that power through the wires owned by the main electric company. When you pay your bill to Company X, Company X sends a set fee to the "main" electric company that owns the wires, and keeps the rest to pay for generating the bill. It gets even more complicated when Company X is paying Company Y for the wires, and Company Z for the power, but the rates are set by utilities commissions that are appointed by elected representatives, and are usually reasonable.

The FCC could theoretically order the "last mile" providers to act as the "main" electric company and open their wires to other companies that want to provide Internet service, but this is not what Title II is about. It is another option that I think is worth talking about, but I don't think will be implemented in the near future - at least until IPv6 is fully implemented, since it routes differently than IPv4 and would enable "last mile" traffic to be separated out at the headend to different providers almost seamlessly.
 
2014-05-16 02:43:25 AM  

m00: Wheeler is a former lobbyist for the telecoms. And before that, a CEO of a telecom. You honestly think he's going do to anything other than give Comcast what it wants?


Jaded me says you're right, but part of me wants to hope that the fact that they've even offered a half-hearted attempt to do something besides give away the world makes me think they might be looking at the larger picture.

The internet is probably the single most impactful invention since antibiotics. It has changed almost every single aspect of life across most of the modern world.

Would you want to go down in history as the man that screwed that up?
 
2014-05-16 04:20:18 AM  

LordJiro: It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.


I raped your sister, but I did pull out. Isn't that a step in the right direction?

You shills make me sick.
 
2014-05-16 04:33:53 AM  
 
2014-05-16 04:43:11 AM  

muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.


You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.
 
2014-05-16 04:50:05 AM  

Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.


No, this is the big government that you asked for. You ignored what I said about an Oligarchy. Who the fark do you think enables that?
 
2014-05-16 05:11:18 AM  

Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.


There is a reason why even beautiful ideas(I'm a Conservative. keep this in mind) like Communism, tribalism, Democracy, Libertarianism, Socialism, and everything else we can think of will always lead to crap like this.

It's not that  any one wasn't done right, they will all never be done right.
It's a five card monty you have been lead to believe in
People are easily corrupted
Our leaders are easily corrupted
Throughout they always have been
This is nothing new
All leaders. All parties
If you think otherwise
You really are a fool

Now here is the funny thing...

This is the way it has always been
And will always be
No matter the tard utopian ideas you hear on Fark

pigs always become pigs.
 
2014-05-16 05:14:21 AM  

ikanreed: Okay, we need a backup plan.

Digging up cables of companies that do this?  Boycotts?  Class action lawsuit for failure to deliver promised service?


Our options are to contribute substantial funds (bribes) to political campaigns or cancel your cable subscription.

That's it.
 
2014-05-16 07:23:20 AM  

muck4doo: Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.

There is a reason why even beautiful ideas(I'm a Conservative. keep this in mind) like Communism, tribalism, Democracy, Libertarianism, Socialism, and everything else we can think of will always lead to crap like this.

It's not that  any one wasn't done right, they will all never be done right.
It's a five card monty you have been lead to believe in
People are easily corrupted
Our leaders are easily corrupted
Throughout they always have been
This is nothing new
All leaders. All parties
If you think otherwise
You really are a fool

Now here is the funny thing...

This is the way it has always been
And will always be
No matter the tard utopian ideas you hear on Fark

pigs always become pigs.


So what's your solution, sparky? 'Smaller government' is a nice bumper sticker phrase, but besides 'Let poor people starve in the streets en masse and let corporations do whatever they want', I don't hear many specifics.
 
2014-05-16 09:17:43 AM  

meat0918: gweilo8888: ikanreed: Digging up cables of companies that do this?

Will just cause cable companies to raise costs, and you to spend even more on Internet access and web services than you already will.

Plus, there is a good chance you as a tax payer paid for that cable.

Last I knew, there is a lot of unused fiber capacity in America because the government paid these companies to lay down a lot of it, and the companies never turned it on.

Rural broadbandification should be what we are doing right now to stimulate the economy.  We got 110W and 220W to peoples homes during the Great Depression, why aren't we getting 30Mbps to them now?


I know I'm late to the party but listen, electricity is one thing.  A free flow of uncontrolled information is QUITE another citizen...
 
2014-05-16 10:59:38 AM  

muck4doo: I'm a Conservative. keep this in mind

It's a five card monty you have been lead to believe in


SMALLER GUBMINT JUST BECAUSE!

/*monte
//the other conservatives aren't the bad guys... what a fantastic argument
 
2014-05-16 11:01:12 AM  

muck4doo: No, this is the big government that you asked for.


No, it isn't. Again, people are upset due to a LACK of regulation, what you're saying is nonsense. You seem utterly ignorant of... well, pretty much everything you're talking about.

muck4doo: You ignored what I said about an Oligarchy. Who the fark do you think enables that?


A government that isn't able to effectively police corporations.
 
m00
2014-05-16 11:17:06 AM  

Dalrint: Would you want to go down in history as the man that screwed that up?


Winners write the history books, and in this case the Internet is the history book. And absent Net Neutrality, it's written by the telecoms in a very literal sense. Did Edison go down in the history books as the man who screwed up Tesla's inventions? Did Christopher Columbus go down in history as the man who quite literally started slavery in the New World?

ox45tallboy: This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.


The Democratic party is not the one true faith. The purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected, and to reward supporters of the party with patronage positions. Supporting Obama worked out pretty well for Wheeler. That has nothing to do with whether he's "good" or "evil."
 
2014-05-16 11:24:52 AM  

m00: ox45tallboy: This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.

The Democratic party is not the one true faith. The purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected, and to reward supporters of the party with patronage positions. Supporting Obama worked out pretty well for Wheeler. That has nothing to do with whether he's "good" or "evil."


No, Republicans are evil and Democrats are good.  Get with the narrative
 
2014-05-16 11:43:37 AM  

ox45tallboy: Headso: I don't even know what someone gets out of apologizing for the democrats in this case, if anything that will help them pick the option that farks over consumers.

What is there to apologize about? The FCC voted to consider how to go about regulating the ISP's. The Republicans voted against regulating them at all.

Which party do you think is more in favor of farking over the consumers to benefit big business?


So what you're saying is that the vote is a Morton's Fork to either oversee farking us over, or not regulate the farking over we're going to get.

/either way, we get farked
//time for some old fashioned defenestration
///toss out ALL the rascals
 
m00
2014-05-16 11:53:56 AM  

bhcompy: No, Republicans are evil and Democrats are good. Get with the narrative


The reality is that for the last few election cycles, the RNC supported some really awful candidates with some really awful policy proposals. Which isn't to say the DNC supports consistently supports great candidates. Even looking at national-level figures, I am no fan of Pelosi -- I think she's a snake who supports lobbyists over constituents. Harry Reid is a tool who would sell out his own mother. Kerry and Clinton are at best career politicians that care more about prestige than governing. But Rick Perry? Mitt Romney? Ted Cruz? Boehner? These are walking SNL parodies -- they are cartoonishly bad. I mean, when you watch SNL doing a skit about a Republican, it falls flat because it's less absurd than reality.

Which is not to say there aren't good people who get elected in the Republican Party. There's only two major parties: if a decent percent gets elected he's going to be elected to one of them. In some districts you pretty much have no choice, if you want to represent that district you have to be the specific party that gerrymandering dictates. But for some reason the GOP loves to give their crazies national prominence, which is really unfortunate.

But none of this means Wheeler is a good guy. He's not. He's chairman of the FCC because he was a huge Obama booster. Wheeler is an advocate for the industry that his agency is supposed to regulate. He is not a friend of Net Neutrality. If he rules on making the telecoms a common carrier, it will only be because his patrons (the Obama administration) make it very clear that's the marching order. Actually if we really want Net Neutrality, Clinton has to make it clear that not only is she going to be the next president but Wheeler will be out on his ass if he doesn't do this. That's how patronage works.
 
2014-05-16 02:26:05 PM  

Gunther: muck4doo: I hope you are glad that you finally got what you want. I hope you get more government shoved down your throat. You asked for it, go ahead and get a second load.

You understand that people are upset because we're getting less government regulation of the internet than we've previously had, right? People (including me) are upset at the democrats because they're pushing for weakened Net Neutrality regulation, while the republicans want no regulation.

I really don't see where you're getting the "SEE LIBS!? I TOLD YOU MOAR GUBBMINT IS BAD!!!" thing from.


Actually, right this second, because of the court ruling in January, ISP's are regulated as either cell phone providers, telcos, or cable companies. The proposal includes the idea of moving them to Title II "common carrier" status, which means there will be even MORE regulation than what there is now.

Theoretically, the ISP's could do whatever traffic shaping they wanted at the moment without asking the FCC for permission. This is why Netflix just paid Comcast a good chunk of change to upgrade their infrastructure in some areas. The stuff that passed yesterday addresses this.

In other words, yesterday's vote was a step towards MORE regulation, not less.
 
2014-05-16 02:29:19 PM  

m00: ox45tallboy: This guy may have been a telecom CEO and a lobbyist, but for some reason he chose to join the Democratic Party instead of the Republican Party. I'm thinking he might not be as evil as he is being made out to be over this.


The Democratic party is not the one true faith. The purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected, and to reward supporters of the party with patronage positions. Supporting Obama worked out pretty well for Wheeler. That has nothing to do with whether he's "good" or "evil."


Well, you're right that it doesn't mean he's not evil. He's probably pro-gay marriage and pro-better access to health care. But being an industry man, he's likely probably pro-industry as well.

Keep in mind that each of the commissioners must be approved by Congress, and this is the Congress that filibustered EVERYONE Obama nominates for anything. He probably had to nominate someone with industry ties just to get him voted on.
 
2014-05-16 02:36:29 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: So what you're saying is that the vote is a Morton's Fork to either oversee farking us over, or not regulate the farking over we're going to get.

/either way, we get farked
//time for some old fashioned defenestration
///toss out ALL the rascals


Please read any of my other posts.

This is NOT a rule that has been enacted. It was part of a proposal for several new rules, including one that regulates the ISP's like "common carriers", and has now moved to the "public comment" phase. Some of the proposed rules will become law, some will become nothing.

Many people are saying that they know for a fact that Comcast will get what it wants at the end of the year. I'm not so sure. If they do, I'll be as pissed as everyone else. But it's not healthy to get pissed off over something that hasn't even happened yet, especially considering the public commenting the FCC is getting already.

The movement of ISP's to Title II regulation seems to have almost unanimous approval. I say that's probably the best thing to do, but I would like to hear from anyone else that has any other ideas of how best to regulate them - preferably regulate them even more. It's far more likely to pass at the end of the year than the violation of net neutrality principles.
 
2014-05-16 02:43:02 PM  

m00: But none of this means Wheeler is a good guy. He's not. He's chairman of the FCC because he was a huge Obama booster. Wheeler is an advocate for the industry that his agency is supposed to regulate. He is not a friend of Net Neutrality. If he rules on making the telecoms a common carrier, it will only be because his patrons (the Obama administration) make it very clear that's the marching order. Actually if we really want Net Neutrality, Clinton has to make it clear that not only is she going to be the next president but Wheeler will be out on his ass if he doesn't do this. That's how patronage works.


Do you know what happened to the last swing vote FCC Commissioner who approved something very controversial that hurt consumers?
 
2014-05-16 02:49:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: So what you're saying is that the vote is a Morton's Fork to either oversee farking us over, or not regulate the farking over we're going to get.

/either way, we get farked
//time for some old fashioned defenestration
///toss out ALL the rascals

Please read any of my other posts.

This is NOT a rule that has been enacted. It was part of a proposal for several new rules, including one that regulates the ISP's like "common carriers", and has now moved to the "public comment" phase. Some of the proposed rules will become law, some will become nothing.

Many people are saying that they know for a fact that Comcast will get what it wants at the end of the year. I'm not so sure. If they do, I'll be as pissed as everyone else. But it's not healthy to get pissed off over something that hasn't even happened yet, especially considering the public commenting the FCC is getting already.

The movement of ISP's to Title II regulation seems to have almost unanimous approval. I say that's probably the best thing to do, but I would like to hear from anyone else that has any other ideas of how best to regulate them - preferably regulate them even more. It's far more likely to pass at the end of the year than the violation of net neutrality principles.


Oh, I'm not taking an adversarial position with what you said. Just demonstrating what it looks like from my point of view. We're gonna get farked, now it's just about who gets to watch, and who is directing this particular porno.
 
2014-05-16 02:56:18 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Oh, I'm not taking an adversarial position with what you said. Just demonstrating what it looks like from my point of view. We're gonna get farked, now it's just about who gets to watch, and who is directing this particular porno.


I don't think we're going to get truly farked until we get the next Republican-appointed commission. I do believe that Title II designation will pass. It has almost unanimous support, and the people that don't like it are either ISP's or people who want even MORE regulation.

While I might believe that the current FCC could properly regulate one single instance of Net Neutrality violation (i.e., what's being proposed), I do not believe for a second that future FCC commissions can or will. The next Republican commission will simply approve whatever the ISP's want, and use as a justification the precedent set by this one.
 
2014-05-16 03:11:37 PM  

ox45tallboy: I don't think we're going to get truly farked until we get the next Republican-appointed commission. I do believe that Title II designation will pass. It has almost unanimous support, and the people that don't like it are either ISP's or people who want even MORE regulation.

While I might believe that the current FCC could properly regulate one single instance of Net Neutrality violation (i.e., what's being proposed), I do not believe for a second that future FCC commissions can or will. The next Republican commission will simply approve whatever the ISP's want, and use as a justification the precedent set by this one.


I'm a life-long Democrat, but as we all know, a fish stinks from the head down. This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not. He's unfit for his job. I want him and every other decision-maker there replaced. Throw all the rascals out, and get new rascals. None of them are trustworthy.
 
2014-05-16 03:28:20 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I'm a life-long Democrat, but as we all know, a fish stinks from the head down. This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not. He's unfit for his job. I want him and every other decision-maker there replaced. Throw all the rascals out, and get new rascals. None of them are trustworthy.


The only controversial thing he's done (so far) that I'm aware of has been to bring a violation of Net Neutrality principles to the public comment phase. It has not been approved. He has not voted to approve this, merely to move it to the public comment phase. It might actually be in everyone's best interest that this happened, because the public comments will all be on the record and it will be far more difficult for a future Republican-led FCC to create a rule that violates Net Neutrality if this is voted down. If he does vote in favor of this violation of Net Neutrality becoming a rule, I'll agree that he needs to go. But that hasn't happened yet.

If you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate. But this by itself isn't really that bad, especially considering the same proposal also put the reclassification of ISP's to Title II designation into the public comment phase prior to approval. I know, to us, that's a no-brainer and any competent person would have done it, but that to me means he's not incompetent.
 
2014-05-16 03:35:18 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not.


He literally worked for fifteen years as the industries chief lobbyist.

I'm pretty sure there is zero doubt that he is in the industrie's pocket and Obama put him in charge of regulating his own industry.

/After he raised millions of dollars for Obama first, of course.
 
2014-05-16 03:36:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: f you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate.


Now you're defending regulatory capture too?

Obama shills are hysterical.
 
2014-05-16 03:41:35 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: f you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate.

Now you're defending regulatory capture too?

Obama shills are hysterical.


Wow, I know you want to be enraged, but I'm not seeing what there is to be enraged about here.

Are you one of the people that would rather see Ted "series of tubes" Stevens in charge of the FCC? If not, please describe your optimum candidate for FCC commissioner. Seriously. I want to know what you think would be the premier qualifications of the perfect candidate to head the FCC.
 
2014-05-16 03:45:45 PM  

ox45tallboy: If you know of something more that he is done that makes him "unfit" , I'd like to know so I can get in on the hate.


Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are, Tom Wheeler is sympathetic to corporate profits, when he should be totally deaf to any ISP's bottom-line (sorry about the run-on sentence. Yeesh.). That is not where his concerns are mandated to be, but he's very much in tune with it. When he's finally tossed from his FCC sinecure, he'll be welcomed back into the industry fold with open arms and a fat paycheck. I say he's corrupt, and I'd tell him to his face, except we walk on different streets.
 
2014-05-16 03:49:47 PM  

ox45tallboy: Wow, I know you want to be enraged, but I'm not seeing what there is to be enraged about here.


The FCC being owned by the industry it supposedly regulates is nothing to worry about at all?

cdn.arstechnica.net

The top cable and wireless lobby groups in the US are led by a former FCC chairman and former FCC commissioner, while the FCC itself is led by a man who formerly led both the cable and wireless lobby groups.
 
2014-05-16 03:51:54 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are


I'm sure our resident Obama shill doesn't think putting a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of the Department of Justice right after the banks he represented destroyed the global economy is a problem.

/or his refusal to prosecute the fraudulent banks
 
2014-05-16 03:55:37 PM  
 
2014-05-16 03:59:44 PM  

BullBearMS: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are

I'm sure our resident Obama shill doesn't think putting a millionaire Wall Street defense attorney in charge of the Department of Justice right after the banks he represented destroyed the global economy is a problem.

/or his refusal to prosecute the fraudulent banks


I'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one. It's an issue of honesty. I'll shiat-can any corrupt public servant, and I don't care what party they belong to. But don't act like the Democrats invented flim-flammery. They CO-invented it.
 
2014-05-16 04:08:56 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: Much like the whores on the SEC that refuse to do any enforcement of the laws, if it involves inconveniencing any financial corporations or their executives, no matter how egregious their offenses are, Tom Wheeler is sympathetic to corporate profits, when he should be totally deaf to any ISP's bottom-line (sorry about the run-on sentence. Yeesh.). That is not where his concerns are mandated to be, but he's very much in tune with it. When he's finally tossed from his FCC sinecure, he'll be welcomed back into the industry fold with open arms and a fat paycheck. I say he's corrupt, and I'd tell him to his face, except we walk on different streets.


Once again, what action has he taken that indicates he is in the pocket of the telco's? I know his history, I understand his background, I just am not seeing anything that he's actually done that makes him evil.

Yes, he did put forward a proposal that included a section on okaying a Net Neutrality violation. But that has not been approved yet. I want to know some action he has taken, some vote he has made, some decision that makes him "unfit" to be the chair of the FCC. I mean, if I wanted to be sure the Republicans couldn't undo Net Neutrality the next time one is in office, I'd put this forward as well so there's public commentary and precedent of it being voted down. I'll say he's a bad FCC chair and needs to be replaced once he's voted to approve this violation of Net Neutrality, but otherwise, I'm not seeing what action he's taken as chair of the FCC that makes him unfit for the job.
 
2014-05-16 04:09:21 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: 'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one.


Which party controls the Justice Department and has refused to criminally prosecute the massive endemic fraud that destroyed the economy?

It doesn't matter if you label the issue as partisan or not.

They aren't even bothering to try to make this look like a legitimate Democracy that follows the rule of law any more.
 
2014-05-16 04:13:05 PM  

BullBearMS: The FCC being owned by the industry it supposedly regulates is nothing to worry about at all?


Once again, what qualifications should the ideal candidate for the FCC have? Would you put Ted "series of tubes" Stevens in charge of regulating the Internet?

The "revolving door" is obviously a concern, and it should be addressed. We need regulations to keep FCC commissioners from approving huge mergers that hurt the consumer and then resigning to take a BS job with the company whose merger they just approved. But if you think we're going to get an FCC that understands what the hell they're regulating without picking people who have risen to the top in the industry, well, that's just not going to happen.
 
2014-05-16 04:14:54 PM  

ox45tallboy: I'm not seeing what action he's taken as chair of the FCC that makes him unfit for the job.


ox45tallboy: Yes, he did put forward a proposal that included a section on okaying a Net Neutrality violation.


You don't see the problem when a Democrat goes against everything they swore they stood for?

BILL MOYERS: Barack Obama told us there would be no compromise on Net neutrality. We heard him say it back in 2007, when he first was running for president.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: To seize this moment we have to ensure free and full exchange of information and that starts with an open Internet. I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality, because once providers start to privilege some applications or websites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out and we all lose. The InterNet is perhaps the most open network in history and we have to keep it that way.

BILL MOYERS: He said it so many times that defenders of Net neutrality believed him. They believed he would keep his word, would see to it that when private interests set upon the Internet like sharks to blood in the water, its fate would be in the hands of honest brokers who would listen politely to the pleas of the greedy, and then show them the door.

Unfortunately, it turned out to be the infamous revolving door. Last May, President Obama named Tom Wheeler to be FCC chairman. Mr. Wheeler had been one of Obama's top bundlers of campaign cash, both in 2008 and again in 2012, when he raised at least half a million dollars for the President's re-election. Like his proposed rules for the Web, that put him at the front of the line.

What's more, Wheeler had been top gun for both the cable and wireless industries. And however we might try to imagine that he could quickly abandon old habits of service to his employers, that's simply not how Washington works. Business and government are so intertwined there that public officials and corporate retainers are interchangeable parts of what Chief Justice John Roberts might call the "gratitude machine." Round and round they go, and where they stop. Actually they never stop. They just flash their EZ pass as they keep shuttling through that revolving door.

Consider, Daniel Alvarez was a long-time member of a law firm that has advised Comcast. He once wrote to the FCC on behalf of Comcast arguing against Net neutrality rules. He's been hired by Tom Wheeler.

Philip Verveer also worked for Comcast and the wireless and cable trade associations. He's now Tom Wheeler's senior counselor. Attorney Brendan Carr worked for Verizon and the telecom industry's trade association, which lobbied against Net neutrality. Now Brendan Carr is an adviser to FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, who used to be a top lawyer for Verizon.

To be fair, Tom Wheeler has brought media reformers into the FCC, too, and has been telling us that we don't understand. We're the victims of misinformation about these proposed new rules. That he is still for Net neutrality. Possibly, but the public's no chump and as you can see from just those few examples I've recounted for you from the reporting of intrepid journalist Lee Fang, these new rules are not the product of immaculate conception.
 
2014-05-16 04:15:53 PM  

ox45tallboy: Once again, what qualifications should the ideal candidate for the FCC have?


Not being the chief lobbyist for the industry seems like a bare minimum, oh pathetic shill.
 
2014-05-16 04:17:01 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one. It's an issue of honesty. I'll shiat-can any corrupt public servant, and I don't care what party they belong to. But don't act like the Democrats invented flim-flammery. They CO-invented it.


Actually, this is definitely a partisan issue. Google your favorite leader from either party with the words "net neutrality" and you can easily see how far apart the party line is on either issue. The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated. The Republicans want no regulation at all. This is why the Republican commissioners voted against advancing the proposal yesterday - they do not believe the FCC should be able to regulate the ISP's.

These are the best Republicans Obama could find. People whose believe their job is to say that they shouldn't do their job. At least the Democratic commissioners are trying to do something.
 
2014-05-16 04:18:30 PM  

BullBearMS: You don't see the problem when a Democrat goes against everything they swore they stood for?


If you wanted to be sure that the next FCC commission could not undo anything you've done on keeping Net Neutrality, how would you go about doing it?

And how does that differ from what Wheeler has done?
 
2014-05-16 04:20:35 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: Once again, what qualifications should the ideal candidate for the FCC have?

Not being the chief lobbyist for the industry seems like a bare minimum, oh pathetic shill.


Hmmm... no response, just calling me "shill" as if that validates anything you've said.

Once again, what are your ideal qualifications for the head of the FCC? What's your ideal resume?
 
2014-05-16 04:21:46 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: ox45tallboy: I don't think we're going to get truly farked until we get the next Republican-appointed commission. I do believe that Title II designation will pass. It has almost unanimous support, and the people that don't like it are either ISP's or people who want even MORE regulation.

While I might believe that the current FCC could properly regulate one single instance of Net Neutrality violation (i.e., what's being proposed), I do not believe for a second that future FCC commissions can or will. The next Republican commission will simply approve whatever the ISP's want, and use as a justification the precedent set by this one.

I'm a life-long Democrat, but as we all know, a fish stinks from the head down. This guy Wheeler has to go. He's not doing the people's bidding. He may even think he's honest, but he's in the industry's pocket whether he realizes it or not. He's unfit for his job. I want him and every other decision-maker there replaced. Throw all the rascals out, and get new rascals. None of them are trustworthy.


I assure you that he is aware of it, I'm sure that his bank account/pension fund/stock portfolio reflects it.
 
2014-05-16 04:24:07 PM  

ox45tallboy: The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated.


No matter how many times you tell this lie, it won't be true.

If the Democrats wanted the ISP's to be regulated, they have all the power they need to do so right now.

It only takes three FCC votes to return ISP's to the same regulated status they had before Bush changed it.

You just keep on defending the Bush position though, oh pathetic Obama shill.
 
2014-05-16 04:31:33 PM  

BullBearMS: ox45tallboy: The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated.

No matter how many times you tell this lie, it won't be true.

If the Democrats wanted the ISP's to be regulated, they have all the power they need to do so right now.

It only takes three FCC votes to return ISP's to the same regulated status they had before Bush changed it.

You just keep on defending the Bush position though, oh pathetic Obama shill.


You really are deluded aren't you.  You do realize that Bush appointed the person who enacted the currently expiring net neutrality regulations in 2004 right?  You really are a partisan hack.  You always have been since I've joined this forum.
 
2014-05-16 04:35:16 PM  

ox45tallboy: UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I'll spray just as much blame on Democrats as Republicans when warranted, but this is not a partisan issue, so don't make it one. It's an issue of honesty. I'll shiat-can any corrupt public servant, and I don't care what party they belong to. But don't act like the Democrats invented flim-flammery. They CO-invented it.

Actually, this is definitely a partisan issue. Google your favorite leader from either party with the words "net neutrality" and you can easily see how far apart the party line is on either issue. The Democrats are debating about how much the ISP's should be regulated. The Republicans want no regulation at all. This is why the Republican commissioners voted against advancing the proposal yesterday - they do not believe the FCC should be able to regulate the ISP's.

These are the best Republicans Obama could find. People whose believe their job is to say that they shouldn't do their job. At least the Democratic commissioners are trying to do something.


I was talking about the SEC being a non-partisan issue, not the FCC. I should have been clearer. My bad.

ox45tallboy: Once again, what action has he taken that indicates he is in the pocket of the telco's?


Pretty much every single thing he did before becoming head of the FCC. He never should have been within sniffing distance of that job. He's not un-qualified, he's dis-qualified. He's the proverbial fox in the hen-house. And he's in charge of it!

/to quote Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings", he's the 'Balrog in the woodpile'

CJHardin: I assure you that he is aware of it, I'm sure that his bank account/pension fund/stock portfolio reflects it.


Heh, yeah I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, whether he deserves it or not. I must be close to the truth, because I'm being attacked on both sides (not by you). :)
 
2014-05-16 04:37:09 PM  

UNAUTHORIZED FINGER: I must be close to the truth, because I'm being attacked on both sides


Substitute "questioned" for "attacked". Better choice of words. No one's attacking anyone here. I love you all.
 
Displayed 50 of 886 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report