The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet

I believe both major parties reach the same conclusion, it's just that the Democrats do some dramatic act of high-minded rhetoric, then cry uncle and are forced to give in, shaking their fist at the sky. It's all for show.

The game is rigged. US politics is the dramatic art of competing narratives to get there.

> It doesn't seem like Obama is willing to actually fight for what he said he wants by leaning on those three of five. His record certainly indicates that he won't.

How exactly is he supposed to "lean on" those 3 commissioners? It's not clear to me that he can unilaterally fire any of them, which means removing them would likely involve congress, which is basically asking the impossible these days.

> Wheeler says "I am an independent agency" when there are several other people involved in the decision making. Implies total power, or at least distended ego.

FCC doesn't act at the direction of the president, and that the commissioners make decisions independently, hence the term "independent agency." And this is by design, to prevent political pressure from the executive affecting rule making by a regulatory body.

Edit: There may be one thing he can do - make another commissioner the chairperson. Never been done, but probably legal.

> I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger.

I agree that the naming leaves something to be desired, but think it should have been the other way around. Rather than the status quo being "net neutrality," I wish the proposed changes had been labeled something like "Increased Internet Provider Penalties and Fees."

Then it would be more clear that people want to change from what we have now to something that allows providers to penalize and charge people.

Something like "Internet Freedom" would be vaguer, more deceptive, and easy to game. People against "Net Neutrality" (namely people who stand to profit), are at this second campaigning for freedom from regulation on the internet. They can claim (legitimately) that freedom for ISPs to behave as they please without government intervention is "Internet Freedom." They probably already are.

edit: The fight for net neutrality is a fight for specific government regulation of internet providers to prevent them from discriminating between people. It is not a fight for internet freedom.

A big problem is that a lot of people have been drawing parallels between "net neutrality" and the fcc's old "fairness doctrine". The fairness doctrine turned out to be a way to stifle undesired speech on the air, and a lot of people, especially conservatives, remember that and rightfully fear that sort of behavior.

However, net neutrality is such an entirely different beast, the comparison is in no way apt. But the fear is still there, and when Obama is leading the charge it's easy for conservatives to view such things work a skeptical eye.

No no no no no. You're a pessimist.

I mean yes, Obama is a jerk for waiting until this moment to declare these intentions.

But I don't ever, ever want Comcast or other monopoly being able to bundle data providers as an anti-competitive practice and charge me extra for access to them. "Comcast Search for free, access to Google or DuckDuckGo comes with our Premier package! Or get them for free for 6 months when you buy Triple Play."

I pay for bandwidth only, and where they become public utilities, they have to offer competitive access to the last mile. Just like phone companies.

Remember dial-up ISPs? People ran them out of their homes because phone companies weren't allowed to regulate what you used the lines for. They were the bricks that built the Internet.

Right now my access to data is locked behind a permissive firewall, where Comcast has only tightened the screws on Netflix so far, but who knows what else is next.

Edit: I meant to comment on Wheeler's misguided need to please everyone. The government is supposed to look out for the interests of its citizens, not semi-monopolistic corporations. I don't understand this need to find a middle ground.

I mean, I get that "why" is likely big piles of cash, I'm speaking more altruistically. Silly me.

You overestimate the incentive of Comcast et al to improve what they have in place now. They have essentially a monopoly in most of their markets over what is a utility service.

The priority at this moment has to be prserving the de facto status quo of net neutrality. Allowing Comcast to use their monopoly position to extract rents from their competitors like Netflix is not a precedent we can let stand. If we go down that road, the Internet will quickly become a very different place.

Shame on all of our elected representatives, and shame on the rest of us too for largely ignoring and refusing to involve ourselves in politics.

You think this is unusual? This is par for the course in dc. There's practically a revolving door between industry and government these days.

wondering about this very thing recently; does Obama have the capacity to fire him? I've never really gotten what 'independent' means in this sort of situation

Most likely Wheeler's retirement as a highly paid consultant with no responsibilities at one or many of these ISPs.

Because he says things like this:

> “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.”

No, no he doesn't need to "split the baby". He's refusing to listen to everyone else and is giving preferential ear to the cable companies. If he gives them anything, they will take it all and destroy the Internet as we know it.

When people switch jobs easily between what are supposed to be opposing sides, it is easy to suspect that regulatory capture is taking (or has taken) place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

>I don't know anyone, anywhere, who still goes to bat for their former position in priority over their current position.

Then your experience of government regulators may be limited.

edit: It may be more accurate to say that he's going to bat for his future position over his present position.

That's a huge leap to make. Is everyone that doesn't agree with you corrupt. Am I corrupt?

It's interesting the FCC chairman is pretty much straight out saying he's not going to do what Obama wanted.