FCC responds to Obama's net neutrality statement: "I am an independent agency"

[Himanshu Arora]

Just a day after U.S. President Barack Obama publicly came out in support of net neutrality, asking the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify Internet service as a utility, its chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated he'll likely move in a different direction, according to a Washington Post report.

During a meeting with executives of major Internet companies including Google, Yahoo, and Etsy, Wheeler said he preferred a more "nuanced" solution than that laid out by the President, adding that his approach would not only include some of Obama's proposals but would also address the concerns of ISPs such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and more.

“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business”, said a visibly frustrated Wheeler. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby”. He also repeatedly reminded executives in his meeting that the FCC is not directly answerable to the Obama administration. "I am an independent agency", he said multiple times.

As per the report, the Obama administration is of the view that Wheeler’s efforts to strike a compromise between open-Internet advocates and telecom firms would result in rules that were murky and ineffective. Besides, it also felt that Obama's public stance on the issue could prove to be a political masterstroke, galvanizing not only allies in Congress but also young and tech-savvy progressives, a key part of the Democratic base.

On the other hand, Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industry who was appointed to lead the FCC by Obama last year, thinks that the President's approach is "too simplistic". He is concerned that ill-considered regulations could stifle innovation and slow the growth of the country’s broadband infrastructure, and worries that the White House is being naive about the ripple effects of changing how a major piece of national infrastructure is governed.

Wheeler's alleged response to Obama's statement indicates that a major policy battle may be in the offing over the net neutrality issue. This is particularly interesting given the fact that the two have long been allies -- Wheeler campaigned for the President during his election campaign, and was selected to his transition team in 2009.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58798-fcc-responds-obama-net-neutrality-statement-independent-agency.html

 

[davislane1]

"This is particularly interesting given the fact that the two have long been allies -- Wheeler campaigned for the President during his election campaign, and was selected to his transition team in 2009."

It isn't interesting that a man might put his responsibilities above his personal allegiances. What's interesting is when people in positions of power abuse those positions to make their friends look good. Frankly, it's a bit refreshing that a regulatory chairman has come out and said "That's a nice agenda, Mr. President, but I'm going to try and perform my job properly."

 

[Guest]

Spoken like a true cable company lobbyist!

 

[RustyTech]

Frankly, it's a bit refreshing that a regulatory chairman has come out and said "That's a nice agenda, Mr. President, but I'm going to try and perform my job properly[. and I need to "also address the concerns of ISPs such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and more."]"

there we go, I fixed that for you davislane1 - just wanted to make sure we quote what Wheeler really meant.

 

[Burty117]

I disagree with this:

"thinks that the President's approach is "too simplistic"."

I'm sorry but if the rules are that simple aka, ISP's can't throttle data based on what the content is and everything has to be treated equally. Then there is no agruements, no petty money grabs from ISP's where your bill has an "overcharge" on it because they noticed you went to Netflix and they charged you extra to have a faster connection to Netflix.

I wonder how much money Mr Wheeler is being given by the ISP's to try and make something like that legal...

P.S. I am all for net neutrality. I'm sat here, at home, I have a Mail-Server, FTP and most my content is streamed or bought through legal means like iTunes etc... I like having custom Left4Dead servers and being able to host teamspeak for my gaming sessions with friends. It would SUCK if I had to pay more to my ISP just so my friends could connect to my teamspeak server and actually have a reliable connection.

 

[yRaz]

but would also address the concerns of ISPs such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, and more.

independant my ***, nothing the ISP's want to do favor the consumer. Bandwidth caps, censorship, tiered access plans, throttling all of it is garbage. I'd love for someone to make the case that comcast, time warner, or AT&T have my best interests at heart. Comcast and AT&T have been bending me over backwards for over a decade and since they are the only real game in town I don't have a choice but to pay up. I'm sure that's exactly how they want it too.

 

[Kevin82485]

Talk about a conflict of interest, this guy is a former cable company lobbyist. I don't see this benefiting consumers considering who he is.

 

[davislane1]

there we go, I fixed that for you davislane1 - just wanted to make sure we quote what Wheeler really meant.

Broke is more like it. You think everybody involved with NN isn't on a corporate money list? As stated in the previous thread, just like the ACA, all of you pro-NN folks think the regulation will work according to the legislation's title, as if the impact of all other industry regulation exists in a wholly separate universe. Every other regulation meant to "protect the consumer" by providing some form of uniformity has without fail resulted in more expensive products, poorer service, and, in the companies themselves, wage reduction and outsourcing (compounding the problems one and two). Yet, net neutrality is supposed to be different. Because promises of equality.

It would be humorous if it didn't have so many implications.

 

[wiyosaya]

there we go, I fixed that for you davislane1 - just wanted to make sure we quote what Wheeler really meant.

Broke is more like it. You think everybody involved with NN isn't on a corporate money list? As stated in the previous thread, just like the ACA, all of you pro-NN folks think the regulation will work according to the legislation's title, as if the impact of all other industry regulation exists in a wholly separate universe. Every other regulation meant to "protect the consumer" by providing some form of uniformity has without fail resulted in more expensive products, poorer service, and, in the companies themselves, wage reduction and outsourcing (compounding the problems one and two). Yet, net neutrality is supposed to be different. Because promises of equality.

It would be humorous if it didn't have so many implications.

And the other way, BB being in control that is, my bet is that they will eventually shoot themselves in the foot. I'll be happy when that day comes, because the direction that BB is headed in is not in the least consumer friendly, and as I see it, giving BB the reigns is like leaving the chicken coop door open for the wolves. Even with all this supposed hurtful regulation in the past, AT&T in particular, has been like the energizer bunny. They found all the loopholes they could and have managed to stay in business and thrive...

 

[Guest]

Let the market decide. Promote competition among ISPs. Make it easier for new providers to move into areas. Someone is always willing to sell for less. There need to be less regulations for this to sort itself out.

 

[madboyv1]

He is concerned that ill-considered regulations could stifle innovation and slow the growth of the country’s broadband infrastructure,

Not sure if that's paraphrasing Wheeler or not but I digress. Verizon stopped/severely slowed its Fiber rollout years ago. Comcast is spinning it wheels like it always does. I cannot comment about Time Warner as I am not in their service area. These three companies amount to a majority of high-speed broadband accounts in the US, and they are doing what For-Profit companies strive to do best: get the most revenue while trying to minimize cost. Innovation and growth always seems to be on the backburner of their agenda, and making sure what lets them do what they do is secured via lobbying.

They don't need "the threat of Net Neutrality" to slow down any of that, they're perfectly happy where they're at in terms of infrastructure costs. From my flawed point of view Net Neutrality would create artificial competition as the playing ground would be wrought even, and so to keep up with each other they would have to improve QoS or lower price, or both (innovate and grow). That costs time and money that Services Providers do not want to pay for, or at least that what it seems. On the Flip side, with Internet classified strictly as a utility, it would also potentially make it more difficult for start-up ISPs to get off the ground, buffering the much larger ISPs from local competition which brings us back to oligarchy problem and lack of choices.

Net Neutrality is a good thing, a great thing. I will champion it. But I think applying it as a black and white concept in the current commercial-political landscape just won't work because the powers that be (lobbyist mostly) will make sure it won't happen. The President supporting it openly is great but it's effectively an empty promise. There's way too much entangled in this mess for such a simple and elegant answer solve everything, though the four steps The President outlined really are simple common sense, but only handles the access protection half of the overall problem, which is what most people seem to only care about.

Now time for me to be reamed by people who will pick my post apart. XD

 

[captaincranky]

Anytime I read the terms, "former lobbyist", I'm pretty sure there's little to no good in said, "former lobbyist's", policy for me.

This, quite a bit more than little outburst, is no more than Mr. Wheeler, "spraying to mark his territory", while reassuring the current lobbyists, he's hanging on every word they say.

After all, the Obama administration is fast approaching, "lame duck" status, and I'm sure Wheeler isn't going to retire after it ends, just collect his pension, while he's moving on to greener pastures..

Even if there's no government perks involved, I'm sure his knowledge gained as FCC chairman will guarantee him a six figure salary in the private sector. It seems to me, you have to know the system, to be able to game the system.

Once upon a time, telephone wasn't a utility either. Maybe it is time to declare the internet as such.

 

[Littleczr]

It is not too simplistic, this is total BS, when you find out where to complain about this Tom Wheeler guy let me know.

 

[captaincranky]

It is not too simplistic, this is total BS, when you find out where to complain about this Tom Wheeler guy let me know.

Sadly, you would have to be a lobbyist for a huge telecom to have your opinion heard.

This is what's known as a conundrum, since a Telecom wouldn't pay you to say anything bad about Wheeler or his stance, even if hell froze over.

So, basically this is one of those, "good luck with that", paradigms.

 

[cmbjive]

Spoken like a true cable company lobbyist!

Except...Obama hired him.

 

[captaincranky]

Except...Obama hired him.

Oh stop. You're not still hung up in the election hype, are you?

You know, "the great society" wherein, "all men are created equal", there's no such thing as, "owing political favors"......., "and the meek shall inherit the earth". Oh wait, that's from the Bible. But then again, there's another bunch of BS, "advertising for the soul", as it were.

 

[Jim$ter]

Less regulation got us in this mess. These companies don't do what's best for the people they do what's bests for the company. For us to get any benefit they need regulated. I think history proves my case. Sure if your a company you don't like it but when profit is #1 over yor employees, customer service, and innovation then you need help. So we regulate your *** to do what is right. We should all have fiber but now but we are stuck with this horrible broadband slow *** speeds and worst customer service ever. Now they want to make the Internet into more profit without doing 1 thing to help consumers. I saw throw this ******* out. He is clearly in the companies payroll.

 

[davislane1]

I think history proves my case.

Exactly. You think without having actually read the history. "The gov't stepping into force what is right because companies only care about money" is the same argument that was used by the Communists, the Socialists, and the Fascists in Europe and Asia in modern history that lead to their violent, impoverished pre-90s conditions. One needs only look at Argentina now to see how utterly fantastical this type of thinking is. It's like some type of perverse Robin Hood politic, take from the greedy and give to the incompetent!

The USG, everywhere from the Oval Office down to the DMV has plummeted in both management approval and effectiveness over the past 50 years. Yet, while leftists complain that we can't maintain our infrastructure and schools, the right wingers complain about how the Fed and POTUS can't handle the economy, and while everyone complains about stagnating wages, taxes, and labor participation, you want us all to believe giving the same people who have so predictably and consistently failed more authority over the Internet is somehow going to be a net positive?

That's almost as great a leap of faith as expecting elected Republicans to grow a pair.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ].....The USG, everywhere from the Oval Office down to the DMV has plummeted in both management approval and effectiveness over the past 50 years. Yet, while leftists complain that we can't maintain our infrastructure and schools, the right wingers complain about how the Fed and POTUS can't handle the economy, and while everyone complains about stagnating wages, taxes, and labor participation, you want us all to believe giving the same people who have so predictably and consistently failed more authority over the Internet is somehow going to be a net positive?

Sorry, but yours is a very truncated and adversarial view of governmental control. Government intervention makes your food safer, makes it possible to deplane from a commercial airplane after a 3000 mile journey in one piece. I suppose I could go on. Have you gotten your MDR of inhaled asbestos today? There's something you should be hating on OSHA for their clumsy intervention by having it outlawed and removed.

For certain, "work expands to fill the time allotted", and this rings absolutely true in all of our bureaucracies .

However, a massive portion of America's woes have to be blamed on the American people. After all, why shouldn't generations of entitlement factions, who pay absolutely no taxes whatsoever, feel they should be able to jamb our school school systems full of their illegitimate progeny, then have them get a free ride to college on top of all of that. Now I ask you, why shouldn't the children of parents who have never paid one penny in taxes, not be entitled to , "parity in education", in the public school system, which after all, runs on taxes?

Nobody is willing to talk, (and surely no politician), about the "azzaphant" in the room", (elephant-donkey hybrid), also known as "China's industrial revolution". After all they're supplying everyone with their toy smart phones for the NSA to tap. It's really become beneath the average American's dignity to get his or her hands dirty. Meanwhile, a river of currency flows across the Pacific, with none coming back. (AKA "trade deficit"). Then there's our increasingly prevalent drug problem, which results in billions more American dollars flowing toward Latin America and other points around the globe. The new trick is to send, "all these poor displaced children" to our Southern border. "These "poor things would be killed by (drug) gangs should we send them back". So what money doesn't flow out via cocaine purchases, the drug cartels milk out of us in social entitlements for their underage illegal aliens.

If the average American is completely incapable of admitting to his or her shortcomings, why in God's name would you expect someone trying to get themselves elected, to point those same shortcomings out to them?

That's almost as great a leap of faith as expecting elected Republicans to grow a pair.

The Republicans have trousers packed full of iron, at least when it comes to blocking Democratic initiatives. And I might add, vice-verso.

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

I think history proves my case.

The USG, everywhere from the Oval Office down to the DMV has plummeted in both management approval and effectiveness over the past 50 years. Yet, while leftists complain that we can't maintain our infrastructure and schools, the right wingers complain about how the Fed and POTUS can't handle the economy, and while everyone complains about stagnating wages, taxes, and labor participation, you want us all to believe giving the same people who have so predictably and consistently failed more authority over the Internet is somehow going to be a net positive?

That's almost as great a leap of faith as expecting elected Republicans to grow a pair.

Agreed. And given Obama's track record of prioritizing politics over any sort of improvement in anything he's touched, I can't believe now he's all of a sudden looking out for the people he's been using as pawns for votes for the last 6 years. Obama has 1 priority now... making himself look good so he can save his legacy and put the Dems in the best possible spot for the 2016 election. The fact that he has no authority over NN only proves this. He may as well hold another beer summit for all the good it will do.

 

[captaincranky]

Agreed. And given Obama's track record of prioritizing politics over any sort of improvement in anything he's touched, I can't believe now he's all of a sudden looking out for the people he's been using as pawns for votes for the last 6 years. Obama has 1 priority now... making himself look good so he can save his legacy and put the Dems in the best possible spot for the 2016 election. The fact that he has no authority over NN only proves this. He may as well hold another beer summit for all the good it will do.

I'm not exactly sure why anybody is, or has been, expecting anything other than a run of the mill politician from Barack Obama.

If you look back, you'll see Obama never finished is first term in the senate, before going all world domination and campaigning for president. That last job was unfinished, as will be his current job. I'd still take ten more terms of Obama, as compared to another 2 years of Wubba.

This issue of what is needed in the way o governmental oversight, and what its scope should be, are apples and oranges compared to the singular issue of net neutrality. I would ask that you exercise reasonable restraint in your attempts to lump them together.

 

[davislane1]

Sorry, but yours is a very truncated and adversarial view of governmental control. Government intervention makes your food safer, makes it possible to deplane from a commercial airplane after a 3000 mile journey in one piece. I suppose I could go on. Have you gotten your MDR of inhaled asbestos today? There's something you should be hating on OSHA for their clumsy intervention by having it outlawed and removed.

I had thought about giving token mention of capitalism's failings resultant from poor regulation to avoid this. Being a derivatives trader, I'll tell you that I am acutely aware of what happens every single day as a result of dated or absent regulation. Alas, I was lazy and have paid the price.

Even so, each of these points is irrelevant. There are no safety hazards involved with the Internet. If Comcast cuts corners to increase their margins, throttles clients, or any other manner of managerial shenanigans, nobody is going to develop lung cancer as a result. Nor will their computers spontaneously explode (tough to cram that much information into a machine when being throttled).

You also seem misinterpret my opposition to NN. Regulation in itself is not a bad thing in my eyes. It prevents exploitation of lesser citizens by those with superior connections, skills, and resources. Even so, this necessity does not make regulation automatically good in a given situation. In the case of net neutrality, the only detail that isn't completely vague is the idea of classifying the service as a basic utility. The implications and risks of this outweigh the alleged benefits. Moreover, the basis for rejecting the proposition is far more demonstrable than the alternative.

Net neutrality, as currently proposed, makes rhetorical sense. But it does not reasonably follow to a better Internet.

The Republicans have trousers packed full of iron, at least when it comes to blocking Democratic initiatives. And I might add, vice-verso.

Blocking an opposing party's legislation is about as iron-balled as slapping a physically belligerent woman. Sure, it makes headlines and it will probably get you tagged with a misdemeanor, but is it really that difficult to end an exchange you couldn't lose to begin with?

 

[captaincranky]

Even so, each of these points is irrelevant. There are no safety hazards involved with the Internet. If Comcast cuts corners to increase their margins, throttles clients, or any other manner of managerial shenanigans, nobody is going to develop lung cancer as a result. Nor will their computers spontaneously explode (tough to cram that much information into a machine when being throttled).

I'm reluctant to concede that the internet couldn't benefit from a bit of governmental oversight, even if it isn't physically dangerous. The FCC, does a lot of good managing the OTA broadcast industry. And really, just because someone thinks that taking their TV away from them would likely kill them, it won't.

You also seem misinterpret my opposition to NN. Regulation in itself is not a bad thing in my eyes. It prevents exploitation of lesser citizens by those with superior connections, skills, and resources. Even so, this necessity does not make regulation automatically good in a given situation. In the case of net neutrality, the only detail that isn't completely vague is the idea of classifying the service as a basic utility. The implications and risks of this outweigh the alleged benefits. Moreover, the basis for rejecting the proposition is far more demonstrable than the alternative.

I live in a city where Comcast already has the largest building. Add to that they are planning a larger one, along with a half mile underground concourse to 30st Station. Comcast would much benefit from government regulation. And especially if they had to report to authorities while maintaining the rights of their customers incumbent on that of a utility

Net neutrality, as currently proposed, makes rhetorical sense. But it does not reasonably follow to a better Internet.

I guess we'd have to find out. Allowing the telecoms to regulate traffic according to their financial benefit doesn't now, and can only get worse without some sort of intervention.

Blocking an opposing party's legislation is about as iron-balled as slapping a physically belligerent woman. Sure, it makes headlines and it will probably get you tagged with a misdemeanor, but is it really that difficult to end an exchange you couldn't lose to begin with?

I can tell you haven't experienced the very masculine, belligerent, "women" that I have.

 

[Hexic]

This thread hurts.. it just hurts.

 

[captaincranky]

This thread hurts.. it just hurts.

Good.