Slashdot Mirror
Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A core Republican talking point during the net neutrality battle was that, in 2015, President Obama led a government takeover of the internet, and Obama illegally bullied the independent Federal Communications Commission into adopting the rules. In this version of the story, Ajit Pai's rollback of those rules Thursday is a return to the good old days, before the FCC was forced to adopt rules it never wanted in the first place. But internal FCC documents obtained by Motherboard using a Freedom of Information Act request show that the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General -- acting on orders from Congressional Republicans -- investigated the claim that Obama interfered with the FCC's net neutrality process and found it was nonsense. This Republican narrative of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet, then, was wholly refuted by an independent investigation and its findings were not made public prior to Thursday's vote.
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Motherboard obtained a summary of the Inspector General's report, which has not been released publicly and is marked "Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive Information." After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: "We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process." [...] Since 2014, Republicans have pointed to net neutrality as an idea primarily promoted by President Obama, and have made it another in a long line of regulations and laws that they have sought to repeal now that Donald Trump is president. Prior to this false narrative, though, net neutrality was a bipartisan issue; the first net neutrality rules were put in place under President George W. Bush, and many Republicans worked on the 2015 rules that were just dismantled. What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn't true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet.
Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Motherboard obtained a summary of the Inspector General's report, which has not been released publicly and is marked "Official Use Only, Law Enforcement Sensitive Information." After reviewing more than 600,000 emails, the independent office found that there was no collusion between the White House and the FCC: "We found no evidence of secret deals, promises, or threats from anyone outside the Commission, nor any evidence of any other improper use of power to influence the FCC decision-making process." [...] Since 2014, Republicans have pointed to net neutrality as an idea primarily promoted by President Obama, and have made it another in a long line of regulations and laws that they have sought to repeal now that Donald Trump is president. Prior to this false narrative, though, net neutrality was a bipartisan issue; the first net neutrality rules were put in place under President George W. Bush, and many Republicans worked on the 2015 rules that were just dismantled. What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn't true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet.
That's like saying an inspector general looked at the official communications between Nixon and his watergate team and determined that the Watergate team just acted on their own.
A politically motivated move, driven by the political party and hailed by the President at the time by his self-appointed leader of the FCC along with a full on political campaign was NOT politically motivated?! That's bullshit on its face.
But then I'm sure this same inspector general will find the same about repealing it, right?
In 298 days, President Trump has made 1,628 false and misleading claims
Except it wasn't a lie. There was nothing in the bill to prevent the insurance companies from keeping the old plans or just adding new features, and there was nothing in the bill to do anything with doctors at all. He did not lie, its only when you expand the context to absurdity that you can think of it as a lie.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Moore was not convicted of anything
The corporations that run these major companies that are busy buying out the government are run largely by Democrats. There are no good guys
please correct
Go look at how the two parties actually vote in different questions.
The parties aren't the same and one of them is consistently trying to screw over the people.
(I'm not telling you which one, go and see how they vote instead of looking at what they say.)
I would like to agree, but watching the senate race in Alabama. The question to me becomes how bad does a person have to be to cause people to vote against their aligned party? While Doug Jones won, he won by less then 1% against a convicted pedophile? With church ministers standing up for this lowlife. How many traditional values is the population willing to give up, just for their party to win?
Now this will happen in Democratic states too, if a popular politician gets in trouble doing something, there is a huge support network trying to protect him, vilify the accusers and the messengers.
We as a nation can deal with people in power with positions that we don't agree with, however we have lost the feeling that these people are working for their constituents and their prosperity. They are in it for their own personal Ego trip Like President Trump, or for the Party Line like many of the Democratic and GOP Congressmen. This is the real tragedy of our nation. We have moved from debating policy to likability of the person, to general party alliance. So now the people in charge are just playing games with our nation to keep their power, by gerrymandering to keep their power, entertaining media show them that they are indeed pure conservative or pure liberal enough for their base, taking advantage of strongly held minority views to win elections...
I agree with the overall point you are making. Politics and governing should be more than a team sport. But I would also point out that the two parties are not equal here. The Democrats drummed out Al Franken while the Republicans rallied around and defended Moore. Heck, some of them said they believed Moore's accusers, but would vote for him anyway.
I am registered Independent. But from where I sit the Republicans seem much more willing to overlook wrongdoing to gain or maintain power. Donald Trump could never get the Democratic nomination and if he did, the Democrats would not be so negligent in their responsibilities to hold him accountable. The Democrats have their problems and faults, no doubt. But I think the Trump era has really put on full display the fact that the Republicans really only care about power. Literally everything else is secondary.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Oh yes, let's - you first. Which post is modded insightful?
The one that hews more closely to objective reality, frankly.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Really? Are you not in the US? Obama said "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."
It was clearly a lie. The statement implies that 100% of people could keep their health care plans, and in fact it was only 98%+ of people. Comparing the scope of Obama's "lie" with the daily rants from the Twit-in-chief is an exercise best left to those with lower blood pressure than I.
Also:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
https://www.gop.com/the-lie-us...
So it still leaves unexplained the FCC's decision to make such a sudden break with longstanding, bipartisan, and legal consensus that the Internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
No, it doesn't. First, there was no longstanding consensus that the internet shouldn't be regulated like this.
But, if you've been following this from the time before the FCC decision, you'll see that there is no mystery here at all. Here's the synopsis for you, but I encourage you to actually research the history of all of this.
1) ISPs began to abuse their position by unfairly interfering with internet traffic.
2) The FCC stepped in to try to stop it.
3) ISPs took it to court.
4) The court said the FCC didn't have the authority to stop the abuse because ISPs weren't categorized as common carriers by the FCC.
5) The FCC changed how they categorized ISPs so that they could put a stop to future abuse.
There's zero mystery here.
While the ACA did indeed mandate features that were beyond some bare-bones plans that were already in existence, those plans were grandfathered in for people who already had them. The reason people didn't get to keep (some of) them was that the insurance companies stopped offering them. Obama made a promise that was beyond his power to keep, but he didn't lie.