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.
A more common point that I see is that we didn't have net neutrality until 2015. Not only was the net effectively neutral (most of the time) prior to that, the dial-up internet of the dotcom era was regulated similarly, and even had leasing requirements that meant multiple options and some real semblance of competition. The change from that regime happened with cable and DSL, which were less regulated, but still neutral, until the actions from ISPs that prompted the 2015 rules out of necessity.
So, the actual timeline was: Neutral internet->Deregulated broadband->Dickish ISP behavior->Fixing dickish ISP behavior by re-regulating->Re-deregulating broadband.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
While I would actually agree with you, this would probably just drive these companies out of the US. With nothing accomplished aside of jobs in the US being lost.
The main difference is that I cannot choose to use an ISP in, say, Norway, where there are rather cheap and fast internet connections available. On the other hand, it's trivial for Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to shut down their US business and move to any country offering them to do business as they please because on the internet it simply does not matter where your server is located.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And the fact that he was banned from a shopping mall for macking on little girls. And his autograph on little girls' high school yearbook.
If you're in your thirties and signing a high school girl's yearbook, you better be her teacher and not some pervy lawyer who's into lollies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
While that has been true to some extent, it has never been so ridiculous as it has been now. Basically from the moment Obama got elected, the republican party went nuts. The first sign of problems was the Tea Party and now we have a Trump presidency. Even ignoring Trump, the republican primaries had quite a few crazies overshadowing reasonable candidates.
George W. Bush had one huge screw up and very likely corruption at the heart of why (Iraq) and I would argue a bit weak and mostly had shots called by others in his administration, but the party in general was a bit more reasonable. McCain was a very good candidate and I wouldn't have minded the least if he won. Romney was out of touch and a weak candidate, but even then I wouldn't have been *too* concerned.
I don't know if it was racism reaction to a not quite fully white president or an inevitable reaction to the economy collapsing or some combination of both, but something started stirring in the republican party in 2009 that was just nasty. Combine that with a weak candidate that also triggers the frothing anti-clinton and anti-woman factions, while also pissing off democrats by doing unfair things to Sanders and we got Trump.
It is impossible to ignore that racism played a significant role in whatever happened to the GOP. Full disclosure. I voted for McCain in 2008. A lot of Republicans did, and had nothing to do with Obama being black.
But right after the election, I could not believe my eyes, my ears, to see so much nasty racism coming out the closets all of the sudden. That was my turning point when I started to move away from the GOP.
The reality is this, for a good segment of the population, say 20%, it is racial resentment (I don't know about fucking what, though.) It is a resentment that goes like this: "I have nothing because some blacks and homosexual illegal mexican muslims from China are living in welfare." Do not laugh at it. You know there is a lot of people that think like that.
They bitch about not having jobs, but don't move to where the jobs are. As Mike Rove from "Dirty Jobs" put it, they want the perfect job right in their towns (when the solution is to be like a Mexican and move to where the jobs are, abandoning everything if they must.) And they cannot tolerate the notion that somewhere a poor household where both parents are working multiple part-time jobs might need some help to stay afloat.
THAT'S WELFARE. IT BELONGS TO ME.
So, in essence, this incredibly virulent minority voted in 2016 hoping for what it is, in essence, a Herrenvolk Welfare State. Sure, some minorities jumped into this idiotic choo choo train (or some people who aren't racists looked the other way because they hated HRC's guts.) But it doesn't change the fact that what these people want, and what Trump has implicitly promised, is that: a Herrenvolk Welfare State.
They ain't gonna get that shit, and in fact, they will be hurt the most with these new policies. I for one will not shed a tear. Let people reap what they sow.