Net Neutrality

The FCC's Big Internet Power Grab Comes Directly From the White House

Tom Wheeler's Title II net neutrality push is the result of an "unusual, secretive" push from the administration.

|

Whitehouse.gov

Why did Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler decide to embrace the idea of regulating the Internet like a utility?

He says it's because he saw that the wireless industry had thrived under similar regulation. But as a report in today's Wall Street Journal makes abundantly clear, it was really a response to pressure from the White House, which effectively ran a shadow FCC. 

Activists had pressured Wheeler throughout last year to pursue Title II reclassification of broadband service, which would make its regulatory treatment more like a utility, but Wheeler resisted.

Then in November, President Obama unexpectedly weighed in, siding firmly with the activists who wanted reclassification in a video calling for the FCC to adopt the "strongest possible rules" to protect net neutrality.

The FCC chief swiftly changed his views. As the Journal reports… 

The president's words swept aside more than a decade of light-touch regulation of the Internet and months of work by Mr. Wheeler toward a compromise….

The prod from Mr. Obama came after an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House, led by two aides who built a case for the principle known as "net neutrality" through dozens of meetings with online activists, Web startups and traditional telecommunications companies.

Acting like a parallel version of the FCC itself, R. David Edelman and Tom Power listened as Etsy Inc., Kickstarter Inc., Yahoo Inc. 's Tumblr and other companies insisted that utility-like rules were needed to help small companies and entrepreneurs compete online, people involved in the process say.

As the folks at TechFreedom point out, Wheeler has now reversed himself on a number of issues related to net neutrality in order to align with the preferred position of the White House. 

Technically, the FCC is an independent agency charged with making its own decisions on such matters. But the Journal's report, and Wheeler's multiple reversals, suggest that in practice, it is instead acting as a direct extension of the White House, proposing policy changes that the agency's chairman would not have supported without unusual and aggressive prodding from the administration. 

NEXT: Nick Gillespie Talking Free Minds, Free Markets, Milton Friedman, and More: The "Outstanding Ohioans" Podcast!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “President Obama unexpectedly weighed in, siding firmly with the activists 2016 DNC campaign donors

    FTFY

    “Technically, the FCC is an independent agency”

    lol, Technically we have ‘limited government’

    1. Technically independent is the very best kind of independent.

      The US government is more inbred than the Hubsburg Dynasty.

        1. And worse results.

  2. “That’s a nice job you’ve got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

  3. It’s completely unsurprising that Obama would be pushing Net Neutrality. He’s been reduced at this point, because he is such a fucking loser failure, to appealing to very loud fringe interests like SJWs/rape obsessives and Net Neutrality mongoloids. He knows they are single issue retards and he can court them by making noises about their pet issues, and maybe throwing them a bone here or there.

    1. This is how I envisioned those meetings going:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUNrHWZaVs

    2. You think we could trick him into appealing to our fringe interest?

      1. We’re not loud and obnoxious enough. Well, you are. But not the rest of us.

        1. We could all read SugarFree’s stories at them, aloud and simultaneously. They would surely give us something to stop, yes?

          1. Cthulu would be displeased if we used NutraSweet’s powers for such trivial base needs.

            1. “SugarFree sleeps in an oxygen tent; he says it gives him sexual powers!”

              “That’s a half-truth!”

        2. We need to disguise libertarianism as something else. Like, I dunno, a group of hippie-warriors.

  4. No way this thing just gets voted on by FCC panel and Congress does nothing. I smell an unscheduled veto war later this year. Oh goody.

    1. There’s a reason TEAM RED is also known as the Stupid Party.

  5. If the government had been regulating the internet from the start, we’d be lucky to be connecting with 300 baud modems.

    1. Free Minitel for everybody!

  6. He says it’s because he saw that the wireless industry had thrived under similar regulation.

    I’ll say it again from the NN thread yesterday:

    It’s truly remarkable that NN mongoloids continue to pound away at this. The rate of penetration, adoption and innovation re the Internet and the connected economy is staggering. Has any other technology *ever* performed the way this has for the past 20 years? The wheel? Fire? Porn?

    Somehow, this all happened without the guiding fist of the FCC. How is that possible?

    1. You cannot even imagine a thriving internet, but it could happen. Just add some bureaucracy and what it take off.

    2. “You didn’t build that.”

    3. They are way too abjectly stupid to understand any of that. Their thought process does not extend beyond “I hate Comcast and the government will fuck them!!!” That the government will fuck them too is beyond their pathetic capacity to grasp.

      1. Comcast wont get fucked. All of the tiny regional ISPs who compete with Comcast will get fucked.

        Comcast / TWTC are the big winners of net neutrality. Seconded by corporate Tier 1 providers.

    4. The limitations of quality of service in internet service can be directly attributed to government granted monopolies.

      1. Oh, no question.

        Title II is also known as the Commonn Carrier rule. Common Carrier is what AT&T used for decades to fuck consumers on any kind of choice of any kind, when it came to telecom. They had to be sued to let things like a plastic cup to go over the mouthpiece, to act as a crude mute device. Seriously, I shit you not.

        It’s why nothing changed with telecom for 40 years.

        And now we’re going to get the same with the Internet. All the dominant players will be cozy as fuck with the regulators amd helping them write tothe rules to screw upstarts. I hope that every company that lobbied for this is completely fucked by the completely foreseeable consequences that anyone who is a crony fuck is able to see coming.

        1. Government is the mother of stagnation.

          1. The reason SETI isn’t finding space-faring aliens that they all invented government and stagnated until extinction too.

        2. The Net Neutrality advocates have their blinders set to full. It’s like AT&T never existed to them.

          The only solution to improving service is more competition. The only thing that should be under discussion is how to encourage more startups in the provider business and the ending of municipal franchise agreements.

          1. No, no, NO! Don’t say “encourage startups,” because that means more government. Say “remove government barriers” since the only thing that reduces competition is government.

            1. While the two mean the same thing to me, I can see where someone else would confuse them.

              1. “Encourage startups” means “working with government,” which means “companies that don’t kiss ass get left behind.”

        3. who isn’t a crony fuck

        4. The Common Carrier rule was also why we had acoustic modems ? we couldn’t hook up foreign equipment to our telephone lines.

          Good grief, if the ISPs could apply that rule to their networks, could they require the use of certain licensed computers, printers, phones, etc.? Ban the use of non-ISP network hardware? Maybe an ISP that’s also a mobile phone company could require you to use one of their phones on their ISP!

          1. The Common Carrier rule was also why we had acoustic modems ? we couldn’t hook up foreign equipment to our telephone lines.

            And Carterphone had to sue AT&T to get onto the network to bgin with. AT&T threatened to disconnect circuits that their device was connected to.

            I’m sure nothing like that will happen on the Internet. I’m positive that no one will abuse the rules to hamstring a competitor. That never happens.

        5. “All the dominant players will be cozy as fuck with the regulators amd helping them write tothe rules to screw upstarts”

          Ditto for the tobacco industry.

          That’s why I invest in big tobacco.

          If you can’t fight cronyism, you might as well profit from it.

    5. ‘Net neutrality’ itself is such a bullshit propaganda term to begin with.

    6. You see, capitalists, in their never ending search for profits, can go too far in their innovation. It’s the job of wise bureaucrats to slow them down and stop bad innovations from coming to market.

      Additionally, there would be no innovations at all if not for government funded research and government regulations.

      So without government there would be both too much innovation and no innovation at all.

      But that’s not contradictory, as long as you don’t think about it.

      1. Capitalists’ search for profits hit the jackpot with relatively small investments in Congressional campaign donations.

      2. THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVE MONGOLOIDS ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

    7. The usual tripe progs trot out on this subject is:

      “DARPA invented ARPANET! No government no internet!”

      That is all.

      1. No defense spending, no internet. Or GPS.

        But that’s not the right kind of government spending for the progs.

        1. All highly debatable. Absent government you would have the same inventors at the same universities; Internet mightve taken longer to develop and ended up more distributed.

      2. DARPA is short for Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The government is really good at inventing technologies for war.

    8. Somehow, this all happened without the guiding fist of the FCC.

      And they want to kill it.

      Goddammit! I know those eggs are in here!
      *sticks both hands into dead goose*

    9. Well Porn is a big reason the internet blew up…

  7. led by two aides who built a case for the principle known as “net neutrality” through dozens of meetings with online activists,

    Two 22 yr olds who don’t remember what it was like five years ago before high-speed streaming on-demand video on every device in the home.

    Oh yeah, uhh COMCAST! Yay!

    1. Or back when Common Carrier rules applied? acoustic modems here we come!

  8. I’ll admit that I have no real experience dealing with US federal regulatory agencies, but the thing I find most alarming about this whole thing is that this one guy who was elected by nobody can just get up one day and “decide” to enact all these sweeping rules and changes with potentially far-reaching effects. How the hell does this not require some act of Congress? I mean, I’m assuming the reason is that Congress at some point delegated the power to make such changes to the FCC, but why? And why are so many people think it’s just dandy to have bureaucrats just deciding of their own initiative that they get to write the rules for the Internet?

    1. Why? Because then Congress can throw up their hands and say “We didn’t do it! Reelect us! It wasn’t our fault!”

    2. SOCIAL CONTRACT.

      Now, sit down and shut up.

      1. I just looked at my social contract. It looks like the government is in major breach. I’m going to send them a termination notice.

        1. They will demand arbitration…the SWAT team will be over to present the government’s “argument” shortly…

        2. Unfortunately, to avoid the lawsuit, you’ll have to buy them out of their contract. It’s up to how many trillion dollars right now?

          1. Shit, I’ll pay them in the same vapor they use. Here you go, a promissory note for Eleventy Billion Dollars.

    3. One argument that I received when I asked the exact same question as you was, that the poor Congress-critters don’t have the background and experience to understand the deep, byzantine technical issues that these agencies deal with.

      Fine, sez I. Turn the agencies into “advisory” bodies that produce regulatory packages which are then forwarded to the Congress to vote, thumbs up or thumbs down on.

      The agency should have NO power to enact laws and penalties not directly passed by representatives.

      1. Government does technical so well.

      2. Separation of powers is so quaint. We have progressed past that.

      3. Re: understanding technical issues

        From wiki, about Chairman Wheeler:
        From 1969-1976, Wheeler led the trade group Grocery Manufacturers of America. He then went on to work at the National Cable & Telecommunications Association from 1976 to 1984, becoming president of the trade group in 1979. For a year until its closure, Wheeler was president of NABU Network, before spending a number of years creating or running several different technology startups. In 1992 he became the CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, a post he held until 2004. From 2005 Wheeler was a technology entrepreneur and executive at Core Capital Partners.

        So, not an engineer, a businessman/lobbyist. His most important qualification?

        During Barack Obama’s presidential campaign Wheeler spent six weeks in Iowa aiding his campaign efforts and went on to raise over US$500,000 for Obama’s campaigns.

  9. Technically, the FCC is an independent agency charged with making its own decisions on such matters. But the Journal’s report, and Wheeler’s multiple reversals, suggest that in practice, it is instead acting as a direct extension of the White House, proposing policy changes that the agency’s chairman would not have supported without unusual and aggressive prodding from the administration.

    I guess it depends on how you see unelected career bureaucrats working for “independent” agencies. I’ve been told– multiple times, forcefully– by progressives of many stripes that these independent agencies passing legislation (some of which results in criminal penalties) are in fact accountable, because they’re appointed by the democratically elected representatives that we, the people put in power.

    So the white house “nudging” the FCC to do its bidding seems somewhat expected.

    If Paul. were elected as president, he’d immediately begin by firing every agency head and replacing them with those that lean glibertarian. Agency heads who would work tirelessly to eliminate their own jobs.

  10. Etsy Inc., Kickstarter Inc., Yahoo Inc. ‘s Tumblr and other companies insisted that utility-like rules were needed to help small companies and entrepreneurs compete online

    Right! Because when I think big players on the internet, I think crocheted tea cozies, pan handling, and family blogs.

    1. “I think crocheted tea cozies, pan handling, and family blogs SJW retards and porn.”

      Fixed.

    2. Why aren’t Etsy, Kickstart, Yahoo, and Tumblr asking to be regulated as Common Carriers?

  11. Oh well, the internet was fun while it lasted.

    1. Those millennials finally got the internet they always wanted.

      1. Lily, Lily, Lily, Likly, Lily

      2. Dont blame my generation for what an administration of boomers & gen-x’ers put together.

        1. It was the Lost and the GI generations that put AT&T together. We Boomers came of age about the time that the phone company was broken up in 1984.

    2. Get ready for hate speech regulation, diversity quotas, “free” broadband to politically-favored groups, etc., etc….

  12. Internet service is so horrible, I can’t even download a a terabyte of porn nightly while watching Hulu and playing Call of Duty online while my spouse browses Amazon and video chats with her sister.

    DOWN WITH THE CORPORATIONS

  13. Surely the lightbringer will save us all from the scourge of KKKORPORATE INTERNETZ!!111!1!!!!!11!!!!!!

  14. It should be plainly obvious that every Prius owner should be charged the same road taxes as every long-haul 18-wheeler.

    And every road should have the same number of lanes regardless of where it is or how many vehicle is carries.

    And let’s not forget, one speed limit to rule them all.

    Road Neutrality for ALL!

    1. I would use that road analogy constantly when I was lobbying against NN.

      Me (to legislative director): “So you’ve got a four-lane tollway that you invested several billions of dollars in. Suddenly, a bunch of trucking companies start screaming bloody murder because you have the audacity to charge them more for taking up more space and slowing down the road for everyone else. When their screams fall on your deaf ears, they take them to Capitol Hill. Their message? ‘Unless you let us free-ride on THAT guy’s investment, you will stifle investments by us.'”

      I was clearly too stupid to realize government enjoys picking winners and losers like this every day.

  15. OT but interesting

    http://tinyurl.com/onz5ev3

    How can libertarians overcome public distrust and indifference to successfully sell liberty?

    But what really kills this approach is the idea that before they even gain nomination, they try to win by focusing on negatives the way that their party leaders do. They’re wrong because they make the same fundamental mistake that many small business owners make. They assume that everyone wants what they have to sell.

    More importantly, they assume that if they just get negative enough to show the people in their party whom they want to win over just how wrong the party’s typical approach has been that they’ll somehow “see the light”, admit that they’ve been wrong, change their views, and begin to support libertarian candidates who will now lead them to victory in November

    1. How do I know that’s not a Rickroll hiding behind that link?

        1. I should print that out for my daughter to color…

      1. Google up “url expander”…

        1. Yeah, I figured there was such a thing right after I clicked Submit.

  16. Are the techies who clamor for net neutrality the same people who consider Edward Snowden as a hero?

    “I want the same government exposed by Snowden to manage the internet! Open internet means more free speech”

    1. Going by the pro-Snowden stickers I see on lampposts around town I would say “yes”.

    2. Its weird. I work in IT, have for a long time. But there is a big cultural difference between people who work in infrastructure, like I do, who tend to be very libertarian, and developers, who tend to be very liberal and support net neutrality.

      1. I work in IT, have for a long time.

        Me too but my developer peers seem to lean less liberal – we work for a profit-making organzation and folks who can’t cut it tend to get weeded out.

      2. That is because you infrastructure fucks have root passwords on all the good stuff and hoard it.

        Us poor developers have to come beg you to make the smallest config changes*. You lord your power over us. We are the downtrodden and oppressed. Occupy Data Center!!!

        * I have been on both ends in my IT career and freely admit that developers should be allowed no where near a production system.

  17. No matter the source, regulation will be an improvement over the currently closed system that prevents competition and holds all of us to the whims of a monopoly.

    That doesn’t make me popular on this site, but it’s the truth.

    1. What it makes you, is an idiot.

      1. Thanks for the constructive criticism. Do you go on other message boards talking about how liberals use non-sequiturs and insults to distract from the fact they have no counter-arguements?

        1. Who do you think put the monopolies in place….hint: its the people that can employ force.

        2. Ok, I’ll play (for now):

          You have made three unfounded and undocumented assertions in your post. This is particularly lacing in self-awareness considering your follow up comment.
          A. Regulation will be an improvement. This is pure conjecture, you have zero evidence and you don’t even put forth a theory as to why it would be so.
          B. A currently closed system that prevents competition? This is a curious statement since the MFJ 1996 specifically opened up communications companies to have more competition. We have more methods and providers to connect to the internet/make a call than we ever have.
          C. We are held to the whims of monopolies? Well there are no monopolies, in ANY definition of the word. We do have GOVERNMENT ENFORCED territories, called franchises, for MSOs but CLECs, ILECs, Wireless, Cellular, and Satellite providers are all in deep competition with each other.

          Now, are YOU prepared to explain your grievance in detail and to give a logical, and historically fact based theory as to why this “net” needs regulating?

          1. Well done. The history of the LECs was a government-produced monopoly (AT&T) broken up by government fiat. The only thing that NN will accomplish is destroying competition by forcing small companies who cant meet the regulatory hurdles.

          2. A currently closed system that prevents competition? This is a curious statement since the MFJ 1996 specifically opened up communications companies to have more competition.

            That’s a very good point.

            *This* is what the FCC could have and should have done. Told the counties and municipalities to fuck off with their franchise charters and opened up the existing infrastructure to competition over using the installed wires. Like the RBOCs had to swallow, so will the local cable franchises. Sure, Comcast would have screamed bloody fucking murder, but the local oligopolies have had a sweet, sweet ride at our expense for 30 years now. I’m sure they could have worked something out.

            It would be the least fucked of all the solutions. Verizon has managed to stay profitable in this environment. Comcast would too.

            No idea if the FCC could have done that legally, but little else they do seems legal either.

            1. Don’t forget the 50 state PUCs…little fiefdoms of corruption.

              1. Oh, for sure.

                Verizon is still the last mile provider for most business data and voice, still.

                We were too small for Level 3 to pull fiber to us, so they had Verizon pull it in. They’ve pulled every T1 I ever had, even though a CLEC owned it.

            2. So, instead of Government regulations to stop Comcast from choking our access, you advocate Government regulations to force Comcast to allow competitors on their infrastructure?

              1. As I said:

                It would be the least fucked of all the solutions.

                We’re through the looking glass, so let’s work with what we have and go for what causes the least amount of harm with the least amount of gubmint intrusion. It mirrors what the 1996 Act did. And no, it’s not an ideal solution, but it’s the best one we have.

                I’m fine for opening up the local markets to complete competition, it should have been that way from the start, but it’s late in the game to expect small competitors to start pulling cable in order to compete with the mega-corps which are fully entrenched. That is a massive hurdle to overcome.

                1. And I don’t know, maybe it’s all bullshit. Maybe that will make it worse. I’m just spitballing here, but it seems to me to be a a solid solution and at least one with a historical record of working. Almost anything is better than what we’re expecting from the FCC.

                  What *do* you do with a relative gubmint created monopoly with very high barriers to entry? How do you remedy it with the least amount of harm to liberty and the greatest immediate utility?

        3. Scroll up there, chief. Look for my name.

          And what Mr. Bandit said.

        4. I’ll patiently wait for your response to Cliche. In the meantime, how does it feel to be a stooge for Netflix? That’s the vast majority of what this is. Business #1 is predicated on piggybacking on the investment of Business #2 and Business #1 doesn’t want to be charged accordingly.

          1. Huh, bailers bailed. Whodathunkit?

        5. Yes, I happen to know for a fact that he does.

          1. You sound butthurt.

    2. Yes, and if I have learned anything about the Federal government it is that they will only use their powers for good and no unintended consequences will ever come out of this.

      1. Did you manage to type that with a straight face?

    3. holds all of us to the whims of a monopoly

      You’re replacing one “monopoly” with another, even less accountable monopoly that can throw people in jail and seize their homes with nary a trace of remorse.

    4. It will make it amore closed system with less competition. As someone said earlier, its like you dont know anything about the history of government regulated utilities.

      This will be nothing but an innovation killing, freedom squashing cronyfest and you know it.

      *To everyone else- Sometimes I wonder if Obumbles doesnt troll us himself. When he isnt teeing off that is.

    5. bailers77|2.5.15 @ 3:42PM|#
      “No matter the source, regulation will be an improvement over the currently closed system that prevents competition and holds all of us to the whims of a monopoly.”

      Yes, because the source of the current lack of competition is going to change its stripes and, uh…
      You’re an idiot.

    6. I automatically assume that any NN bill will result in less competition and higher prices because of regulatory capture and rent seeking. I don’t understand why you have such faith in government when it has a hideous track record.

  18. Acting like a parallel version of the FCC itself, R. David Edelman and Tom Power listened as Etsy Inc., Kickstarter Inc., Yahoo Inc. ‘s Tumblr and other companies insisted that utility-like rules were needed to help small companies and entrepreneurs compete online, people involved in the process say.

    What reason do I have to believe this is true? Is Comcast blocking search results to keep people from buying cufflinks made from trash via Etsy?

    1. see my above comment about the insanity of this. The REAL NN battle is actually large last mile providers and content aggregators/creators. They are dragging the government into their pissing matches. That is all this is but unfortunately they are going to fuck themselves and all of us in the process.

      When Akamai and Charter use the government to force each to get their way we all lose.

      (for those who don’t get it, Akamai (only one ex.) doesnt want to pay for the providers netowrks to get to eyeballs while providers don’t want to build a bigger network to host more HD content while not increasing their consumer price) Simple contract dispute.

      1. NN is also based on an absurdity – that ever “content producer” has a god-given right to equal network performance. There are a million variables impacting performance; most of which have to do with the code written by the content producer and not the network their content is hosted on. NN assumes that a schmuck with a free blog should have their website load as fast as a company that has spent millions to host their servers in redundant data centers. Its nonsensical.

        1. traffic differentiation is an old and well standardized practice. All packets are NOT created equal. Voip comes to mind.

          1. Oh, just wait until NN hits full stride.

            “What’s that Mr. Netflix? All of our circuits are saturated with porn torrents and your customers are complaining about the constant buffering? No problem, I’ll give your traffic priori….oh that’s right, I CAN’T.”

          2. Some of the more educated NN advocates will state that the idea is not that the FCC can disable COS, but that they can’t put traffic from two like sources into separate classes.

            Of course, they don’t seem to realize that putting this scheme into place ensures that the traffic given highest priority will belong to the most well-connected sources, and in the most arbitrary fashion. It creates the very problem it purports to solve.

      2. Here’s a good explanation of the dispute: “Why YouTube buffers: The secret deals that make?and break?online video”.

        In summary…

        Equal sized ISPs peer for free while smaller ISPs have to pay larger ISPs to peer. When everything was text and small pictures this worked okay. Even with streaming audio is was okay. Now that we have streaming video and especially HD video (e.g., Netflix and YouTube), the ISPs’ networks are getting saturated with traffic. A lot of ISPs need upgrades throughout their networks to support the growing demand HD video and they don’t want to pay for it like they did in the past. They want the companies like Netflix, YouTube, and Akamai to pay for it. They argue that those companies are consuming lots of their bandwidth and should pay to help upgrade their network to support the growing bandwidth these companies are using. The bandwidth using companies are arguing that the big ISPs should pay and they’ve got the activists and now the government behind them. So it looks like the bandwidth users are going to win and the ISPs and regular users are going to get screwed.

        1. So here’s what’s going to happen:
          * Bandwidth using companies are going to free ride on their use of ISPs’ networks.
          * ISPs aren’t going to be able to upgrade to handle the growth in demand for bandwidth.
          * The Internet is going to slow down.
          * Bandwidth using companies are going to blame the ISPs for not upgrading and ISPs are going to blame bandwidth using companies for saturating their networks.
          * Users are going to have shitty internet service and demand the government do something.
          * The government is going to go after the ISPs for not upgrading and the ISPs are going to demand subsidies.
          * Most likely, the government will sue some ISPs out of existence and argue that the survivors (those with the most friends on Capitol Hill) are “natural monopolies” and subsidize them.
          * The rate of internet speed increase is going to go down and taxpayers are going to pay for it.
          * Bandwidth using companies are going to profit from all of this.

          1. That sounds optimistic.

            When the shit truly hits the fan, Obama will be long gone and laughing all the way to his $400,000 speaking engagements.

            Corruption and ineptitude. You’re soaking in it!

            1. You are so WRONG, JW….

              He’s going to get at least 550K a pop for speaking engagements…

              1. If he takes a rubber chicken, it might be worth it.

      3. Simple contract dispute.

        Yep. All the madness about Comcast vs. Netflix is that they were both being staunch advocates for their customers. The market is messy sometimes, but it was worked out for the benefit of all involved.

        1. I was fortunate enough to be at the center talking with Netflix/Akamai/Level3/and the MSOs back in 08,09,10, and 11. I was quite literally on the front lines of the engineering avalanche.

          1. A good primer for what Mr. Bandit is talking about:

            http://www.mintek.com/blog/cpe…..-industry/

  19. No matter the source, regulation will be an improvement over the currently closed system that prevents competition and holds all of us to the whims of a monopoly.

    That doesn’t make me popular on this site, but it’s the truth.

    Actually, it just makes you a gibbering idiot.

  20. So? should we assume the NSA supports regulating ISPs as a Common Carrier?

    1. Absolutely. When the government starts telling you HOW to build your network, the sky’s the limit.

  21. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,,,,,,,,,,

    ?????????????????????? http://www.netpay20.com

  22. Everyone’s falling in line with Obama. The Internet has gotten along fine to this point and these bright people at FCC who’ve had no role whatsoever in its success think they know what’s wrong and how to fix it? Obama don’t know jack about the Internet and he is killing the Democratic Party.

  23. Besides all the nefarious control reasons for making the net a utility is they ( the feds ) want it a utility so they can tax it some more.

  24. There must be something this twit does that isn’t based on lies, but we haven’t seen it yet.

  25. I can see it now the regulations will be so tight that the computer you are using will be the last computer you will need since the regulations will probably not allow innovation to increase the speed of the internet. Hence soon everyone will go to some form private non-regulated wireless where the speeds will not be limited by the NN.
    I think I see a new start up in the wings. Nature and Capitalism will always find a way around government interference.

    1. You want to install a new fiber run? Well, submit your request to the FCC and fill out this Certificate of Need. We must make sure that your infrastructure upgrade works for the community!

      1. and you must supply it to every house even if they don’t use it.

  26. Obviously “utility-like rules. . . [are] needed to help small companies and entrepreneurs compete online.” Can you imagine the innovative potential that would be unleashed in a world in which creating an internet start-up were as easy as competing with the local electric utility?

  27. Pretty soon, the internet will be like our transportation system. There will be very empty HOV lanes (bandwidth set aside for SJW causes), and huge amounts of money spent for the equivalent of light rail (i.e. internet at high speeds out into the countryside where there are few users and very high costs). Meanwhile the Comcasts of the world will do just fine with their large stable of compliance lawyers and lobbyists, while any upstart trying to compete with them will die under a paperwork blizzard.

  28. Get Paid Up To $21.75 Per hour
    – No Experience Necessary
    – Beginners preferred
    – No websites needed
    – No CPA
    – No PPC
    – No One Click Wonder
    – No Fake jobs
    – JUST REAL RESULTS
    Click Here For Details…………

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  29. Reason’s coverage of this issue inspired me to start a White House petition to make the FCC’s proposal on Net Neutrality public. Regardless of your position on the proposals (which is hard to take when it’s not public), there is no reason this proposal should not be public before the FCC votes on it. Whatever happened to candidate Obama’s promise of transparency?

    The petition is on the White House petitions site, We the
    People. Will you sign it? http://wh.gov/ibqg6

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.