
The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet - waterlesscloud
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/
======
hirsin
Pro: despite the "woe is us" rhetoric too often found in online communities,
getting a bunch of people to complain actually made a political entity wake up
and take notice.

Con: They only noticed for political reasons rather than that whole
"representing the people" thing.

Con: Wheeler got the position after arranging several hundred thousands in
donations to the campaign of the "no more lobbyists" candidate. He's unlikely
to listen to the president he's already paid off.

Con: 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.

Con: 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.

It was great that Obama made a statement - it brought the issue to the
attention of people who otherwise dismissed it as nerd rage. I don't think it
will change anything.

~~~
kristopolous
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.

------
salimmadjd
This is what happens when you're hiring a former lobbyist for the industry [1]

Also, I think Net Neutrality was a bad name. I think many average Americans
wouldn't care about "Net Neutrality". I think something like "Internet
Freedom" would have been a much stronger.

[1] [http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-
lobby...](http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-
obama-loyalist-seen-as-fcc-frontrunner/)

~~~
sdrothrock
> 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.

~~~
oscilloscope
I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net
Neutrality might actually _reduce_ monthly charges and increase their
available bandwidth.

For example, let's say T-Mobile's Music Freedom program (which uses packet
inspection to whitelist Spotify, Pandora, and a few others so they don't count
in data metering) expands to also encompass popular video streaming services:
Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc.

Now a consumer could pay T-Mobile for an inexpensive plan, say $20 for 1 GB of
data on a mobile device. They stream high-definition video and music every
night, maybe using 40 GB of data this month. But they only pay for 1 GB, which
is still available to them for email and general internet browsing.

No extra penalties, no extra fees.

That's a great deal for the consumer, since the majority of their bandwidth
use is probably streaming media from these services. The free streaming is a
value-add which encourages users to pay for streaming services, but it doesn't
count against the advertised data they pay for.

This clearly discriminates different kinds of traffic and provides
preferential treatment to certain services. But it doesn't cause general
internet services to be slower. Storing the media in hard drives near cell
towers may cause the preferred media to be faster.

~~~
simoncion
> That's a great deal for the consumer...

Remember Hulu Plus? The deal there used to be that you paid the major "Content
Providers" a monthly fee and in exchange, you got advertisement-free access to
a small slice of their catalog. Shortly after people started paying for the
service the advertisements crept in, but the monthly fee stayed the same.

The truth of the matter is that today's great deal can be eliminated at a
CRO's whim tomorrow. Moreover, "great deals" such as these throw substantial
roadblocks in the way of non-favored players who which to participate in the
marketplace. This substantially reduces competition, and substantially reduced
competition has lead to the sorry state of the US's consumer
telecommunications and Internet service "market".

~~~
greeneggs
I see your point, but I believe Hulu Plus has always had advertisements [0].

[0] [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-
unveil...](http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveils-
subscription-service-for-9-99-a-month/)

~~~
simoncion
I stand corrected (and walk a little funny, too). I should trust my memory
less and re-verify my recollections more frequently.

------
Shivetya
Good for Wheeler. Obama waited until the Democrats lost control of the Senate
to drop this bomb. He knew it would be DOA on arrival in a Reid controlled
Senate and I really doubt he would have made this move with Reid still there.

Now the onus is on the incoming Republicans, who may be at odds with their own
base if they don't do something to prevent companies from charging for access
by Netflix and similar.

Regulation of such, turning these providers into utilities isn't going to come
up all roses. There exists a distinct possibility many will see less options
going forward, roll outs of new tech may slow and even never reach many users,
all because nothing moves slower than a utility, especially heavily regulated
and protected ones.

So unless the government is in turn going require the deployment of specific
speeds to all regions and set dates all I see is higher costs and less new
services. Call me a pessimist, but after waiting years for Bellsouth to
provide reasonably priced high speed internet I was more than happy when the
cable company came to town

~~~
skywhopper
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.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Exactly. Cable co's are in a great position. They have a lot of upstream
bandwidth available to upgrade their services, they have DOCSIS 3 or better
modems in the field; barring other shortcomings in their networks they can
roll out upgrades if competition ever arrives, probably killing it.

------
discardorama
Goes to show who has the real power: the President, or Comcast?

<rant> This is what bugs me so much about Democrats. They refuse to fight for
their principles. In the old days (think Civil Rights Act, SS, etc.) they
showed some backbone. But now? Obama makes some noise, the FCC barely looks up
to see what's the noise, and then the FCC goes back to doing the industry's
bidding. Shame on Obama.</rant>

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
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.

------
quattrofan
"Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industry,"

There's your problem right there, how did that fool get appointed in the first
place?

Wolf and sheep etc.

~~~
InclinedPlane
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.

~~~
Jgrubb
I'd say it's a little more like they're conjoined twins at this point.

------
golemotron
> “I am an independent agency,” Wheeler told them repeatedly, according to
> several officials.

Under the Executive Branch. This guy needs to be slapped down.

~~~
rtpg
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

~~~
georgemcbay
He can't fire any of the FCC commissioners, but he could promote one of the
other ones as chairman over Wheeler, in theory.

It would probably turn into a pretty big political shitshow if he did though
considering how the Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking they
have a "clear mandate" (which seems to primarily involve wanting the opposite
of whatever Obama wants, regardless of what that is).

------
alkonaut
Is there anywhere to read up on this topic? I don't understand why the FCC
would want to please the large telcos here? What would happen if the FCC
simply took an extreme stance on neutrality here? Are telcos threatening with
anything?

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

------
enobrev
I'm confused about the consistent reference to the fact that Tom Wheeler used
to be a lobbyist. It seems that having that sort of experience in the past
would mean that he knows how to deal with lobbyists better than those who
never have worked in the industry.

Why is it assumed that because he used to lobby for the cable and
telecommunications industry that he is now definitely corrupt? I don't know
anyone, anywhere, who still goes to bat for their former position in priority
over their current position.

edit: It's not my intention to defend Wheeler. I don't agree with his
position, which has barely been stated. I just don't think it's quite so
obvious that he's explicitly doing the bidding of the cable industry purely
for his own benefit, or theirs.

~~~
jameskilton
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.

~~~
andrewstuart2
I'm not a fan of this reference either, though for different reasons. We're to
believe he needs to "split the baby" between the 320 million Americans who
should be able to use the internet, and the handful of companies that provide
it?

~~~
jameskilton
Yeah, I know what you mean. I was appalled that he would use the phrase at
all, much less in this context.

------
ww520
Can Obama just fire the guy since he's appointed? If he won't, it shows who
are really running the show.

------
tomelders
Wheeler went into that job with a clear mandate not only from the executive
branch, but from the US electorate.

He's ignoring his mandate and charting "his own course". He's corrupt.

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

~~~
pessimizer
>That's a huge leap to make. _Is everyone that doesn 't agree with you
corrupt._

Pot, meet kettle.

~~~
pessimizer
ITT, when someone says that the sky is blue, someone else asks if everything
above everyone's head is blue, then asks if they are blue. This is considered
a logical progression.

------
deciplex
> _Wheeler is well aware of concerns that ill-considered regulations could
> stifle innovation and slow the growth of the country’s broadband
> infrastructure_

Is anybody really scared that we might slow that growth, considering there
hardly _is_ any growth in the first place? We've already spent billions trying
to prod these companies to pretend like they're in some kind of competitive
market, but instead they've just taken that money without so much as a
'thanks'.

I think the only way the FCC can make things worse with regard to building out
America's broadband capability is to deliberately go out of their way to do it
- otherwise, I don't see much merit to the argument that they need to avoid
unintended consequences.

------
Cowicide
Can Obama force him to resign or outright fire him? I'd like to see a "I
brought you into this world, I'll take you out" approach from Obama at this
point.

------
001sky
rule # 1 of propoganda: things are never as they seem

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

~~~
dima55
The FCC chairman was appointed by the President, so who really knows what
either of them truly want

