Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Tuesday December 19 2017, @09:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the real-news dept.

The story of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the Internet has been a key Republican talking point for months, a talking point which has been refuted by internal FCC documents obtained by Motherboard using a Freedom of Information Act request. These findings were made by the independent, nonpartisan FCC Office of Inspector General an Inspector General. However, the findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote.

[...] First, some background: The FCC is an independent regulatory agency that is supposed to remain “free from undue influence” by the executive branch—it is not beholden to the White House, only the laws that Congress makes and tells it to regulate. This means the president cannot direct it to implement policies. In November 2014, President Obama released a statement saying that he believed the FCC should create rules protecting net neutrality, but noted that “ultimately this decision is theirs alone.”

[...] 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.

Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Anti-Net Neutrality Narrative Is False


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @09:38PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @09:38PM (#611981)

    It suggests that the president doesn't have some sway over the FCC - patently false, especially considering the president's role in appointing people.

    It was an idea promoted by Obama, but to call it a bipartisan issue prior to that is just as silly, because it wasn't an idea that anybody had particularly claimed. Bear in mind that the first time around on the net neutrality scary-go-round there were plenty of legislators who were quite happy for the FCC to pick winners on their behalf - and a lot of people who didn't even agree on the definition of net neutrality. So what you got from people depended very much on whom you asked and when. If that's bipartisanship, well, so is chaos.

    Honestly, this thing reads like a hit piece on the republicans when you're left with the alternative of a) Trump couldn't stop it or b) Obama really did have responsibility for the policy. Even if you think net neutrality is the bomb and the republicans are the devil, that's a good dose of doublethink right up front.

    Next story, please.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=3, Total=8
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 19 2017, @09:42PM (1 child)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @09:42PM (#611985)

    and a lot of people who didn't even agree on the definition of net neutrality.

    Is this an honest difference of opinion, or did everybody pro-NN understand perfectly what it meant and those against decided they had to twist the definition and muddy the waters so they could lie about it and make it sound bad to the uninformed voters?

    I'm betting the latter.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Gault.Drakkor on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:24AM

      by Gault.Drakkor (1079) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:24AM (#612092)

      When the first round of NN change proposals went around, I spent some time looking for/at definitions because I felt confused. Had to take a bit of reading just to find basic definitions because there was so much obscuring going on.

      I believe it goes back to: the harder a group is trying to sell something/the more money they spend to sell it. The higher the profit they expect after making the sale.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:57PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:57PM (#612034) Journal

    It was an idea promoted by Obama, but to call it a bipartisan issue prior to that is just as silly, because it wasn't an idea that anybody had particularly claimed.

    Well, other that G W Bush also claiming it as noted in the summary. That's kind of the definition of bipartisan...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:49PM (#612403)

      No, bipartisan is the kumbaya joining of hands in wide agreement to achieve a shared goal.

      Things like cutting off ISIS's access to financial services, that's bipartisan.

      Congresscritters running around like ants after someone kicked the nest, getting confused about the terminology and sometimes running in the same direction by accident is chaos, not bipartisanship.

      And are you really convinced that GW actually had a serious understanding of what network neutrality was and why it mattered? Because I sure as hell am not (and while I wasn't a shrub fan, I'm not a die-hard gorinator either).

  • (Score: 2, Troll) by gottabeme on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:38PM (3 children)

    by gottabeme (1531) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @01:38PM (#612283)

    The parent comment is double-modded as flamebait, and also modded as troll. In fact, it is the opposite, being interesting, insightful, observant, and an example of critical thinking.

    The people who modded the parent comment down should permanently lose moderation privileges. They are dishonest, and they are abusing the system. This is standard behavior by leftists: they have no scruples, and they will do whatever it takes to accomplish their goals. They will silence their opponents however they can. To them, the ends justify the means.

    And the relatively small readership of SN means that every dishonest moderation has a much greater effect than on a site like Slashdot, because the chances that someone will come along and reverse it is smaller.

    If this continues, it's likely that the site will gradually become yet another leftist echo chamber. The enemies of the truth will do whatever they can get away with. The only solution is a firm hand, because on the Internet, the cost of disruption and dishonesty is nil.

    So it's up to the admins what kind of a site they want. If they want one for leftist trolls to run wild, they need do nothing.

    Note, I'm not calling for the abusers to be banned from posting. They can rant all they want, but falsely moderating other users' comments is objectively abusive and should not be tolerated.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @02:31PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @02:31PM (#612294)

      are you serious?

      This place has such a conservative slant I had to laugh when you blamed leftists for the moderation.

      No, I think people are pissed. you don't have to wear a hipster che gueverra shirt for that.

      • (Score: 2) by gottabeme on Thursday December 21 2017, @04:48PM

        by gottabeme (1531) on Thursday December 21 2017, @04:48PM (#612838)

        I don't usually respond to ACs, but let's look at the evidence here:

        1. Non-leftist comment gets heavily modded down.
        2. My comment pointing this out gets modded down.
        3. Your comment claiming the opposite is modded up.
        4. I observe more left-slanted stories posted to SN than right-slanted, such as this one.

        So, we could quibble over the ratio, but the point is that the leftist mob is trying to overrun the place, just like anywhere else.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:56PM (#612409)

      OP/GPP here.

      Thanks for the kind words, dude. Or dudette. Whatever.

      As of right now, that post was downmodded three times (twice as flamebait, once as troll) and upmodded three times (twice as insightful, once as interesting).

      It's said you can tell a good idea by the enemies it makes. I think this makes a strong case that I was right on the money.

      (Footnote: I'm an independent centrist policy wonk. I don't give a shit about left or right, I mostly think those labels are red herrings and the big parties are more like criminal gangs than anything else. I care about good policy - but I agree with you about shrill left wing nutters trying to stomp ground here by any means necessary. However, I think they're doing themselves more harm than good because they're so childishly transparent about it that they just come off as petty. So don't sweat it.)