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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by unauthorized on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:11PM (5 children)

    by unauthorized (3776) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:11PM (#612005)

    Uhh, the alt right is contrarian to the GOP, why would they defend the actions of the GOP? The clue is in literally in the name, they call themselves the ALT right for a reason.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by meustrus on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:56PM (4 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:56PM (#612033)

    And yet they brought us to where we are today: the GOP in majority control of all elected bodies, pushing through their GOP agenda, handing control of (the internet / tax policy / healthcare / national parks / international trade) to the web of corrupt public-private partnerships also known as THE SWAMP.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @12:02PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @12:02PM (#612258)

      "The man who promised to 'Drain the Swamp' now appears to be 'The Creature From the Black Lagoon'" - Mark Meckler, Tea Party cofounder

      ...which leaves me in the uncomfortable and unusual position of agreeing with someone associated with the Tea Party.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Wednesday December 20 2017, @06:28PM (2 children)

        by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday December 20 2017, @06:28PM (#612431)

        The Tea Party is full of people whose heart is almost in the right place, but are too dumb to avoid being co-opted by the worst hucksters around. The alt-right is the same. They all have a habit of falling for corrupt establishmentarians like Trump based on emotional manipulation and empty promises.

        It's really too bad that intelligence has an inverse relationship with humility. Because of that unfortunate fact, the most easily manipulated are also the least aware of their vulnerability to manipulation.

        Or in simpler terms: If you think you can always tell whether somebody is lying or not, you're wrong and you're being lied to by the leaders you trust.

        --
        If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:13PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @10:13PM (#612581)

          It's really too bad that intelligence has an inverse relationship with humility

          That is not a true statement. Sometimes it is, but I've met many smart people who are humble and many idiots who are narcissistic. There is no relationship, it varies from person to person. Perhaps you are referring to the perceived lack of humility when an intelligent person is simply stating the truth. It might come off as arrogant, but that is a subjective assessment.

          • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday December 21 2017, @03:15PM

            by meustrus (4961) on Thursday December 21 2017, @03:15PM (#612813)

            My mistake....that statement is actually supposed to be reversed. I meant to say that stupid people are typically less humble - i.e. think that they're hot stuff even though they aren't. I was trying to invoke the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org] but somehow failed spectacularly.

            --
            If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?