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This discussion has been archived.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 crafoo on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:15PM (1 child)

    by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:15PM (#612010)

    Net Neutrality to me means regulations similar or identical to telecoms. Move data from source to destination. Nothing more. No access or legal ability to inspect any more information than source or destination. If this breaks video streaming over the internet I do not give a fuck.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 19 2017, @11:14PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @11:14PM (#612042)

    It doesn't break video streaming, because those streams are already very encrypted for copy-protection purposes. Streaming has always been throttled by where it's coming from, not what the content looks like.

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