Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

[ReverendHellh0und]

Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan
Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan - LA Times

o congressional committees have launched investigations into whether the White House improperly influenced the net-neutrality proposal released last week by the head of the Federal Communications Commission.
On Monday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in a letter to explain his decision and produce documents related to communications and meetings involving the White House and agency officials concerning the issue.
Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told Wheeler he was concerned that there was “apparent pressure exerted on you and your agency by the White House.”

So basically, the administration is calling over-regulation and control of the internet "Net Neutrality".

You are not allowed to read the 333 page plan.

Until it's voted on.

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/563724099906568193/photo/1

Follow

Ajit PaiVerified account‏@AjitPaiFCC
​

​

​

Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.







Look how proud that mother****er looks saddling us with more regulations and opening the door to taxation.


for those slow on the uptake:

 

[Paxaeon]

`
On cue...the corporate paid for politicians and shills are launching a counter-attack against net neutrality. They will do anything at this point to protect their 97% profit margin.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

`
On cue...the corporate paid for politicians and shills are launching a counter-attack against net neutrality. They will do anything at this point to protect their 97% profit margin.

How can you complain about government monopolies making such profits, it's lack of competition allows this. How is thst 300 page plan chumpy is holding there going to change this?


Do you even understand the net neutrality issue? Can you show an example of it being abused currently?

 

[Paxaeon]

Oh how dare a company turn a profit! we need to regulate the internet and tax the consumer to fix it, and no subject, you cannot read the plan before it's voted on. Do you even understand the net neutrality issue? Can you show an example of it being abused currently?

`
A 97% profit margin based on no-competition clauses written into contracts around the country. The only way for the consumer to pay less money is to break the Big 4's monopoly over astronomically high broadband and high-speed internet charges by allowing competition. How dare a free-market capitalistic system stifle competition?

Get ready for extra charges on everything if the Big 4 wins.
`
`
`
`

 

[CMPancake]

Wait, we're investigating the White House for alleged misconduct on FCC Regulations? When do we start investigating companies like Comcast for the same exact thing?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

`
A 97% profit margin based on no-competition clauses written into contracts around the country. The only way for the consumer to pay less money is to break the Big 4's monopoly over astronomically high broadband and high-speed internet charges by allowing competition. How dare a free-market capitalistic system stifle competition?

Your government created such monopolies. and if my cable company is making 97% profit and I'm paying under 50 bucks for 100mb speeds. Why would I give a ****?

Get ready for extra charges on everything if the Big 4 wins.
`
`
`
`

lol, what is this? Do you even know?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Wait, we're investigating the White House for alleged misconduct on FCC Regulations? When do we start investigating companies like Comcast for the same exact thing?

So what you are saying is we should not be upset they won't let us read the plan, but be mad at comcast for what "same exact thing"?


I'm not sure you know what's going on here.

 

[Paxaeon]

Your government created such monopolies. and if my cable company is making 97% profit and I'm paying under 50 bucks for 100mb speeds. Why would I give a ****? lol, what is this? Do you even know?

`
Local communities, not the federal or state governments, are to blame for these contracts. However, the big 4's lobbyists are paying off state and local legislators to enact laws that make it illegal for any public or municipally owned broadband or WiFi network, to exist.

Consumers here can save hundreds of dollars a year with net neutrality and get equal too or better than, speeds and service at a local level.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

`
Local communities, not the federal or state governments, are to blame for these contracts. However, the big 4's lobbyists are paying off state and local legislators to enact laws that make it illegal for any public or municipally owned broadband or WiFi network, to exist.

so local communities are not government now? you have federal, state, and local regulations, all of this makes cable companies government controlled monopolies.

Consumers here can save hundreds of dollars a year with net neutrality.

This just proves to me you have no idea what net neutrality is.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Your government created such monopolies. and if my cable company is making 97% profit and I'm paying under 50 bucks for 100mb speeds. Why would I give a ****?







lol, what is this? Do you even know?

We're not paying under 50 :shrug:

Our bill is more akin to 60/60+ a month.

It's a ****ing monopoly. The government is going to break it up and the companies are scared that they won't be able to monopolize this industry anymore. Simple as that.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

We're not paying under 50 :shrug:

Our bill is more akin to 60/60+ a month.

It's a ****ing monopoly. The government is going to break it up and the companies are scared that they won't be able to monopolize this industry anymore. Simple as that.

This isn't "net neutrality".

 

[CMPancake]

So what you are saying is we should not be upset they won't let us read the plan, but be mad at comcast for what "same exact thing"?

No, Congress is probing the White House for alleged misconduct with influencing the FCC. Meanwhile it's been more than obvious the FCC and Telecom have been in bed for years now. If Congress want to go after people for improperly influencing the FCC shouldn't they start with the people that have the most to gain from ransacking Net Neutrality. As far as this 'plan' Pai has speculated about, it is certainly rather compelling evidence. So compelling that he didn't cite even a reason why he can't go over it, let alone a single example of this supposed government overreach.

I'm not sure you know what's going on here.

Of course you don't, if you did you wouldn't post that stupid "Net Neutrality vs Net Neutrality" graphic.

 

[Paxaeon]

so local communities are not government now? you have federal, state, and local regulations, all of this makes cable companies government controlled monopolies. This just proves to me you have no idea what net neutrality is.

`
a) Last time I looked, all local communities also had local governments.

b) What is Network Neutrality? - Consumers Union

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No, Congress is probing the White House for alleged misconduct with influencing the FCC. Meanwhile it's been more than obvious the FCC and Telecom have been in bed for years now. If Congress want to go after people for improperly influencing the FCC shouldn't they start with the people that have the most to gain from ransacking Net Neutrality. As far as this 'plan' Pai has speculated about, it is certainly rather compelling evidence. So compelling that he didn't cite even a reason why he can't go over it, let alone a single example of this supposed government overreach.




Of course you don't, if you did you wouldn't post that stupid "Net Neutrality vs Net Neutrality" graphic.

What's stupid about it? specifically.


Please tell me one example of why we need this government control called "net neutrality".

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

`
a) Last time I looked, all local communities also had local governments.

b) What is Network Neutrality? - Consumers Union

a) you were the one saying it wasn't government.

b) I can post a link to quantum physics, doesn't mean I "know" what it is.


Please tell me, what YOU think "net neutrality" is and give me a real world example as to why we need it as proposed by the federalis.

 

[Excon]

So basically, the administration is calling over-regulation and control of the internet "Net Neutrality".

You are not allowed to read the 333 page plan.

Until it's voted on.

https://twitter.com/AjitPaiFCC/status/563724099906568193/photo/1


[/FONT][/COLOR]

Follow

Ajit PaiVerified account‏@AjitPaiFCC
​

​

​

Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.







Look how proud that mother****er looks saddling us with more regulations and opening the door to taxation.


for those slow on the uptake:

Statement of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai



Comm. Pai's Stmt on President Obama's Plan to Regulate the Internet | FCC.gov​

Page two continues and ends with the following.

to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s
2massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the
public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.​

 

[Paxaeon]

a) you were the one saying it wasn't government.
b) I can post a link to quantum physics, doesn't mean I "know" what it is.
Please tell me, what YOU think "net neutrality" is and give me a real world example as to why we need it as proposed by the federalis.

`
a) One in the same. You're quibbling about semantics here.

b) That's your problem, not mine.

c) I already did.

 

[Excon]

`
A 97% profit margin based on no-competition clauses written into contracts around the country. The only way for the consumer to pay less money is to break the Big 4's monopoly over astronomically high broadband and high-speed internet charges by allowing competition. How dare a free-market capitalistic system stifle competition?

Get ready for extra charges on everything if the Big 4 wins.

This isn't about net neutrality. It's about generating revenue under the guise of Net Neutrality.

It is subjecting a service to regulation and taxation that it was not subjected to before.

And you are going to be paying more if this passes. At least 16.1% more as a tax/fee.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

`
a) One in the same. You're quibbling about semantics here.

No, you suggested in retort to me that it was not government,

b) That's your problem, not mine.

c) I already did.

You have no clue, do you? lol

 

[Hamster Buddha]

`
On cue...the corporate paid for politicians and shills are launching a counter-attack against net neutrality. They will do anything at this point to protect their 97% profit margin.

Just so we're clear, you want to hand over the reigns of the entire internet to the same government that spent two years to get a website ready to go for it to (laughably) fail in their face and force them to turn around and pay a hundred million dollars to fix it? Or are you wanting to hand over the infrastructure to said government that is like five or ten trillion dollars behind on infrastructure spending?

 

[Paxaeon]

This isn't about net neutrality. It's about generating revenue under the guise of Net Neutrality. It is subjecting a service to regulation and taxation that it was not subjected to before. And you are going to be paying more if this passes. At least 16.1% more as a tax/fee.

`
All of this depends on who you want to believe (confirmation bias) and unfortunately, "net neutrality" is an ideological divide with the Republican/conservatives against it because;

1 - They always oppose anything Obama is for, regardless of how good it is for the country and consumer.

2 - The political right is pro-corporation to an extent where they will support them, even if it harms their own members.

3 - "Another clue to the Republican leaders' true intentions is their citation of a thoroughly debunked "study" from the so-called Progressive Policy Institute. In the study, PPI falsely claimed that Title II could lead to as much as $15 billion in new taxes on Internet users. The recent reauthorization of the Internet Tax Freedom Act killed any such threat. (Sen. Ron Wyden called PPI's claims "baloney.") But thanks to the cable lobby, the Wall Street Journal and noted progressive Grover Norquist, this zombie lie keeps coming back to life". - source

Also see: Congress Puts to Rest the Great Internet Tax Hoax of 2014

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

`
All of this depends on who you want to believe (confirmation bias) and unfortunately, "net neutrality" is an ideological divide with the Republican/conservatives against it because;

1 - They always oppose anything Obama is for, regardless of how good it is for the country and consumer.

2 - The political right is pro-corporation to an extent where they will support them, even if it harms their own members.

3 - "Another clue to the Republican leaders' true intentions is their citation of a thoroughly debunked "study" from the so-called Progressive Policy Institute. In the study, PPI falsely claimed that Title II could lead to as much as $15 billion in new taxes on Internet users. The recent reauthorization of the Internet Tax Freedom Act killed any such threat. (Sen. Ron Wyden called PPI's claims "baloney.") But thanks to the cable lobby, the Wall Street Journal and noted progressive Grover Norquist, this zombie lie keeps coming back to life". - source

Also see: Congress Puts to Rest the Great Internet Tax Hoax of 2014

You do realize that both parties are coporatists, right? Who bailed out GM, GE, et al?


Who signed the Monsanto protection act?

 

[bubbabgone]

So basically, the administration is calling over-regulation and control of the internet "Net Neutrality".

You are not allowed to read the 333 page plan.

Until it's voted on.




[/FONT][/COLOR]

Follow

​

​

​

Here is President Obama's 332-page plan to regulate the Internet. I wish the public could see what's inside.

Look how proud that mother****er looks saddling us with more regulations and opening the door to taxation.

for those slow on the uptake:

If by "that mother****er" you mean Obama hanging on the wall, then yes, but the guy holding Obama's plan is the FCC member fighting against it.

 

[Paxaeon]

Just so we're clear, you want to hand over the reigns of the entire internet to the same government that spent two years to get a website ready to go for it to (laughably) fail in their face and force them to turn around and pay a hundred million dollars to fix it? Or are you wanting to hand over the infrastructure to said government that is like five or ten trillion dollars behind on infrastructure spending?

`
While I may be wrong, I think you are over dramatizing this. All that the FCC's Tom Wheller suggested is that any new net neutrality rules will be based upon the Title II of the Communications Act. To wit;

The FCC’s 2010 order was intended to prevent broadband Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on the Web. The Open Internet Order was generally designed to ensure the Internet remained a level playing field for all — that's the principle we call Net Neutrality (we say “generally,” since the FCC’s rules prohibited wired ISPs from blocking and discriminating against content, while allowing wireless ISPs to discriminate against but not block websites). - source

If you want to believe that the Feds will exercise draconian control over the internet, have at it. However, past enforcement of the (47 CFR 20.15) Title II of the Communications Act, by the federal government has shown no abuse.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

If by "that mother****er" you mean Obama hanging on the wall, then yes, but the guy holding Obama's plan is the FCC member fighting against it.

yeah, I realize that now, I change it to the one on the wall. lol