(Must get this off chest).... Unless Obama walks his talk on Net Neutrality, he is a Phony

[Armstead]

Like many other people I was heartened by the support President Obama gave to the concept of Net Neutrality. I thought we were in good hands when it came to what the WH would do to support the basic concept of an open and public Internet.

He seemed to "get it."

But when it comes to walking the talk? Not so much.

Why the hell did he appoint an industry lobbyist, investor, advocate for the Big Telecomm Monopolies and Bedmate of Comcast to head the FCC?

And especially why at a time when two issues crucial are on the table:

1)Net Neutrality, which will determine whether the Internet remains open and accessible or becomes Private Property owned by Oligarchs who will gouge us all for their own private gain.

2) The Comcast Takeover, in which the FCC will help to decide on the approval of a merger which will determine whether we will become the United States of Comcast, when it comes to almost total control of the Internet and cable.

TALK ABOUT HIRING THE FOX TO GUARD THE HENHOUSE!

And President Obama has been disappointingly silent on the issue since it has been gaining momentum.

No, I realie he can't wave a magic wand. But he sure as hell could be doing some speechifying (which he is so good at) and arm twisting of the FCC and Congress to do the right thing.

If he just sits back and passively allows this Trainwreck to happen, without at lest putting up fight for the people...well then I have to say he's a phony.

[djean111]

1. Oh, he just sorta speechified.

Pointless. Watch what happens, that's the only important thing.

[Armstead]

2. If he's going to screw us over, I'd rather he at least be honest about it

I at least know where people like Mitt stand on these things. I don't like it, but can deal on it in honest terms.

I'm tired of being played for a sucker by those who claim to believe in the same things I do.

[NorthCarolina]

12. Honesty....

what a concept.

[marlakay]

35. I feel same way

Tired of double talk. I can handle anything if I know the truth, of course if some of them on our side were more truthful like that instead of manipulating us we would fight harder against stuff and they know it.

[Vattel]

42. You want him to be honest about net neutrality in the same way he was honest about

Last edited Fri May 16, 2014, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

whether he was opposed to the patriot act and about whether he favored telecom immunity and about whether the president has the authority to place the nation in a state of war and about whether he was in favor of gay marriage (in this case I am glad he was lying when he said he wasn't in favor of it) and about whether he was opposed to NAFTA and . . .?

[JDPriestly]

50. Hear! Hear!

[WillyT]

43. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

Word...

[CrispyQ]

98. That's what Michael Moore asked.

"Who are you gonna vote for? The guy who says he's gonna fuck you, or the guy who says he's gonna take care of you & then he fucks you?"

I wish the dems would listen to him.

[GoneFishin]

136. The one that pretends to be your friend is way more dangerous. You haven't earned your

business credentials until you have had some asshole try to fuck you over, while at the same time he tries to convince you and the other people in the room that he is on your team.

If he was honest about what he was doing then everyone would agree that he should be thrown out. But by using such a ruse the people in the room remain divided, and are paralyzed to take any decisive action against him.

[Divernan]

31. Speechifying is not always pointless, i.e, Hillary's $400,000 from Goldman Sachs

I have absolutely no doubt she will follow through on her spoken reassurances to Big Banking.

Hillary Clinton nets $400K for 2 speeches at Goldman Sachs
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Hillary-Clinton-nets-400K-2-speeches...


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/

To understand why the Warren wing of the party is making noise, look no further than a report from Ben White and Maggie Haberman in Politico Magazine Thursday. They take us to Goldman Sachs' New York headquarters, where the former secretary of state spoke to executives recently:

But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect: We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy—it needs to stop. And indeed Goldman’s Jim O’Neill, the laconic Brit who heads the bank’s asset management division, introduced Clinton by saying how courageous she was for speaking at the bank. (Brave, perhaps, but also well-compensated: Clinton’s minimum fee for paid remarks is $200,000).

That's a tidy summation of why the left doesn't totally trust Clinton and fears a return to the Wall Street-friendly Rubinite days of her husband's administration.

White and Haberman quote a relieved banker: "It was like, 'Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game.' Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness." Of course, the progressives think Democrats are just coming out of the wilderness now: Bill de Blasio will soon be the mayor of the city where Goldman is based. Larry Summers won't chair the Federal Reserve. The Volcker Rule reigns. Now, it seems like the next Democratic nominee wants to go back down the path they've so laboriously climbed.

[djean111]

32. Too bad they don't just go ahead and create a Banker Party and leave the Democratic party alone.

Some asses call liberals/progressives Tea-Baggers, but I think the takeover of the Dem Party by the Third Way corporate types to really be a form of tea-baggery. We are even being told third way or the highway.

[dreamnightwind]

34. +infinity

[Divernan]

46. Actually, they HAVE created a Banker Party

There are two sub genres - one is the Third Way, which has recently morphed into the "New Democrats"; the other the GOP.

[djean111]

48. Yes, you are right. Just have to step back and count the deeds, not the words.

[DesertDiamond]

102. It's things like this that make me NOT want Clinton to be President. I don't think she's represented

the common people for a long time. The last time she did something I thought was good was her version of Obamacare, which quickly got stomped out by the Repubs and which she did not fight for at all. Other than that, I have not felt she was someone I would want running our country.

[Phlem]

97. ?

Wait till it happens then one can be pissed?

The man is done. He's not running again. He's working on his retirement portfolio.

[Maven]

3. His choice of Wheeler tells you all you need to know.

The fix was in from the moment he made that appointment.

[Armstead]

5. I think the fix was in the day he got reelected

He doesn't have to placate us silly citizens and voters anymore

[Plucketeer]

8. You NAILED it! n/t

[truebrit71]

11. Yup...even though we were assured that he would go Full Liberal after he didn't have to worry about.

...another election...

How's that phrase go about being fooled more than once by the same thing....

Yeah...like that...

[RufusTFirefly]

13. Be patient. He's still cleaning up Dubya's mess. Things will be much better soon...

... if we elect the new President Clinton



So, quit your complaining. Otherwise you may screw everything up.

[Tommymac]

67. But 3D chess... n/t

[GoneFishin]

103. I think of this cartoon every time POTUS sticks it to the Democratic base.

Over, and over, and over.

[markpkessinger]

132. Yes -- just wait until the second term . . .

. . . oh, wait. , ,

[RufusTFirefly]

134. I was amused/horrified/annoyed by how the goalposts kept getting moved

"But he's only been in office x months." we were told when we sounded the alarm. Then months became years. Or we were told to hold our tongues until after the mid-terms. Finally, we were advised to sit tight and wait until the glorious second term. And then the process began again. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[markpkessinger]

135. Indeed . . .

. . . and I was likewise horrified at the number of folks who were willing to give him a pass on things over which they'd have been (rightly, I might add) screaming bloody murder had they been done by Bush.

[RufusTFirefly]

138. But, but... The Affordable Care Act!

That's the new conversation stopper. It's supposed to wipe the slate clean. Like debt forgiveness. Like a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.



Never mind that it was first proposed by Richard Nixon and first implemented by that poster child for the plutocracy, Mitt Romney.

[Plucketeer]

44. You mean that old line that W did so well?

Duh...

[RoccoR5955]

18. The fix was in from the day he was nominated

Actually, the fix was in BEFORE he was nominated, when the first question Tim Russet (aka Mr. Potatohead) asked of Dennis Kucinich was, "Did you see a UFO?"

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. +1.

[Nite Owl]

104. But he still needs to secure

a place in history. What is he aiming to be remembered for? It isn't looking good right now, not at all.

Can't he admit a mistake and fire Wheeler? Didn't net neutrality come up in an interview? Is this what he wanted all along? If Wheeler said he was for net neutrality and voted against it because he's afraid of Comcast that seems to be grounds to fire him. (Make him need more time with his family time)

President Obama's silence speaks volumes.

[grasswire]

108. when do we use the words "sold out"?

And that would be the most positive characterization of what we see.

A real cynic would say "betrayed" or worse.

[lark]

115. Taken in, duped?

That's what I think happened, but it could have been threatened and/or bribed??

[lark]

114. Ding, ding

We have a winner.

[Aerows]

6. Yep n/t

[BlueJac]

128. That is how it has been going since he was elected...........

always picks the wrong people, the 1% choice every time.

[RufusTFirefly]

4. What a coincidence! Phony rhymes with pony!

You naive Obama-haters really need to appreciate the complexity of multidimensional chess.
Our President knows what he's doing (besides, he has such a telegenic family!), so don't you worry your beautiful mind over it.
He's got this!!

[RoccoR5955]

21. I understand three dimensional chess.

I have even played 4 and 5 dimensional chess.
I can see ahead plenty of moves, and I can tell you that we are all getting screwed, and many of us are not even knowing it.
Our planet is getting screwed, and everything is getting screwed.
It doesn't take a chess master, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D or nthD chess master to see this. It just takes insight into what someone has done, what has been done in the past, and the fact that much of history is hidden from us, often right under our eyes, to see that we are all getting screwed by the third way folks, the "moderates," and CONservatives.
There are merely a handful of actual Liberals in Congress and the Senate today. I can count them on one hand. Liberal voices have been stifled, as this country has moved more and more to the right, while they distract people with all sorts of things.

[RufusTFirefly]

23. Chess perhaps, but apparently not sarcasm.

My apologies for not being clearer. I thought my response was so over-the-top that the sarcasm would be obvious without a tag.

Rest assured, you and I agree.

[corkhead]

101. I'll let you borrow my sigline if you'd like

[RufusTFirefly]

109. Haha! For the most part, that would work for me.

Every once in a while, I still wax idealistic, but it's becoming increasingly less common.

These days I'm more likely to be waxing wroth.

Wagstaff's Receptionist: The Dean is furious! He's waxing wroth!
Professor Wagstaff: Is Roth out there, too? Tell Roth to wax the Dean for awhile.

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. ...

[emsimon33]

7. Also "all options on the table for ACA," Monsanto exec. to head FDA, TPP, etc., etc., etc,

I have no hopes on how he will go on XL Pipeline.

We used to say that we knew George Bush was lying when his mouth was moving. As hard as I worked twice to get Obama elected, I think the same can probably be said for him, too: He is just another corporate puppet. Liberals are less likely to rise up and challenge the decisions of a Democrat, so I think we have been had.

Oh, don't forget Arnie Duncan who is destroying public education.

[Plucketeer]

9. +1000

[RufusTFirefly]

10. And if even one outrageous betrayal is beaten back because of the uproar....

... you can count on the apologists to crow about it for weeks.

For example, it may be that the hard work of activists pays off and that the prospect of approving the Keystone XL pipeline becomes a PR nightmare.

If that happens, the President will be given the credit and we'll be told to quit bellyaching about our other "ponies."

[marlakay]

36. Got teachers in family who agree to that. Nt

[jwirr]

14. The internet has given me a strong sense of power that I have not had in many years. If he is fool

enough to take this kind of power from the people and hand it over to the corporations then he is indeed a phony. How does he think he won that elections?

[winter is coming]

172. I guess someone doesn't want you to have a strong sense of power.

I can't imagine who that might be, or why.

[iandhr]

15. What can the President do

Given there was a court decision striking down old rules?

[tkmorris]

17. That is a terribly over simplified version of the courts ruling

But the court's ruling as it did was in any case no surprise to anyone, including Obama. What he could do was to appoint someone to the FCC who was committed to upholding the principle of Net Neutrality, which is what promised he would do. There are myriad ways for the FCC to pursue enforcing neutrality, the most obvious one of which was conveniently suggested by the court in the decision you referenced.

What Obama did instead was appoint Tom Wheeler, whose basic biography you can read in his wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler . Obama hired the fox to guard the henhouse, and it was done right out in the open.

[iandhr]

33. Thanks

I am not that up to speed on this issue.

I am trying to educate myself.

[grahamhgreen]

26. This is the oft-used "hands are tied" argument. I like to call it the impotent president argument.

[QC]

70. He is the greatest leader in history, yet he is utterly powerless.

It is The Great Obama Paradox.

[grahamhgreen]

143. Precisly - his brain is multi-dimensional, unlike us mortals, yet he's been stymied.

[Raksha]

147. I've been calling it the "helpless president" argument for about four years now--

almost the same thing. So Obama is either a puppet (and a willing one at that) or a hostage, neither of which makes him a great president.

[silvershadow]

16. He is approaching his last two years. It should be a time for him to nail some things down.

This would be one thing for sure. If he doesn't, it not only won't bode well for the remainder of his term, but for Democrats this Fall (imho). Sigh...

[Armstead]

49. Oh he's nailing things down all right

It's just at he's nailing the down for Comcast, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs et. al. instead of for us.

[silvershadow]

60. I am sorry to say I can't disagree with you. :/ nt

[Demo_Chris]

19. Got some bad news for you. He was ALWAYS just a shill...

That's the only reason you have ever heard his name. The guy hadn't even finished a single term as a Senator and suddenly he was a front runner for the Presidency, which means he made some HUGE promises to his corporate owners. Promises he has so far kept.

[SammyWinstonJack]

81. BINGO!

[Nite Owl]

107. Absolutely right

These things are settled way before we even realize the whole issue.
No one believed me when I tried to tell them to look at his buddies to know him.
I worked for him in hopes I was wrong. The alternative was much worse. That's always the way it is.

[840high]

123. ...^ that

[Raksha]

148. +1000

[JohnnyRingo]

20. That's where you draw the line?

All the good he's done in nearly six years will go down the toilet forever unless he stands up against the telecoms, and that's it? I'm a big advocate for net neutrality, I really am, but to say it's the straw that breaks the proverbial back of some uncompromising camel sounds like just another hyperbolic rant that brands DU and other sites as a home for psychobabble.

I've individually heard the very same ultimatum from those indignant about NSA overreach, single payer health care advocates, and people absolutely adamant about national LBGT marriage rights. It seems everyone has that single issue that completely negates this president's past record. In your case, it's dread of a slow internet connection.

I'm not saying to stop fighting, or that Obama will or will not do anything about NN, I just think hair-on-fire screaming about every single issue like it's all that matters in the world doesn't help garner support. Instead, I find it somewhat repulsive to the cause.

I'm so glad I'm not president of a perpetually ungrateful nation of chronic complainers.

[giftedgirl77]

27. Very well said, I agree 100%.

[Armstead]

52. I apologize for being angry...I'm so happy that Obama is giving the Interne to the highest bidder

[giftedgirl77]

62. Poor you, looking at your posting history bashing

Dems seems to be quite a hobby for you. I'm not impressed nor away by your whine fest.

[Armstead]

79. "Move on Citizen. Nothing to see here."

I suppose it's better to give politicians a free pass to do the same things Republicans do, as long as there is a D after their name.

My guess is that you were probably one of those who in the late 90's said "Oh stop whining and griping about the deregulation of Wall St. and the banking system. Our President and Democratic Congress members know what they are doing by removing controls over banks. What could go wrong?"

[giftedgirl77]

87. No, it has to do with the oh my god the world is going

to end Obama has done nothing but fuck us over crowd. It's the exact same shit everyday, bash away hoping something sticks. So far of the multiple bullshit that has been claimed he is taking action on nothing happens, then the keyboard activists swear it was their yelling at the computer screen that won the battle. The permanent outrage at dems is played out.

[Armstead]

90. So what are we supposed to do? Just allow the Wealthy and Powerful to keep buying our government?

Just keep endlessly repeating "rah-rah" and just sit back and let the "Grownups" keep screwing us over? The same "gtownups who crashed the economy on 2008 and brought us "too big to fail" banks and Media Monopolies, etc?

I suppose we should just enjoy the fact that President Obama and before him President Clinton make us feel good with one face, while the other face does things like appoint Industry Lobbyists to head the agencies that are supposed to be the watchdogs over those industries?

If if see another potential train-wreck in the making, we're just supposed to cover out eyes and silently turn away, and let the trains collide?

And, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a Discussion Board. That means it's here to discuss things -- which includes venting about things that make people angry.

You want a blind "I love President Obama and I think the Democrats are doing everything perfectly" echo chamber?

[giftedgirl77]

92. One, I didn't reply to you, I responded to someone else.

Two nobody said you need to rah-rah anyone, the problem is your hypocrisy. Your title for this OP is "Unless Obama walks his talk on Net Neutrality, he is a Phony", I responded to a post that essentially called you a hypocrite because Obama has done many great things in the last 6 years that you choose to ignore.

I understand the issue with net neutrality & don't disagree. I think you need to realize once again, I DIDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO YOU to try & stop you "discussion".

[Armstead]

95. You replied to a post that was adressing me

You can stop responding to my responses if you want

My honest opinion is that Obama is proving to be a phony. I believed in him, I bit my nails hoping he'd beat Romney. yes, he's done some good things. And he often SAY the right things.

But when push comes to shove, his action are contradictory to that...IN MY OPINION.

Appointing Industry Insides to regulate industries is something I expect from Republicans. But it strikes me as phony when a Democrat who claims to believe differently does it.

[giftedgirl77]

96. Well then it's a good thing you can't vote for him in 2016,

imagine all the evil he could do then?

[Armstead]

110. I should restrain myself but.....

they'll have H. Clinton to carry the corporate ball then.

(Sorry I couldn't resist.)

[giftedgirl77]

133. Maybe, or Biden from what I heard this morning.

Who knows????

[11 Bravo]

38. Damn, I wish I could rec this!

[Armstead]

51. It's one of many straws -- It IS possible to walk and chew gum at the same time

It's not like those of us who are mad about this are only mad about this. It's one of many straws -- It IS possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

And if we're mad, what the hell are we supposed to do? Just sit in the damn corner and shut up, and keep getting rolled without a peep? As I said in a previous post "I'd rather have my hair on fire than my head in the sand."

I'm sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities by being mad about something that is being done that is wrong, and expressing it.

Why do you think the bastards keep getting away with it? Because there are too many complacent apologists for the status quo.
That's why the rich keep getting richer, big Monopoly Corporations keep getting bigger, WHY THE INTERNET WILL SOON BE TOTALLY OWNED BY CORPORATE MEDIA WHO WILL ESTABLISH TIERS THAT WILL DESTROY THE PREMISE OF OPEN ACCESS, why we have banks that are too bi to fail...etc.

Ungrateful? Yeah I'm not grateful tat the Internet is being sold to the highest bidder by a president who claimed that he would fight to prevent that...Among otehr things.









How long are you going to keep giving poliicians like Obama the benefit of the doubt?

[JohnnyRingo]

61. Seems you do indeed have a lot on your chest.

THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!
"Just had to get that off my chest"
Thu May 15, 2014, 03:04 PM

In fact, after sorting through your past replies, I'd have to wonder what your post count would be if you didn't spend every day whining about democratic presidents. From Clinton's NAFTA to anything you think Obama hasn't done for you lately, you seem perpetually outraged at our party leaders. It must be hard to believe you don't have 100% support to begin a fratricidal impeachment of Obama with all the anti-campaigning you do.

As I mentioned, it's not like I disagree with you about the perils of losing net neutrality, I wrote my own OP on it a couple days ago. The problem is how offensively you focus your hyperbolic anger. I agree with Paul Ryan that people at the bottom need opportunity, but he's a jerk and I don't like his partisan solution. In your case, I sympathize with your cause, I just wouldn't want to be seen with you because of your abrasive nature. You lose more support than you gain.

I thought you summed your approach to the subject well enough Saturday night:

"Because I'm an asshole"
Sat May 10, 2014, 08:28 PM


Are you headed to Washington today to "drive President Barack Obama and disloyal lawmakers out of office"? Operation American Spring may be just what you're looking for to channel your anger.

[Armstead]

93. yes I get carried away...and to be honest, I come to DU to vent when things piss me off

I'm actually in real life fairly easygoing and agreeable. And over the years on DU I have written many balanced and "polite" posts, and ones that have been supportive of Obama and Democrats.

But after 30 years of seeing the same things happen over and over -- and seeing Democrats either ignoring or abetting it -- I do get really pissed off. And I gotta vent.

We need more people to get pissed off. That's the only way anything ever will change.

The idea tat we are supposed to "shut up and stop complaining" about the Internet is the same nonsense as the 90's, when "polite Democrats" said "Shut up and stop complaining" as Clinton was deregulating the Big Media, despite the obviously awful things it would result in.

Same thing as when Clinton and too many Democrats gave the keys totally over to their buddies in the Big Banks and Wall St. "Oh shut up. Stop complaining. This will be good for the economy. i will increase competition among banks. They will behave themselves."

[ecstatic]

76. [phone]. nt

[Progressive dog]

127. ^^K&R^^

That was very well stated.

[Skittles]

159. this is a joke, right?

do you not understand the repercussions of decisions regarding net neutrality? IT'S NOT A BALANCING ACT WITH ACTIONS TAKEN IN THE PRIOR SIX YEARS.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JohnnyRingo]

163. Will I lose my pension over the defeat of net neutrality?

Because in 2009 I had about another three months after the failure of General Motors before my pension ended forever. Fortunately for me, Obama stood up to nearly every republican in the country who wanted union contracts shredded, and bailed the company out with a loan.

Your excessive use of capital letters seems to indicate that we face an even worse fate than my grandchildren losing their WIC card or the health care they now have access to only because of Obama's choice of FCC chairman.

Back in the '80s the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could buy up radio stations wholesale without restrictions. Many predicted that it would be the end of FM radio, and I think that's mostly true. FM radio really does suck now that five companies own almost every station in the country, but is your daily struggle through life really worse now because it, or have you mostly forgotton how dire that desperately pressing issue was?

As I said in my comment, I'm all in for net neutrality, but we have to put things in proper perspective. It's an issue that has sincere merit, but it's not the most important issue we face today as your heated reply seems to indicate. I'd like you to give me one good reason why I should join you in turning our collective backs on one of the most labor friendly presidents of my long life and declare him dead to me.

Take me down that proverbial slippery slope that you've inflated in your head from a slow internet connection to an oligarchy of Comcast Storm Troopers marching through the streets gunning the working class down at will. Explain to me why should I tell Obama that I appreciate his action in saving my pension, his effort to bring gender parity into the workplace, and his work in providing healthcare for millions of uninsured, but he can now go fuck himself forever over net neutrality. I'm sure you can find negative consequenses in an NN defeat, but it's hyperbole at best and really not the end of the world as we know it.

I agree that NN is a battle worth fighting for, but you and others appear to be using it as an excuse to erase the legacy of a president that you probably never liked anyway. Certainly calling him a "phony" over this one issue is more repulsive than uniting for the cause, and no, I'm not joking. Instead of recruiting widespread support, it makes me want to disassociate myself from the mass hysteria you're trying to generate over net neutrality.

Please stop trying to help, you're absolutely doing more harm for the cause than good in your frantic overreaction, and is akin to the republican plight to beat Obama over the head with their cause du jour, from Fast & Furious to Benghazi.

BTW... If you're so lazy that you provide a cut & paste of someone else's rant, or add a truckload of links, I'm not going to waste time reading or exploring them. That'll tell me you obviously aren't that passionate to the cause. Use your own words and keyboard to win me over to your position of total disdain for a man I think is a great president. Sell me on why net neutrality is the end of the world and we have to impeach Barack Obama before it's too late.

[Skittles]

165. omg

HAHA omg

not EVEN worth the effort (it's not all about YOU - it's about EVERYONE, it's about THE FUTURE OF AMERICA)

[INdemo]

22. Wow did he ever give great campaign stump speeches

about all the things he wanted to do. Protecting Social Security,Medicare and yes Net neutrality was mentioned a time or two.
But you know one has to really be concerned or wonder when we look back at all the Republicans he appointed to his cabinet and the Wall Street wonders he has appointed a Treasury Sec and even the Attorney General seems to be on the big banks payroll by never prosecuting them for stealing our money...But yes we shall see and yes he is a phony if he allows the internet to be taken over by the corporate mafia.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. The President was fear-mongering on Social Security from the get-go

Long before he was even the nominee.
Paul Krugman was wise enough to call him on it way back in 2007.


Unfortunately, the smitten electorate failed to recognize the ominous warning signs and fell for the award-winning marketing campaign instead.

[Bonhomme Richard]

24. Bottom line. Our Government is all about big business and.....

making sure that nothing serious gets in its way.
If there is a big enough stink from the people then they will reshuffle the cards, add some short term placating, move the conversation back to the closed room and plan a smarter strategy to ensure that they get what they want.
I noticed that the two republicans on the commission refused to participate because they think congress should handle the changes. Yea, that's going to work out well for us.
Now move along.

[Armstead]

54. It could be different but we're too complacent as a nation to change it

WE have the power. But we choose not to use it, and simply let others take hold of it.

[Enthusiast]

25. Armstead, you are 100% right on. Protect net neutrality or forever be known as a Phony.

That's the facts, Jack!

"Why the hell did he appoint an industry lobbyist, investor, advocate for the Big Telecomm Monopolies and Bedmate of Comcast to head the FCC?"

We heard excuses for the appointment of a conservative justice yesterday.

What is the excuse for appointing an industry representative on such a crucial issue?

[RKP5637]

28. Seems he waits for which direction the wind is blowing and then goes with it ... too much of this

behavior IMO.

[randys1]

30. One thing the Oligarchs (seperate from the President) dont want to do is piss off the

Generation Z or those just coming up.

If you phuck with their access to the internet and ultimately the truth, said generation might just figure out a way to put an end to anything they could do.

The Oligarchs biggest problem right now is an educated populace, the Koch's and so on need most of us to be stupid and prevent us from the truth on the internet, we all know that, but if they actually take access away the response may be more than those terrorist America hating human hating motherphuckers ever asked for.

[Armstead]

55. They wont take access away. Just make it more expensive and discriminatory based on $$$$

[randys1]

91. Same thing, nobody is gonna wait 5 minutes for the liberal site to load

[pa28]

37. The White House already outlined his position.

"The FCC is an independent agency, and we will carefully review their proposal. The FCC’s efforts were dealt a real challenge by the Court of Appeals in January, but Chairman Wheeler has said his goal is to preserve an open Internet, and we are pleased to see that he is keeping all options on the table. We will be watching closely as the process moves forward in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality."

Ever heard such feckless bullshit? Me neither.

The point is we have to do this ourselves. We'll get no help from Obama and Wheeler's solution is probably the kind of triangulated oatmeal the White House was looking for all along.

[scarletwoman]

39. "...keeping all options on the table." Gawd, I HATE that phrase!!!

I don't WANT "all options on the table"! I want some options OFF the damn table! I want the options that are too crappy, too destructive, too harmful to ordinary humans, too friendly to the fucking plutocrats, OFF the table!

Like, right from the get-go.

Bomb Iran? Insane! OFF the table!

Chained CPI? Are you fucking kidding me?!? OFF the table!

Keystone pipeline? Sure, let's destroy our ecosystem faster! OFF the table!

Two-tiered internet access? Oh, no you don't! OFF the table!

GAAAAH!

[Tommymac]

69. [phone]

[ctsnowman]

83. X 1000

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. ...

[Maven]

40. Ah the art of saying absolutely nothing while appearing to say something. nt

[KoKo]

105. Lawyerly evasive language: "in hopes that the final rule stays true to the spirit of net neutrality"

The "spirt of net neutrality" rather than the legality of net neutrality if they can be ruled a "public common carrier" subject to scrutiny and regulation by representatives of the people.

That old protect the "Spirit and Letter of the Law" turned into just "the spirit." You have to read every statement of him for the legalese that hides in the rhetoric.

[LiberalElite]

41. In 2008 I voted for Obama

despite misgivings because I'm more liberal than he is. I voiced this concern to a good friend who said, "Obama's a liberal. He's just hiding it till he gets elected." (I didn't really believe her.) From time to time I wanted to ask my friend (who died in 2011) when she thought Obama would come out of that liberal closet. I never did ask her because I didn't want to start a big argument. However, my friend would leave me voicemails yelling that she would never vote for him again.

P.S. I voted for him in 2012 too.

[deutsey]

47. I voted for him both times

but I've never been on the Obama bandwagon. I'm solidly on the left, a Democratic Socialist. I knew damn well he wasn't going to represent my core values. But I knew McCain and Romney would even be worse.

Alas...same as it ever was for me in American electoral politics since my first ballot cast against Reagan in '84. I have never enthusiastically voted for anyone on the presidential level who won. (I voted Clinton twice, but he was not my initial choice in '92...far from it).

[LiberalElite]

64. Yes - I'm so tired of

"vote for this one because the other one's worse" wheel spinning ritual.
We never get anywhere in this country anymore. Hmmm. I wonder why...

[ctsnowman]

84. X2

Except in 08 I really believed. I had tears in my eyes that night. Didn't last long though.

Peace.

[KoKo]

140. I think most of us DU Oldies (Legacy) Dems voted for him 1st and 2nd Term...

out of principle or some of us more skeptical...who needed more convincing...because

"The Nation" said...he will become a liberal in his 2nd Term...after promoting why we should vote for him in his First Term.

Something went wrong there......... Something went VERY WRONG THERE.........

[deutsey]

141. I had friends who were enthusiastic about him

and I really wanted to be, as well. But when I heard Geithner and Summers and that crowd were part of his inner circle, I just couldn't see how he was going to provide the real "hope and change" I wanted.

[INdemo]

73. Well we will get the same with Hillary (a Republican lite)

only worse. Liberal voters would find it difficult to support her and stay home on election day. We need Elizabeth Warren and yes she could win...

[Doctor_J]

45. that ship already sailed

he handed the corporations healthcare, re renewed the Bush Billionaires Tax Cut, he's working on handing them the schools, and TPP basically gives them their own constitution.

I wish he hadn't lied through the entire GE campaign in 2008.

[slipslidingaway]

58. ^^^ Unfortunately I must agree that it was evident from the beginning with the HC ...

non-debate.

[7wo7rees]

53. Amen. No other comment.

[MohRokTah]

56. You do realize the FCC is an inependent body, right?

I mean, seriously, whatever the FCC decides, there's nothing mroe that Obama can do about that decision than he can do about a SCOTUS decision. You do realize that, right?

[dorkulon]

99. Just stop.

[MohRokTah]

100. No.

[totodeinhere]

117. Obama is supposed to have the bully pulpit. He can come out strongly in

favor of Net neutrality. He needs to fight for Net neutrality as hard as he can. And stop weaseling around on this issue. Let us know exactly where you stand Mr. President.

[madfloridian]

119. Guess who appoints the leadership? Guess who appointed Wheeler?

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership

"The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business."

[MohRokTah]

57. Okay, I've read the entire thread and it's obvious, nobody on the thread has a fucking clue.

Not one of you understand how the bureaucracy works.

Not one of you understands the meaning of "independent body".

I'll just leave you all now to wallow in your complete ignorance about how our government functions.

[djean111]

65. Oh, we understand "independent body" all too fucking well.

And what happens when one appoints someone to head up that "independent body" who is from the very corporation that wants to do away with net neutrality?
What happens to an independent commission looking at social security when one appoints fucking pete peterson to head it up? A guy who dislikes social security in the first place? Appoint people to head up education who want to privatize the schools?

Tiered internet, cat food, chained CPI, eat yer peas, not much money? slow internet for you! The charter schools get all yer tax money, sweeties, but they don't have to actually take your kids or be successful.....

And then the totally hypocritical barf-inducing oh, this is an "independent body" bullshit - after stacking the deck.

Yeah, we ALL understand independent body - but look who was chosen to head up that body.
There is no viable defense.
Fail.

[Tommymac]

71. Thank You.

[MohRokTah]

72. No, you don't understand one bit. eom

[SammyWinstonJack]

89. ...

[Tommymac]

129. Thanks - I'll double down.

[Armstead]

77. Its obvious you have no reading comprehension

What part of the power of appointing the heads of executive agencies and commissions don't you understand?

[JoePhilly]

82. Its this week's "worst outrage of all time".

Nothing has happened, but damn we're pissed about it.

It sounds a lot like the "OMG, the President is absolutely positively about to gut Social Security and kill granny!" threads that we've enjoyed over the last 5+ years.

Speculative outrage is the best kind.

[Armstead]

112. Speculative outrage is better than after-the-fact groaning

If there'd been more "speculative outrage" in the 90's when they were deregulating the financial sector, we wouldn't all now be complaining about the Crashed Economy and the "Too Big to Fail" Banks.

[totodeinhere]

118. No, we understand how it works. It's just that we want Barack Obama, the man most of us

voted for, to take the lead on this issue and make it perfectly clear that he supports Net neutrality. He needs to use whatever political capital he has to try to cajole the bureaucracy into moving in the right direction on this.

[madfloridian]

121. Guess who appoints these guys?

"The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business."

Yeh, Obama that's who.

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership

[treestar]

124. They want an all powerful presidency

the bully pulpit is the answer to everything. Then when the President does say something, it is "just words." They just want to be unhappy and this is their latest.

[Armstead]

139. NO we just want a president who doesn't sell out out

If you're okay with laws being written and "regulated" by big corporations, while those designed to protect the public interest get gutted, then I guess you're mighty happy these days.

[SamKnause]

59. He is a Wall Street puppet.

Last edited Fri May 16, 2014, 09:05 AM - Edit history (1)

He was the tool needed at the time to get the Republican agenda pushed forward.

He has accomplished many things a Republican president would not have been able to do.

He squandered such an opportunity to push this country toward the change that is needed and wanted by the majority of Americans.

He has been such a disappointment.

His appointments have been such a disappointment.

Bipartisanship sucks when the opposing party is insane.

[Armstead]

75. So true regarding bipartisanship

We have a choice between a party that is crazy and extreme in their worship of the God of Profit and dedicated to bigotry, and another that is corrupt and ineffective.

[pansypoo53219]

63. we NEED to upgrade the tubes.

[Broward]

66. Another example of having to play defense

against a Democratic administration.

[Tommymac]

68. +1 You had me at Phoney n/t

[Dustlawyer]

74. As long as we make our politicians raise money to get elected,

they will owe the moneyed folks favors for it. If we do what we have always done, we will get what we always got!
Demand Publicly Funded Elections!

[ctsnowman]

86. You are

looking at this the wrong way. Just think how cool it's going to be to get those AOL discs in the mail again. And the artwork we can make with them...

[Armstead]

88. I remember those -- and all that modem telephone noise as they were setting up

[truth2power]

94. Obama is very good at speechifying...

But talk is cheap. As anyone should understand by now.

From "comfortable shoes" to net neutrality, it's just blah, blah, blah.

[blackspade]

106. Exactamundo.

[WilliamPitt]

111. Agreed.

[evilhime]

113. I am disappointed on many fronts

Net Neutrality is for sure one of them, and nominations is another... like the judge in GA whose decisions demonstrate right wing extremism and that's a lifetime appointment! Or the new nominee who was approved as undersecretary of education who has a history of being a staunch support of privatization of education and charters, not public education and improving that. His financial appointees are all Wall Streeters and I don't think we have to wonder where their loyalty lies. I have often wondered where the progressive we thought we elected was, and while Congress certainly bears responsibility for a lot that is wrong, our President bears a LOT Of it!!!!

[truedelphi]

116. Yes a President bears a lot of the blame. 80% of what a Presdient can claim as their legacy comes

Thru the appointments they make.

With his appointing Geithner, and re-appointing Bernanke, he is a big part of the economic slaughter of the middle class.

I mean, even though Bernanke tinkered around with things at the Fed, so that there was a 200% price spike in oil prices, Bernanke got re-appointed.

Well, I am sure that Obama's honorariums will reflect such due diligence on the part of the President for his buddies over at the Big Banks and Big Energy companies. His take will be far higher than the mere $ 100,000 per speech former Pres. Clinton gets.

[Divernan]

120. Bill C.charges up to $750,000 per speech-Clintons solidly in 1 %

While HC was Secretary of State, she had to disclose amounts & sources of her husband's income on govt. employee financial disclosure forms. That's where all the details in this 2013 article come from. Now, and for as long as she is not a declared candidate for president, the Clintons' speechifying and all other income sources remain confidential - between them & the IRS. The details are almost impossible to believe - he was paid over $200,000 by a financially failing "non-profit" hospital. A newspaper publishing company in Nigeria paid him $700,000 each for speeches in two successive years - 2011 and 2012. Any politically cognizant person can draw conclusions about what quid pro quos are expected by domestic and foreign special interests groups and businesses in anticipation of Bill Clinton's wife being elected president.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/first-on-cnn-bill-clintons-106-million-speech-circuit-windfall/

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton embarks on her new career as a paid speaker, she joins a lucrative family business that already has earned her husband more than $100 million since leaving office in 2001.

According to a CNN analysis of 12 years of federal financial records, former President Bill Clinton had his most active and profitable year on the lecture circuit in 2012, delivering 73 speeches for $17 million from mid-January 2012 through mid-January 2013. That brought his total haul in speaking fees since leaving the White House to $106 million. His previous record for annual speech income was $13.4 million in 2011.

As in previous years, the former president's highest-paying events were held overseas. He earned $5.2 million last year for 15 speeches given in 12 countries. The most lucrative was a February speech to a local newspaper publishing company in Lagos, Nigeria, for which he received $700,000. He addressed the same group in 2011 for the same amount. He earned an additional $150,000 for a June speech delivered via satellite to an audience in Australia, while on a speaking tour in Florida. The remainder of his 2012 speech income was earned before domestic audiences in 15 states and the District of Columbia.

http://www.politico.com/playbook/0213/playbook10052.html?hp=l6

02/18/13 6:08 AM EDT

EXCLUSIVE: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will hit the paid speaking circuit this spring (likely April or May) and has selected the Harry Walker Agency, which represents President Clinton, as her agent. Industry officials expect that she will be one of the highest paid speakers in the history of the circuit, with fees well into the six figures in the United States and abroad.

[blockquote

]Bill Clinton has earned a whopping $500,000 speaking advance to deliver a 45 minute speech at the 90th birthday bash for Israeli President Shimon Peres — putting Clinton’s price tag at roughly $11,100 per minute.
In 2011, records show Clinton’s most lucrative events were overseas. He earned $750,000 in November 2011 to travel to Hong Kong to speak to employees at the Swedish-based telecom giant Ericsson. That year, he also earned $700,000 for an appearance at a newspaper publishing company in Lagos, Nigeria, and $550,000 for a speech to a business conference in Shanghai, China.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-clinton-paid-500-000-speaking-advance-45-minute-speech-earning-11-100-minute-article-1.1361928#ixzz31uB4y4ch

Bill Clinton accepted a $225,000 speaking fee from the nonprofit Washington Hospital Center smack in the middle of two big rounds of layoffs in 2012 — one of a number of tax-exempt organizations that have paid big money to hear the former president talk.

The $225,000 payment wasn’t made public by the hospital on its annual Internal Revenue Service forms, but rather appeared among dozens of lucrative speeches by Mr. Clinton reported on his wife’s final ethics filing as secretary of state.

“No disrespect to Bill Clinton, but that money could’ve gone a long way and been put to better use,” said Dan Fields Jr., president of the Service Employees International Union Local 722 representing hospital workers. “Our contract expires on June 30, and I’m pretty sure they’re going to come to the table and talk about how they’re losing money, so this concerns me greatly.”

The hospital is hardly the only 501(c)(3) organization to shell out big money to hear Mr. Clinton speak. The Naples Philharmonic Center in Florida paid Mr. Clinton $200,000. Later, the nonprofit filed IRS forms showing that it lost $338,000 in overall revenue of about $24 million that same year. Another organization listed on Mrs. Clinton’s ethics form, the Bushnell Center, shelled out a six-figure check to Mr. Clinton. IRS forms show it reported a $1.8 million deficit during the same tax year it hired the former president.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/6/bill-clinton-cashes-in-on-nonprofit-hospital/#ixzz31uDdyZfU
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[truedelphi]

137. And my activist friends wonder why we are being sold out on a daily basis.

From the economy to Monsanto to All Big War All the time, I guess the $750,000 for a speech does explain quite a bit of it.

Thanks so much for all the info.

[840high]

122. k/r

[intaglio]

125. Let's get this off my chest

Are you aware that the FCC is an independent body and that the President has little or no control over it's actions other than nominating appointees for the executive posts when they become vacant?

[Tommymac]

130. But Independent...

Come on, get real.

[intaglio]

131. Ah, basic conspiracy theory

In your world the President is the great dictator the wing-nuts continually denigrate.

[Tommymac]

158. No, he is just another politician out for himself.

Not evil - just corrupt.

[Divernan]

142. Obama appointed ALL the current members including chair

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 01:55 AM - Edit history (2)

Poor intaglio, not having the basic knowledge that Obama appointed all 5 of the current members, including the Chairman. Or that since members are only appointed for 5 year terms, that ANY president going into his 6th year in office will have appointed EVERY SINGLE ONE of the commissioners.

http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/commissioners-1934-present

Mignon Clyburn, appointed August 3, 2009 (served as acting chairwoman from May 20, 2013 to Nov. 4, 2013) Democrat , South Carolina

Jessica Rosenworcel,Democrat,Connecticut, appointed May 11, 2012
Ajit Pai, Republican Kansas, appointed May 14, 2012

Tom Wheeler, Chairman, Democrat, Washington, DC, appointed November 4, 2013

Michael O’Rielly, Republican, Washington, DC, appointed November 4, 2013

I think Obama's fans and critics alike will agree that Obama didn't pull these names out of a hat. He had extensive background checks and interviews of each of these individuals performed before appointing them.

[KoKo]

144. Thanks for the Post about this...And it's also true of "other positions" that Elected President

gets "His Choice in Appointments" irregardless of Congress. But...we now forget this because we are so used to EXCUSES from Both Parties. We don't even remember what the RULES ARE, anymore.

Thanks for post and reminder.

[intaglio]

146. fine, and at that point they are allowed to act within their legal remit

Appointing someone is NOT having control of them. Do not make ridiculous claims

[Divernan]

149. Being from the UK, you obviously don't grasp the nuances of presidential appointments.

[intaglio]

150. Nuance is what you lack

but you won't believe it /end

[onenote]

161. No, he didn't pull them out of a hat. Here's how it works.

For a number of years, the decision as to gets appointed to the FCC (other than the Chairman) is based on who is pushing that person.

Thus, the two Democrats appointed to the FCC by Obama, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel are, respectively, a former member of the South Carolina Public Service Commission and not coincidentally, the daughter of senior Congressional Democratic member of Congress James Clyburn, and, in the case of Rosenworcel, a career FCC and Hill staffer who served as senior advisor to former Commissioner Michael Copps and Senators Inouye and Rockefeller.

The two repubs named to the FCC by Obama, Pai and O'Rielly, were the choices of certain senior repubs with whom those two had previously worked at the FCC and/or the Hill. (Pai did have a short stint as in-house lawyer for Verizon, but the bulk of his career before the FCC was spent at the FCC, on the Hill, or at the DOJ.)

It has worked this way on both sides of the aisle for a long time. For example, the two Democrats nominated to the FCC by Bush II were Michael Copps, former staffer to Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings and Jonathan Adelstein, former staffer to Tom Dachle.

Only the Chairman generally is picked directly by the President and it generally is someone with whom the President or the Vice President has a close relationship. Kevin Martin was close to Dick Cheney (his wife worked for Cheney) and he had led the brigades fighting against the recount in Florida. Genachowski was a former classmate of Obama and Tom Wheeler was a major Obama fundraiser and campaign official.

That is not to say that (for the most part) the President appoints someone with no experience in the telecommunications field to be Chairman. Martin had served as an advisor to a previous FCC Commissioner and had been a Commissioner himself before being upgraded to Chairman. Genachowski also had served as an advisor to a previous FCC Commissioner and had then worked for communications entrepreneur Barry Diller. And Wheeler's background is now well known: served as president of the National Cable Television Association from 1979-1984 before leaving to try his hand at starting up companies himself (not all that successfully for the most part), before becoming the second president of the Cellular Television Industry Association, a post he held for around 12 years, before going back into the investment business. (FWIW, the cable industry when he ran NCTA did not resemble today's cable industry in the least; only around half the country was wired and, including broadcast and public access channels, more than 90 percent of the country had access to fewer than 30 channels; Comcast not the behemoth it has become -- it was a regional company with fewer than a half million customers and no programming interests).

Not attempting to defend how it works, just explaining.

[BlueJac]

126. Well I guess he will be a .......

phony. You can take that to the bank with the rest of his broken promises. I lost count myself.

[Efilroft Sul]

145. Kicking this to the top for anyone who's missed it thus far.

[MADem]

151. You sound like you are anticipating the worst, first, and second, that you believe Obama

has an unending supply of influence, that can never be weakened by overuse.

As for "Issue Number Two" in your post, wouldn't anyone with COMCAST connections be required to recuse him or herself from any deliberations in that regard?

Here's how I see the big picture. There are a LOT of issues on the table right now. The Presidential Bully Pulpit, when overplayed, becomes useless. For the President to come out and 'speechify' on every issue reduces his impact.

Is there a vote pending? Has legislation been crafted? Is a deal "next to done?" If you lobby your senator about his/her vote NOW, and that vote doesn't happen for six or eight months, how much impact will your lobbying have? I'd say little to none.

The closer to the event that people gripe, that's when comment--for presidents or citizens-- has the most impact. Fact is, most people don't have their heads wired to focus on this issue, at least not quite yet. It's still a niche concern.

For the record, I am not arguing that the concerns are inconsequential--just that the timing for POTUS to start pounding the podium isn't upon us.

[Armstead]

152. The vote was May 15

The FCC Commissioners could have voted to end consideration and kill off Mr ComCast Wheeler's proposal for the Net Piracy Provision. There was an obvious outcry against it. It is not popular among anyone except the industry, who stand to profit by setting up fast and slow lanes

This was a decision point. By extending consideration Mr. Comcast Wheeler (appointed by President Obama) enables the Industry to gather their forces and keep up unrelenting battle. Meanwhile, average citizens can't keep up an endless battle for months and months,

Tere is no way to rationalize what Obama and Wheeler have done. It is simply waring down the citizenry so something awful can be shoved down our throat.

If my cynical interpretation is incorrect I will happy o be proven wrong. But so far the evidence is that the fix is in.

[MADem]

153. All the vote did was open the topic for DEBATE. Nothing more.

Sure, average citizens CAN keep up an endless battle for months and months. And the more they do, the more they can make elected officials realize that they mean business.

We, The People are not helpless. We can stand up and speak out, and we should.


When I write to my two Senators and my representative, I get a personal reply back. I don't write for stupid stuff, I am not a crank who writes all the time, and I'm not a big money donor. But I know my voice is heard when I express a POV shortly before a vote.

As for "the vote," all that vote did was say "Let's all talk about this issue--for the next four months."

This isn't close to a done deal: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/technology/fcc-road-map-to-net-neutrality.html

F.C.C. Backs Opening Net Neutrality Rules for Debate

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators appear to share one view about so-called net neutrality: It is a good thing.

But defining net neutrality? That is where things get messy.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to open for public debate new rules meant to guarantee an open Internet. Before the plan becomes final, though, the chairman of the commission, Tom Wheeler, will need to convince his colleagues and an array of powerful lobbying groups that the plan follows the principle of net neutrality, the idea that all content running through the Internet’s pipes is treated equally.

While the rules are meant to prevent Internet providers from knowingly slowing data, they would allow content providers to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. Some opponents of the plan, those considered net neutrality purists, argue that allowing some content to be sent along a fast lane would essentially discriminate against other content. ......The three Democratic commissioners on the five-member panel, including Mr. Wheeler, voted in favor of opening the plan to public comment. The plan will be open for comment for four months, beginning immediately.

The two Republican members, who voted against the plan, said that it exceeded the agency’s legal authority, that there had been no evidence of actual harm or deviation from net neutrality principles and that elected members of Congress should decide the issue, not regulatory appointees.

I would URGE you, strongly, to make your voice heard in the Public Comment phase and encourage others to do the same. Read the proposal and put down in writing what aspects are unsatisfactory. The deal is NOT done at this point in time, just make sure you're certain of what you want and how you want this matter decided.

[Armstead]

154. I dont disagree with you -- except to say this should have already been settled

Net Neutrality and the whole concept of how access to the Internet is controlled is not a new issue. Been going on for years, and it's already been made abundantly clear that this is simply a battle between the greed of the companies who control the "pipes" and rights of the public and the greater good of the larger economy.

We SHOULD NOT at this point having to be fighting a a plan to undermine Net Neutrality proposed by an FCC COMMISSIONER APPOINTED AND BACKED BY A PRESIDENT WHO PROMISED TO BE COMMITTED TO NET NEUTRALITY.

That is INEXCUSABLE. The proponents of Net Neutrality -- and the public interest -- should have the support of Obama and the Democrats.

Yes, I am writing in caps because I just am sooooooooo angry. If this was a GOP administration at least it would be understandable.

[MADem]

155. There will always be a tension between those who put the "public good"--as a pure and

separate concept--first, and those who insist that the public good is best served by a robust corporate environment...the whole "The business of America is business!" crowd. I don't have a problem with letting that tension play out. I hope they come to a resolution that is fair and equitable at the end of the day, and everyone who is part of the process feels like they've been heard.

There are those who think that grandma who just wants to watch the video of her grandson and check her email should not have to, in effect, pay for the kid down the street hogging bandwidth and playing video games eighteen hours a day. The small amount granny uses in a month is equivalent to what that kid down the street uses in a day--should they be paying the same monthly fee? There most certainly should be a baseline of service, but what that is, has yet to be established. And with advances in technology, what is now scarce and hard to deliver will one day become a non-issue. Of course, the whole issue of Verizon (to use them as an example) turning off the "tap" and slowing down Business A, while opening up the faucet so Business B can flow like mad has to be addressed too. The issues are myriad--it's not just about potential throttling access to/from websites, it's also about distribution of use, and sippers v. pigs, for lack of a better term.

It will all get sorted out--and it's not inexcusable, it's a discussion that needs to be had. If we don't have it now, we'll be having it later--everyone with an interest in this issue does have an awareness that it's on the block, now we've got four months to encourage everyone to weigh in, pipe up, speak out.

[Armstead]

156. Again I agree except for one fact

I believe the baseline of all this is very simple and straightforward. All of the issues you described, and other issues, are going to depend on who makes the rules, and to what purpose.

Do we want access to what has become a very basic part of our infrastructure to be totally controlled by Pirate Corporations who are only interested in profit (and perhaps censorship of voices opposing their interests)?

Or do we recognize that the channel of information IS a basic public resource,and thus the terms and use of it should be under the control of the public to ensure the pubic interest?

WE ALREADY SCREWED THE POOCH in terms of broadcasting and cable by letting the forces of total privatization win. And we've paid the price by the fact that radio, TV and cable are now totally screwed up and totally Unaccountable to the public. We now have the broadcast spectrum TOTALLY OWNED and controlled by a handful of MEGA MEDIA MONOPOLIES.

WE'RE GOING TO DO TE SAME THING to the Internet if the FCC/WH/Congress totally give away the keys to the greedy corporate piggies..... What Obama/Wheeler et. al are now considering will lead to the same kind of crap -- probably worse.

And they are going to try to wear us down to get it.

I agree with you we need to keep fighting against this But we shouldn't also have to be fighting the President and his Industry Stooge Appointee in addition to the Big ISP Corporations and the GOP.

[MADem]

157. We agree on much!

Now, as for broadcasting and cable, there's a long arc on that, both good and bad. I can remember the days when there were three TV stations (and oh, when Public Broadcasting came on as the occasional fourth, with Madame Slack teaching French and Julia Child chopping up duck--how exciting!). And then, on came cable with LOTS of choices, and HBO and SHOWTIME did things on TV that we could NEVER see on network television--never in a million years. I used to go to the movies a lot, for variety, because even back then, TV just sucked some nights--now I rarely go to the films; I wait for them to come to me on TV. We can argue about how the Fairness Doctrine got flushed, and I don't like that either, but so long as money is speech, we have to acquire more than them until we can change the rules.

And speaking of rule changes, if we don't like what is going to happen, we need to "call Congress, right fucking now" and get them involved. Actually, we don't absolutely HAVE to call them now, we can wait on that. See, the FCC can make regulations, but only CONGRESS makes LAW. And LAW trumps regulations any day of the week. We can get more than one bite from this apple, if needs must.

This is not about "the President" and to make it so is to place blame unfairly and personify it, to boot. The forces behind these proposals have been gathering strength and stirring the pot for several decades now, since Reagan, or even earlier, and now we're getting ready for yet another great big paradigm shift, which is happening not-so-coincidentally at a time when the vast majority of millennials are cutting the cable and being more selective/relying on peers to tell them what to watch--on their computers.

We've gone from small screen to big screen and back again. The entire "ratings" system is garbage because the providers of the material have no real idea how many eyes are on their product. All they can do is make a best guess using secondary influencers (social media, e.g.). And if they get to be too jerky, some genius will come up with a way to cut them out of the equation--just like the cable providers were cut out of a large piece of the pie by their usurious behavior. It's only the tech - lazy, the tech-clueless, the people who don't care about spending a bit extra on TV, and the people who do care but who are busy as hell (too busy to learn how to cut the cord, in essence), and the very mobile, the people who move every few years, who are still hooked up to cable.

It's great to try and gouge people, but when these companies go over the line and charge more than the traffic will bear, people will find a way around it, or give it up entirely. And that's true even in a monopoly--charge too much for coffee, and people will switch to tea. Some smartass will develop a different system, a tweak on satellites, or some kind of wireless protocol (rather like they are talking about for electricity one day) that can cover large areas--and then where will the "internet" providers be? Already they're competing with the smart phone guys, who have entered the fray--who else will come into the mix?

Once they define what it (net neutrality) definitively is, then it gets really interesting!

[Armstead]

160. "great big paradigm shift"

Maddem...You summed up perfectly what is about to happen with that phrase. And This will NOT be a good paradigm.

I realize all of the forces at work here. And I will continue to do what little I can to make sure our voices are heard.

However, it is also simply the latest version of all the crap that has been happening in every sector of the economy for decades.We allow Mega Mergers to occur that should not happen, and we allow those Mega Corporate Empires to write the rules in their favor. It's the same mentality that has made us slaves to Too Big To Fail Banks.

That is why many of us with our "hair on fire" about it are so angry and frustrated -- because we see history repeating itself. And it has happened over and over in many industries.

These trainwrecks are NOT an unstoppable force of nature. It is due to our collective apathy and docility as a society, and an almost total lack of leadership on the part of the politicians who claim to represent us.

That, frankly is why I am so damn mad at President Obama and the entire Democratic Party (well, not all of the Democratic Party...Just the ones who have been selling us out all these years). They have, over the last four decades, ALLOWED these monstrous Mega-Corporate Empires to be built.

And, I am sorry, but unless I see the president and more Dems step up to the plate and fight hard to stop this latest Corporate Takeover of Life I have to see it that way.

[MADem]

164. It might not be a good shift, at first, depending upon who prevails.

But it may produce better solutions downstream. I'm reading a lot about ideas to link private computers in such a way to get the "gubmint" out of the business entirely, a way of going "off the grid" as it were. That's probably an unlikely fix short-term, but I lived in an era when no one had a color television set, and many, MANY people (my family included) went for several years without a black-and-white set. Sometimes, technology ambles along, other times, we're in "leaps and bounds" territory. I am still driving a car with no air bags, no ABS, no computer at all, it operates by a quaint thing called a "key," I have to remember to turn the lights on and off, it doesn't "warn" with a buzz if I forget, either; and the super modern windshield wipers have two settings--slow and fast. And I drive on roads with electric cars and hybrids with all the bells and whistles. Change stutters, and starts, sometimes.

As I said, we get two bites of the apple here (many more, in actual fact, because laws can be repealed, though it's not always an easy process--look how long the GOP have tried to repeal ACA?).

Regulation is one thing, but legislation is something else entirely.

We do need a strong Dem presence in Congress--not just a simple majority, a strong and progressive presence--that can power legislation through, if needs must.


I say let the comment period commence. Yes, there will be corporate interests who will push their agenda, and the response to that is to push back. Hard. Often. Many voices.

Those kids playing HALO 346 or whatever the iteration is need to put down the controllers and first, engage in the comment process and second, write to their legislators--that would a start. If they sit back, do nothing, and complain about "the man" after the fact, they've done it to themselves. They are the future, and they probably need to be made aware that "The future is NOW."

As for politicians "leading us," I don't view them that way. Certainly, the POTUS in his position as Commander in Chief is leader of our military, and he can, of course, exert "moral leadership" to guide us through the issues of the day, but I do believe that in USA, the "leaders" are "We, The People" and the politicians are our public "servants." They SERVE us. But even the best waiter doesn't know what to bring you, if you do not place your order first.

Bring those politicians critical mass that see things your way, and they WILL do your bidding. They serve the people, because, if they don't, they get fired. Perhaps that's where "We, the People" should concentrate our resolve, persuading busy people to "check in" --in every way possible, through a letter writing, telephone, and social media campaign--and complain across the board about this issue.

[Armstead]

167. I guess the major difference here is that you're more optimistic than I

I try to be hopeful and all of that. But over time, I've seen these same mistakes repeated -- and I'm sick of seeing preventable disasters being allowed to happen due to a combination of public apathy (or misinformation), the greed of Corporate Oligarchs, and the corruption and weakness of political leaders, especially those in the Democratic Party who claim to represent core democratic and liberal values.

(And yes, we hire politicians -- but we hire them to lead based on our collective interests, not on what their corporate sponsors want.)

There are always many scenarios possible, including compromises and flexibility. But frankly I don't see that happening. Instead we put into place Corporate Monopoly Empires that are almost unshakable -- such as Too Big To Fail Banks and Media Monopolies who have a chokehold over the information infrastructure.

In the long run these things get WORSE and more entrenched, because it becomes more difficult to pry loose the grip that the Oligarchs gain, with their ever growing power and wealth. Look at how the Banksters were REWARDED for tanking the economy instead of being broken up and hauled off to jail for their crimes.

And we see the demise of the middle class, the worsening of the position of the lower classes, while a handful of Fat Greedy Pigs at the top siphon all of our money to themselves and buy the political process with our acquiescence.

I hope you are correct. But right now I am very angry and disheartened as I see YET AGAIN a complacent WH and Congress allowing the concentration of wealth and power in the media to move into an ever higher gear through the same patterns of mergers, deregulation and corruption. (In this case, the combination of the Comcast merger, Direct TV/ATT merger and the dismantling of Net Neutrality)

I would love to see that pattern change.

[MADem]

168. I think things ARE getting better, in a lot of ways.

The air IS getting cleaner (I remember acid rain and rotting cars full of rust--I had a car with flattened beer cans for a floor because it was rusted through).

People RECYCLE. I used to see trash all over the highway, plastic and glass bottles everywhere. No one used to "recycle." It wasn't even a concept.

People don't blow smoke in your face while you are eating at restaurants anymore.

It's not "OK" to hit kids anymore. When I was growing up, any adult could hit any kid, pretty much, and parents would want to know what the KID did wrong. If a kid got molested, it was their fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time--and the way those kids were "helped" was to be told "Shut up and put it behind you."

Racism and sexism used to be not just OK, but part of the fabric of our lives. It's not "done with" yet, but it's not as awful as it was back in the day.

If we want a better Congress, that's on US. It's not going to be easy and it will take a huge investment of time and dedication on the part of We, The People.

If we can't make the sale, that's on us, too, at the end of the day.

[Armstead]

169. I'm not saying its all bad

Yes there has been progress on a number of fronts, especially I guess in the realm of social tolerance ad civil rights. (I remember when racial differences were much deeper than "white privilege" because African Americans were really perceived and treated as second-class citizens.)

But on the issues that lie at the base of many others -- Who Controls Power and Who Has Wealth -- we're, frankly, headed to hell in a handbasket. It's not only "liberals" who recognize that. It's become more mainstream to acknowledge that it is a serious problem. But we have handed SO MUCH wealth and Power over that is is becoming all but impossible to initiate corrective measures.

Again I am not negating the importance of fighting back. On the contrary.

But as I get older and crankier and see this movie being replayed too many times, I have less and less patience with the notion that we should excuse or condone politicians like President Obama and too many Democrats in Congress who sell us what seems to be a remedy, only to find that once they get into office their actions become more oriented to placating the Piggy Oligarchs than the majority.

[MADem]

170. It's easy to play video games and watch TV. It's harder to call/write/visit our representatives.

I get legislative updates from my senators and rep because I let them know what's important to me. I know they're written by an aide, but I also know that they're written by a senior aide who knows my name.

They aren't the boss of us--we're the boss of them. We need to just get back in the mindset of giving orders again, and firing people who don't make the grade (take THAT, Scott Brown!).

It can be done.

[Armstead]

171. i'll agree with you on that, and will leave it there...except to say...

I'm still pissed.

[onenote]

162. Whether your interpretation is incorrect cannot be determined yet

But what is clear is that anyone thinking the die is cast knows little about FCC rule making proceedings. I'm in my fourth decade of participating in such proceedings on behalf of a wide range of interested parties and I've seen any number of "proposals" change dramatically or even die completely after they were put out for comment.

The best way to ensure that they don't change? Tell people there is no point in fighting because they're just "average citizens."

Not an FCC matter, but keep in mind it was just "average citizens" that took down the SOPA and PIPA proposals.

[Armstead]

173. i'm not saying there is no point in fighting it

but I am still pissed and disappointed that we have to fight a proposal pushed by an industry lobbyist who was put in place on the FCC by President Obama.

[winter is coming]

174. Can't walk the walk without his comfortable shoes. n/t