How FCC Bungling Led to the Google-Verison Net Neutrality Deal

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#1
Net Neutrality: The FCC Bungled the Talks and Led to Google-Verizon Deal - DailyFinance

From the article:

"For nearly two months recently, the Federal Communications Commission convened closed-door talks between powerful broadband and internet companies, hoping to deliver a compromise on net neutrality that Congress would find palatable." ...

... "In April, however, a federal appeals court said the FCC lacked the power to enforce net neutrality, throwing the agency's ambitious National Broadcast Plan into chaos. Obama's old Harvard law school chum, Julius Genachowski (pictured), whom the President tapped to head the FCC, has gotten off to a rocky start." ...
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#3
That's because we have a bunch of amateurs ruling this country. They sometimes look like they are starring in an episode of Ted Mack's Amateur Hour, for none of the major players have any type of business experience, and they are influenced mightily by lobbyists at every turn. The FCC thinks it has executive powers, but they don't, and this little incident, and the courts put them in their place if only for a little while.

I am sure they were disappointed that they are not really as powerful as they wished they were. That is the problem when a regime oversteps their limits, which this administration does on a daily basis, disregarding the U.S. Constitution along the way whenever it suits their needs, which is most of the time !!
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#4
Most of those comments are ridiculously propagandist. It is notable, however, to note that the United States is founded on principles that ensure that decisions regarding values are not reserved to the experts - rather those decisions are reserved to the people (who you would perhaps refer to as "amateurs"). Surely, if the people who have the strongest vested interest in an industry, the folks who make their daily living from the salary they make from working in the industry, had the sole and final say about how that industry would be expected to interact with the folks that the industry serves and the folks who invest in the industry, then things would be a lot different. As it is, our system has checks and balances that ensure that that does not occur - that instead what happens within an industry takes into consideration all the stakeholders, rather than only those who have a vested interest in things going one certain way.

As it is, the folks who talk most about various Presidential administrations "overstepping their limits" (and they all have done so, especially both the Clinton and Bush administrations), if they're being consistent, would make it clear that the FCC shouldn't be even trying to interfere, and instead market forces should decide: What are people most willing to pay for. That's what the most conservative political perspectives would advocate, if they were being honest and were not swayed by selfish persuasions. By contrast, the current administration, unabashedly liberal, actually would seek to insinuate net "neutrality", seeking to dictate onto industry what it should and should not be able to offer, and in what manner it should offer what it does offer, if they were being honest and were not swayed by selfish persuasions.

Regardless, my point was more a matter of deception in the editing of the article, given that the point was made within the article that the FCC didn't have the authority (what you would call "overstepping their limits") yet the headline utilized the sensationalistic word "Bungling" as if not having the power to do what you think is right is in some way a mistake. It shows that the publisher has no respect for the reader, and consequently the reader should probably have no respect for the article.
 

BCF68

DTVUSA Member
#5
Net Neutrality: The FCC Bungled the Talks and Led to Google-Verizon Deal - DailyFinance

From the article:

"For nearly two months recently, the Federal Communications Commission convened closed-door talks between powerful broadband and internet companies, hoping to deliver a compromise on net neutrality that Congress would find palatable." ...

... "In April, however, a federal appeals court said the FCC lacked the power to enforce net neutrality, throwing the agency's ambitious National Broadcast Plan into chaos. Obama's old Harvard law school chum, Julius Genachowski (pictured), whom the President tapped to head the FCC, has gotten off to a rocky start." ...
Where is the "deal"? Last I heard it was a PROPOSAL. Huge difference.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#7
It doesn't matter how the country was founded, or that the people are SUPPOSED to have some kind of power when our RULERS constantly ignore those very basic principals of our chosen style of democratic government when it suits their needs which seems to suit them on a regular basis. One democratic Senator was recently overheard stating that the Federal Government can literally do any thing they want or need to do. That attitude will doom the Democratic party in the upcoming mid term elections, and I can't wait for that day to come.

They need to be taught that the people still have the power of the vote, and we don't enjoy having thousand page bills that no one actually reads jammed down our throats in late night votes that skirt the very foundation of this countries basic laws and regulations. The GOP has made a lot of promises to the public in the past 2 years, and if they don't deliver on them, it will truly be time for a revolution by the people in this country, because we already see what the Democrats have to offer, and that is a depressed economy, bail outs for those who helped get the messiah elected ( The unions ) and most people are very tired of Chicago union Thug style of politics. Destroy and defile your opponent and his opinion is how they operate.

Yes, it is true that previous administrations have over stepped their bounds, but they did not blatantly ignore the U.S. Constitution at every corner like the current clowns are doing. They seem to relish in ignoring the constitution at every step, and take pride in trying to degrade this country into their own personal vision of what a Socialist Society should be in their eyes, all the while, Americans are losing freedoms to them every time they rule on something.

Socialist societies do not work as can be seen from the current state of the Greek economy. The Greeks are rioting in the streets because the Government cannot pay its bills, which most are social programs that have went broke, because that type of society is unsustainable. If everyone sits on the couch and doesn't work, who is left to pay the nations bills and its debt, and actually pay for the couch sitters? That is exactly what is happening in Greece right now, and that is the vision that the current regime has for this nation too. Happy days will never be here again if they are successful in changing this country for the worse, and they have a pretty good start at bringing down the economy, and lying the the American people every time a microphone is shoved in their face by an obviously biased left wing media

Bring on the mid term elections. As my signature used to say and it is still true, "All we have to fear is the current government itself". Czars violate the very basis of the U.S. Constitution, as they retain executive powers, but are not elected officials, and answer to no one but the self anointed messiah, or better known as "He who would be king !!".

They are currently using these same methods and tactics to steal the radio spectrum from it's rightful users, as outlined in the laws of this nation, and the wants and wishes of even the largest broadband companies should not over step the rights of its current lawful users just because they can, and just because someone stands to make big profits off of all of the gullible sheeple. The statists be damned !!
 
Last edited:

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#8
I fear you'll discover that most people who are agreeing with you on the grand principles vigorously disagree with your priorities. (Or perhaps you won't discover it, and will just repeatedly be shocked that what you want doesn't happen, not realizing that, despite claims of conspiracy, the reality is that that people simply don't agree with your priorities.) You keep trying to draw a parallel between net neutrality and what "the people" want to have power to bring about. You even specifically indicated that you're talking about the "lot of promises" that the Republican Party has made. However, the Republican Party is the worst enemy of most of what you've been vigorously advocating. While the Democrats haven't placated you, the Republicans will not even apologize - they aim to do very much the opposite of what you seem to want done, in many cases.

You mentioned specifically the bail-outs granted to the unions, but you totally ignored the massive bail-outs granted to businesses; General Motors and Chrysler most notably. That type of one-sided view of things - condemning the things you don't like about one side, but refusing to acknowledge and accept that the other side is even worse - is going to send you into that never-ending death-spiral of dissatisfaction and disaffection that I have referred to in the past.

The reality is that most of the issues that this government has is not because it is ignoring the people, as you contend, but rather because the people, ourselves, don't agree with each other. Figure, about a third of the people want things one way; a third of the people want things the opposite way; and another third of the people don't want things either way and have nothing constructive to add to the discussion. That's the reality of the world we live in, and it means that nothing significant is going to get done. Again: Because we don't agree - because we vigorously disagree about what should be done.

A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - when those people disagree as comprehensively and passionately as we Americans disagree with each other - must accomplish nothing of consequence. Otherwise, the government is explicitly disrespecting a large portion of the people.

You so vigorously condemn socialism, but you advocate it in the issues you support. In a capitalist society, the government would take a public resource, like the public airwaves, and would regularly auction off access to the highest bidder, with no consideration whatsoever to providing even the 4 HD + 4 SD service that I talked about in the other thread. Everything you have so vigorously advocated for runs against capitalism, and indeed what you support are things for which socialists could find common ground with you.

I'm not saying that that's good or bad. I'm saying that you're aiming to jump from the frying pan into the fire, because you think that changing things in a certain direction will support your issues better, when in reality changing things in that direction will destroy the things you hold dear.

I really don't care who or what you support - my interest is, in this specific instance, just trying to prompt you to make the decisions that will support the people that will actually support the perspectives that you have claimed to support yourself, rather than supporting the people what will actually rip apart what you claim you support. If you stay on the course you're on, then you're the sheeple.
 

FOX TV

Contributor
#9
I don't advocate bailouts for any company in a capitalist society ,and especially an organized crime syndicate like the unions are. If they can't develop a sound business model, then they need to fail. Look at Ford, their business model must have been much more sound than Government Motors or Chrysler. They did not need taxpayer money, and neither did the unions, which ended up owning a large portion of Government Motors. Where was their leadership role that got them part ownership in a private enterprise when Government Motors actually needed concessions from the union on wages etc. to keep from taking taxpayer money? I they were such a benefit to the automobile companies, they would have cooperated and asked their members to help save their own jobs, but greed took precedence over common sense.

I have never liked Government Motors to start with, and I wish they had failed. This is the second bailout for Chrysler, for they took taxpayer money in the Lee Iaccoca Mini Van era many years ago. The bail outs were only to pay back the unions for their outrageous contributions to democrats, and particularly so the Jet setting, self proclaimed messiah could get elected. How many resources does he waste in a day Jet setting all around the world, but never really doing any of the hard presidential work like most have done in the past. Remember that they practice Chicago syndicate style politics every day in Washington D.C., and that is bad for the future of this country.

How can you possibly know what the republicans have in mind WHEN they get put back in power this November, which they will. You can say whatever you like about them, but the majority of them still believe in the basics of the U.S. Constitution, even if they do push the envelope like everyone else. Will they be awake at 2:00 AM to pass unpopular bills that the majority of the American people DO NOT WANT OR APPROVE OF? The current regime could not care any less about what the MAJORITY of American people want, and that will lead to their mighty downfall that could not come any sooner for the sake of the country.

I am not a staunch republican, and I consider myself an independent conservative, but the GOP is the only chance we have right now, and they made a lot of promises that they would be different than the current tyrants in power, and the American people need to keep a close eye on them too. It is time for a third party called the peoples party, who's agenda should be concentrate on the U.S. Constitution, and protecting its core principals for the good of all the American people, and not just for the rich, or the lobbyists, or big business as the GOP seems to favor. They put their necks on the chopping block, and we will see if they deserve a reprieve, or should the ax fall on them too as it will on the Dems this November.

And I still am trying hard to debate instead of flame, but I see that you could not resist calling me a name, even if it is a tame one, but for your information..I AM NOT SHEEPLE, and I respectfully request that you refrain from using that term when addressing me. I have made a pact with Jay to be respectful to you, but I only will give that respect when I receive it. I am not sheeple, but I do try to get their attention when I can. I do read books, and read the local left wing newspaper, and watch the left slanted TV media daily so I can be informed about what the "Enemy" is thinking, unlike so many people in this country who bury their heads in the sand like herds of ostrich, and let the politicians rule them like the sheeple that some of them are. Osama Obama is a Muslim in christian clothing, and he is a false messiah and not the real one that he envisions himself to be. He has the lowest approval rating of any president in history, simply because the people see through his falsehoods and lies, and don't agree with the direction in which he is taking this country.
 

bicker

DTVUSA Member
#10
How can you possibly know what the republicans have in mind WHEN they get put back in power
If they're keeping such things a secret, then they not only don't deserve to gain any power, but they should be prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud the American people. As it is, first, they're not keeping such things a secret, and second, what each party intend with regard to these issues is clear from their long-standing-and-evolving objectives.

The point is that deceiving yourself into thinking one side or another is going to be your savior, when the reality is that their intention is to do things that would serve your interests even worse than the status quo, is ill-advised, and you should not let yourself fall into that trap.

You can say whatever you like about them, but the majority of them still believe in the basics of the U.S. Constitution
No more so, as a group, or less so, as a group, than the Democrats. They're practically all in it for themselves, just like practically everyone is in it for themselves, and neither side has any special place in their heart for the US Constitution. Indeed, the reality of the situation is that reasonable people disagree about constitutional matters, and so we inevitably end up with a bunch of raving loud-mouths on both sides shouting at each other about constitutionality, instead of an acceptance of reality, that reasonable people can disagree. It all, as usual, comes back to that - the inability, or more cynically, the reluctance of people to grant that reasonable people can disagree with their perspective. Typically the only perspective worthy of disrespect is the perspective that disrespects all other perspectives.

The current regime could not care any less about what the MAJORITY of American people want
The last administration cared even less, and most recent administrations care little about what the American people "want". Instead, for the last forty years, it is been all about what the American people will vote for.

Beyond that, the reality is that most American "want" an unreasonable confluence of good fortune directed their way. The extent to which the typical American has either the inclination or capacity to integrate aspects of reality, actual constraints, and other factors that could get in the way of their selfish desires is at an all-time low. Our children "want", and parents know that a good portion of the time they have to say 'no'; the typical American interacting with our political system, these days, is no more reasonable than a young child.

I am not a staunch republican, and I consider myself an independent conservative, but the GOP is the only chance we have right now
With respect, you're deluding yourself if you think the Republican Party is going to do anything along the lines of supporting your side of any of the issues we've argued about. They support my side of those issues far more than your side. While your support for them will, therefore, ostensibly help support my side of the issues, I don't want anyone's support for my side of the issues to come from delusion.

and they made a lot of promises that they would be different than the current tyrants in power
And Republican George W. Bush made similar overtures, followed by gross tyranny on the part of the Bush Administration that the Obama administration couldn't hope to match, even if it gets the full eight years to try. The only way to escape what you call tyranny is to do away with both political parties.

It is time for a third party called the peoples party, who's agenda should be concentrate on the U.S. Constitution
We tried that, but the reality is that most American people don't support that, despite their pretty words claiming that they do. In the end, there are people who prefer free enterprise, and they're going to support the Republicans more than the Democrats or a Constitution Party; and there are people who prefer strategic government interference in commerce, and they're going to support the Democrats more than the Republicans or a Constitution Party.

And I still am trying hard to debate instead of flame, but I see that you could not resist calling me a name, even if it is a tame one, but for your information..I AM NOT SHEEPLE, and I respectfully request that you refrain from using that term when addressing me.
I didn't call you that. Read the sentence again. It starts with the word "If". Again, the point is that if you choose to believe the pretty words that either party spews about respect for the Constitution or whatever propaganda they put out to try to convince you that they're different from the other party, then you're sheeple. If I choose to believe that propaganda, then I'm sheeple. If Jay chooses to believe that propaganda, then Jay's sheeple. We all need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and start understanding these political parties for what they are. They differ from each other only in what they're trying to accomplish, not how they're going to try to accomplish it.

Osama Obama is a Muslim in christian clothing
I find this comment not only ignorant (since he's never been Muslim, nor even had any significant Muslim-inclinations), but morally offensive (because it expresses an intolerance that is contrary to American principles of freedom of religion).
 
Last edited:
Top