Trump Formally Picks Two Net Neutrality Opponents To Head FCC Transition

from the restocking-the-swamp dept

Trump this week formally selected two staunch opponents of net neutrality to oversee the incoming President’s FCC transition team. Economist Jeff Eisenach and former Sprint Corp lobbyist Mark Jamison both have deep-rooted ties to the broadband sector, and both played major roles in helping the industry fight passage of the U.S.’s net neutrality rules last year. We had already noted that incumbent ISPs like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have been getting excited by the possibility of a hamstrung FCC and the roll back of numerous consumer-friendly policies made under the tenure of outgoing FCC boss Tom Wheeler.

Eisenach, formerly a consultant for Verizon and a think tanker over at the American Enterprise Institute, testified as an “objective” expert in a 2014 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on net neutrality. There, Eisenach boldly declared that “net neutrality would not improve consumer welfare or protect the public interest.” Similarly, in an AEI blog post last year, Eisenach again proclaimed that net neutrality doesn’t help consumers, isn’t necessary, and is little more than just “crony capitalism”:

“Despite what you may have heard, net neutrality is not about protecting consumers from rapacious Internet Service Providers (ISPs). It would not make broadband more available in rural America, or lower prices for small businesses. And it has nothing to do with protecting free speech or dissenting voices. Net neutrality is crony capitalism pure and simple ? an effort by one group of private interests to enrich itself at the expense of another group by using the power of the state.”

For somebody who has supposedly made an entire living discussing the telecom sector, that’s a staggering misrepresentation of the concept of net neutrality. As our readers know, the telecom market suffers painfully from limited competition, resulting in some of the highest broadband prices in the developed world (OECD data) and some of the worst customer service in any sector. Eisenach is of the vein of telecom-friendly allies that willfully ignore this fact in order to justify further sector deregulation.

And while deregulation can be a useful tool in healthy, functional markets that truly suffer from government over-reach, in the telecom sector (where incumbent ISP think tankers like Eisenach have polluted intelligent discourse) deregulation has an entirely different meaning. For most of these folks, deregulation quite literally means letting giant duopolists quite literally write telecom law. In telecom, we’ve discussed how this form of deregulation (time and time and time again) only makes the already broken telecom market worse for consumers and innovation.

Net neutrality, however imperfect the rules wind up being, is at least an attempt to create some layer of protection for consumers against incumbent ISPs looking to abuse their monopoly over the last mile. Both Eisenach and Jamison have made careers out of not only ignoring the lack of telecom sector competition, but the fact that net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support among consumers. It’s worth noting that Eisenach isn’t just tasked with spearheading Trump’s telecom transition, he’s in the running for the top FCC spot himself.

And it’s not just net neutrality Eisenach would dismantle. Under Eisenach’s outdated policies, gone too would be the FCC’s recently passed privacy rules, which ensure consumers are clearly informed of what data is collected and who it’s sold to, while ensuring ISPs provide users with working opt-out tools. In fact, the very FCC itself is likely at risk, as the GOP has made it abundantly clear that it plans to completely rewrite the Communications Act with an eye on one thing: ensuring the FCC lacks the funding and authority to effectively protect consumers from dominant, incumbent broadband providers.

Appointing two telecom-sector cronies to guide the FCC runs in stark contrast to Trump’s claims that he’d “drain the swamp.” Defanging the FCC so companies like Comcast grow even more powerful would be a crushing blow to consumer welfare. And the erosion of popular net neutrality rules would be a kick to the gut of the supposed “populist” rhetoric at the very heart of the Trump campaign.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Trump Formally Picks Two Net Neutrality Opponents To Head FCC Transition”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
84 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“That already makes him more pro-extortion than Hillary.”

That would be a big fat fucking negative. Hillary is very corrupt and as bad as Trump is he still has a way to go to prove he can be as bad or worse than her.

And I am not saying Trump is not as bad or worse, I am just saying he has not put in the time to out do Shillary yet.

So the next four years will be a race between Shrump and Shillary on who can corrupt the best!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And I am not saying Trump is not as bad or worse, I am just saying he has not put in the time to out do Shillary yet.

You’re basing this on Trump not having been a politician ’til recently and not having built up a decent political corruption resumee? Does the apparent corrupt (in fact in some cases potentially criminal) dealings in his business life not count? Or was that all propaganda while every allegation against Clinton was true?
/just curious

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You said it. There are “allegations” against Trump and there are known facts about Hillary. Also, as the election cycle showed, anything from the liberal media has to be suspect from the start.

As Mike here points out, a reputation lost is hard to get back. The liberal media is so far from trustworthy that they will probably never get my trust again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

There are "allegations" against Trump and there are known facts about Hillary.

Actually I used the word "allegation" in regard to Clinton not Trump, However, as none of his apparent indiscretions (as far as I know) have been proven in a court of law I suppose it’s as good a word as any. But it does appear that you’re saying that the dozens of women who came forward claiming sexual abuse and his own recorded statements all-but admitting to such things, all the businesses claiming he’s cheated them out of money and his own bragging about doing such things, the dubious (if not actually criminal) dealing with his charity money that, the reports gave to understand, came with paper (which, yes, I understand matches Clinton’s, though interesting that the allegations against her seemed almost a response)…. all this, you apparently believe is all "liberal media bias", with no foundation in fact at all. Interesting.

This from the other side of the pond with no agenda whatsoever for either party: You’re probably at least partly right about Clinton – not just the reports, but the way she conducts and presents herself suggest she’s somewhere near the further edge of "standard corrupt politicians". Trump, by the same measure appears a FAR more dangerous animal altogether – at least equally corrupt but utterly unpredictable and self-serving to an extreme degree with it. The best hope appeared to be that he was literally lying about every one of his campaign promises in order to get elected, but his actions so far as president elect suggest that; Nope, that’s what you get.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I base this off the conversations I have had with both sides and the things I can only pretend to know about them from public news.

Both of them are bad, but in different ways. Trump is more of a direct and dishonest liar. Hillary is more of a stab you in the fucking back liar and that makes her far worse in my book. Both seem to be more than capable of treating people like shit, but I think Trump would at least scream “You’re Fired!!!” right to my face and I can respect that more than Hillary, whom I would be more concerned that she would rather have me murdered on a street corner than to just fire my ass.A

So yea, I view both as evil agents, but Hillary is just toxic as fuck!

I am independent, I did not vote for Trump either, but if I was forced to vote, I simply would have only voted for him to send a message that I was tired of the Hillary’s, Bush’s, and Obama’s of politics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I think you are over optimistic about the waking up part.

People have a very long history of enduring all manor of evils that can be endured. Revolution only occurs when a breaking point has been met, and we are just not there yet. We might be close, but I am not sure. The ability of humans to endure evils is so well known that it is documented in the Declaration of Independence.

We are already a police state. The Government can seriously just murder you and almost no one will stand up for you. The only group doing that right now is the racist as hell BLM movement.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I’ll just leave this here:

http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/come-revolution-good-luck-with-that.html

Americans need to learn and understand how the democratic process works and utilise that to effect change. It means organising instead of forming bands of violent reactionaries who get themselves killed in the name of $sacred cow.

Baron von Robber says:

“…while ensuring ISPs provide users with working opt-out tools. In fact, the very FCC itself is likely at risk, as the GOP has made it abundantly clear that it plans to completely rewrite the Communications Act with an eye on one thing: ensuring the FCC lacks the funding and authority to effectively protect consumers from dominant, incumbent broadband providers.”

Been thinking about getting an out of country VPN. Time to do so.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Maybe find a way to disguise your traffic as traffic from ‘favored’ sources?

That requires the cooperation of the data source or VPN, to fake its address in the packets it sends you. That ability needs to be eliminated to reduce such faking in DDOS attacks. Also it is impossible to fake your outbound packets, as that would send them to the wrong destination.

Ninja (profile) says:

It’s kind of disheartening to see Trump will be exactly what the most sane of us believed he would be. Not that Hillary would be much better mind you but since the man is now the next President I’ll be focusing on him.

The next 4 years will be a harsh test for the American democratic mechanisms. Of course it’s impossible to come out of it without a scratch but at least let’s hope it won’t be like the last Bush administration that severely harmed basic Constitutional rights (and Obama failed in pushing back and expanded those). Such sustained attacks cannot possibly end well..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This is the real problem, each administration lowers the bar further than the one before. The electorate is caught in a game of ping pong, running between parties begging to be saved only to find out the other party is just as bad in different ways.

I think the electorate probably agree on a large percentage of things, but it is some big policies that divide us. I don’t know how we will cross that divide in order to get the things we agree upon.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It is doubtful that trump knows what the truth is, he contradicts himself often and disputes the claim when pointed out.

It does not matter whose pool it is, the juvenile occupants of government pee in it and expect us to live in it while they don’t have to.

They are all a bunch of liars, very few ever speak the truth and Orangey McOrangeFace is not one of them.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

It’s a smoke signal. Except you put the whole forest on fire to send it. At the very least it is a message. And I believe Trump won’t be able to do as he pleases without heavy opposition from the people. On the streets. I think it will be a bumpy ride and unless he backs down on his overaggressive tonne he will not be elected for the next term.

I still think Sanders would have made it if they hadn’t imposed Clinton. And he would be quite better than both her and Trump.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think Sanders showed that he is just a dishevel mutt willing to serve any master. He folded like a house of cards against Hillary after she fucked him over.

Bernie is just like Palin in my book. Palin let the McCain campaign ruin her and she loved every minute of it. I do not see even little ounce of strength of leadership by either Bernie or Palin. Hillary would have been better and she proved it by being the man in their party and fucked Bernie over like the whore he is.

If Bernie had not sold his soul, then I could agree with you. I can understand Hillary’s tool voters more than I can understand anyone that still thinks highly of Bernie!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

IQ is not the comparison I am making here which should have been obvious.

I was making the comparison between the two because they both rolled over for their parties like good little Dogs. Once that happens, their IQ does not matter one bit because when they are elected, you are not getting their leadership, you are getting nothing but a Puppet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

While it wasn’t the comparison you were making, I’d say it is rather important. If the vote was split, Trump automatically wins. Bernie knew that.

And to argue that some of Trump’s supporters would’ve supported Bernie is just a pipe dream that would never had come to fruition. Those people are far to afraid of the word “socialism” to have ever voted for him (despite it being in their best interests), and the rest of them could never get past his jewish faith.

Palin however was/is as dumb as a bag of hammers – I’d challenge you to point out one intelligent thing she said. McCain’s campaign didn’t ruin her. Her dimwitted ramblings made a lot of people on the fence think that that dipstick is one person away from running the country.

She’s stupid, and headstrong in her stupidity. That makes her dangerous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“I’d say it is rather important.”

Worthless argument. If they are a puppet, then the puppy in the window is just a lie.

“She’s stupid, and headstrong in her stupidity. That makes her dangerous.”

…hmm… I don’t think Palin is the only one running around with that problem.

Kal Zekdor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Keep living in your fantasy world. Going out in a blaze of glory doesn’t help anyone. Rational people know when to compromise, even if it means swallowing your pride. If the democratic party had split over Bernie/Hillary, Trump would have waltzed into the presidency without breaking a sweat. And, before you start on about Trump winning regardless, well, hindsight is 20/20, and it was a close race, as indicated by the popular vote. Trump won several key states by a hair. Bernie made the best choice he could have made at the time.

Trump appealed to those dissatisfied with our government, and that’s a large group of people. Bernie also appealed to that segment, while Hillary represented everything they hated. I’m not saying Bernie would have pulled that segment entirely from Trump, given the manufactured fear attached to “socialism” (despite the fact that if Bernie wanted to get anything done he’d need to lean moderate, so worrying about him turning America into a socialist republic was completely unwarranted.) He would have pulled some of that segment away from Trump, though, and for the most part the other voting blocks would have voted as they did, which might have made all the difference.

Still, there’s no use worrying about what might have been. We’ll just have to deal with Trump. He won’t be as bad as the fearmongering would have us believe, but he’ll move in the wrong direction on several topics I care about, including this one.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Rational people know when to compromise, even if it means swallowing your pride.”

Thanks for the insight.

I usually don’t compare compromising with selling your soul but if you wish to remain stupid, by all means, remain a sheeple… you will have many compatriots.

I had some respect for Bernie until the sold out, now he is just another spec of political trash you zealots worship to your own detriment. If your leadership is this corrupt and decrepit, what does it say about you followers?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

What do you even mean by sold out, he had no chance of winning the democratic primaries, what was he supposed to do? Scream about how Hillary was corrupt and guarentee trump would win?

The election has ended and he’s been plenty candid on his opinion of the DNC and Hillary’s campaign and why it failed and is continuing to push his core values. The man went down gracefully and threw his support behind what he believed was the better of the two candidates. That’s called professional courtesy, and I’m glad he had the ability to do so rather than cry about it as you seem to think he should have.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I believe Trump won’t be able to do as he pleases without heavy opposition from the people. On the streets.

People have been taking to the streets for years. Doesn’t change a thing. Trump will let the Republicans do whatever they want and will protect them. The only opposition he has to worry about is within the Republican party itself.

> I think it will be a bumpy ride and unless he backs down on his overaggressive tone he will not be elected for the next term.

He’s a winner. He doesn’t need another term. He’s already proven himself. And I suspect the bumpier the ride gets, the more he’ll fight and more aggressive he’ll get.

Anonymous Coward says:

Current Federal law is insufficiently pro-consumer for the FCC to do a good job protecting customers, even when the FCC wants to do so. Wheeler’s FCC made this painfully clear by backing away from some good ideas on the mere threat of litigation, and by getting bogged down in litigation on the ideas it tried to pursue. A good pro-consumer law would be much clearer about what authority the FCC has, and would allow quick and easy wins in court. Absent such a law, any FCC action will be endlessly challenged in court, racking up huge legal fees for both sides. ISPs hate giving up any profits, so they would undoubtedly try to recoup their legal costs by adding a new below-the-line “FCC competition litigation fee” to everyone’s bills. Appointing pro-telecom Commissioners is really just a very subtle way of being pro-consumer, since pro-telecom Commissioners will save the ISPs the expense of litigation, and they can then pass that lack-of-expense on to customers by not raising rates quite as quickly as they otherwise might.

QuitTalkingAndStartWalkingTheTalk says:

This isn't a political issue, this is a corporate issue

Best we can do is stop bickering using political party affiliations and tackle this as citizens standing together.

It’s exactly what corporations fear, people not buying into the fear they sell us 24 hours a day on radio, tv and the web.

Stand up together, start going to your local congressional reps office, flood them with faxes, email, snail mail and picket signs if need be.

You really think you’re going to be able to afford the “deluxe internet package”, that’s what is at stake. Not just connection speed, but what you have access to while online.

If net neutrality dies, it means your connection would be limited to a subset of the internet, be highly scanned for browsing behavior – just like what Facebook wants to do in developing countries.

Stop fighting about who is in charge and start fighting against corporate governance, lobbies and revolving doors. Do not let this administration take us back to the dark ages. Stand up, walk your talk and do something about it.

HegemonicDistortion says:

Mark Jamison goes even farther

…and basically says that there’s no need for the FCC at all.

Most of the original motivations for having an FCC have gone away. Telecommunications network providers and ISPs are rarely, if ever, monopolies.

His blog post:
http://www.techpolicydaily.com/communications/do-we-need-the-fcc/#sthash.sX3GmJDZ.dpuf

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Elections have consequences

The sooner the FCC or Congress removes broadband from Title II, the better off we’ll all be.

Huh? Richard, since the rules passed, we’ve seen more new entrants and more service upgrades. How do you figure we’ll be better off moving in the other direction?

Except for Google and Facebook, it’s going to suck for them to have competition in the advertising market.

That has absolutely fuck all to do with Title II. I’d love to see more competition in the ad market too, but removing broadband from Title II won’t have any impact on that at all. And, you seem to ignore the fact that Google wasn’t on the Title II bandwagon, even as folks like yourself like to pretend it was.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Elections have consequences

Dude, are you high? Since Title II was imposed Google Fiber shut down. It was supposed to be the savior of our sad urban markets where it’s virtually impossible to get a connection above 300 Mbps. Pay attention.

Title II has everything to do with advertising because it required the FCC to create privacy regulations for ISPs. This mandate allowed Wheeler to require opt-in for access to data by ISPs that’s opt-out for Google and Facebook.

Is this public policy stuff completely over your head or what?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Elections have consequences

Dude, are you high? Since Title II was imposed Google Fiber shut down.

I don’t do drugs. But, seriously, I’m curious what you’re smoking, because dang, dude, you’re fucked up.

  1. Google Fiber didn’t shut down. They did change priorities, but not because of Title II.
  2. At the same time, others have entered the market, though you and your friends have helped to block off competition through bullshit crony laws in states barring real competition. You must be so proud.

It was supposed to be the savior of our sad urban markets where it’s virtually impossible to get a connection above 300 Mbps.

Don’t rewrite history.

Title II has everything to do with advertising because it required the FCC to create privacy regulations for ISPs. This mandate allowed Wheeler to require opt-in for access to data by ISPs that’s opt-out for Google and Facebook.

Look, I know you think you have expertise, but you’re pulling this completely out of your ass. Yes, Title II allowed the new privacy rules, but those were passed what, 3 weeks ago? Why aren’t Verizon or AT&T powerhouses in advertising in all these years they’ve had? What will suddenly make them able to take ad revenue away from Google and Facebook.

You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Is this public policy stuff completely over your head or what?

You’re funny, dude. You’ve been wrong for, what, three decades now? How much longer is this going to go on?

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Elections have consequences

You’re kidding right?

The head of Google Fiber has left the company and the “Access” division has laid off 10% of its staff, more than 100 workers. Google has some ongoing projects to dabble around in, but it’s safe to say that the dream that Google Fiber would wire the nation has blown up.

Sure, the company will still buy bankrupt munis and maybe do something with wireless – if they can figure out how wireless works – but that’s about all.

Of course, it could be that $1 bankrupt munis was the plan all along and nothing has really changed but the appearances.

As far as ISPs’ history with advertising goes, I’m sure you’re aware that GoogBook has been fighting them at the gate since the late 00s. T2 makes regulatory arbitrage easier, but before T2 GoogBook was whining about DPI. Congress held hearings on that nonsense from the 2005 onward.

Ask your overlords for a fuller briefing, they know the story.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Elections have consequences

You’re kidding right?

No. Unlike you I live in reality. You are in fantasy land, as per usual.

The head of Google Fiber has left the company and the "Access" division has laid off 10% of its staff, more than 100 workers. Google has some ongoing projects to dabble around in, but it’s safe to say that the dream that Google Fiber would wire the nation has blown up.

Yes, as noted, Google has changed its focus with Access, but not because of TII. Also, no one EVER said that it would "wire the nation." That’s pure bullshit from you and your idiot friends trying to rewrite history.

The layoffs were for some of the additional fiber projects that they’ve decided to back out of, mainly because of your paymasters blocking them at every turn on things like one touch make ready.

Sure, the company will still buy bankrupt munis and maybe do something with wireless – if they can figure out how wireless works – but that’s about all.

"If they can figure out how wireless works." They bought one of the most successful wireless ISPs in SF. Once again, what are you smoking?

As far as ISPs’ history with advertising goes, I’m sure you’re aware that GoogBook has been fighting them at the gate since the late 00s. T2 makes regulatory arbitrage easier, but before T2 GoogBook was whining about DPI. Congress held hearings on that nonsense from the 2005 onward.

You really don’t know a fucking thing, do you? The fight over DPI is not Google protecting its ad revenue, but about protecting user privacy from ISP snooping. And it wasn’t led by Google or Facebook, but THE PUBLIC. You know, the group of people you’re looking to fuck over for shits, giggles and tons of cash.

Ask your overlords for a fuller briefing, they know the story.

Oh, and of course, you conclude with a made up conspiracy theory. I have no overlords. I know, I know, since YOU DO GET YOUR MARCHING ORDERS from the big telcos, you have to assume that actual honest people must also be shills. You’re wrong. And deluded.

I’d tell you to grow up, but I think we’ve long concluded that you’re a perpetually ignorant child, Richard.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Elections have consequences

By your logic, Google Reader simply had its “focus changed.” How much traffic did its shutdown cost you?

Google has bought all kinds of companies, but that doesn’t endow the company with any insight. Google has a history of championing unworkable regulatory models for wireless and that hasn’t changed.

You attack me as a shill and then get your panties in a bunch when I return the favor? That’s cute.

Look, genius, I’ve had consistent views on network technology and regulation since you were in diapers and they don’t depend on how I make a living. I support myself mainly from expert witness work today that has nothing to do with regulation.

How do you make money, selling tee shirts?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Elections have consequences

Richard, you’re fucking hilarious. If you weren’t so wrong about everything I’d think you were peformance art.

So if your nonchanging views are evidence that you’re not a shill, then why do you falsely accuse me of being a shill despite my non-changing views? Also, you fucking work for AEI. I run my own small shop. And, yes, we make money from lots of different things, including direct support from our community, t-shirt sales, advertising and events. And, hell, I also make money from expert witnessing.

So since you pulled out the bullshit shill claim first: why is it okay for you to pull it out? I’m not the one who works for a think tank famous for shilling for giant monopolist’s interests. You are. I’m not famous for flat out lying about technology policy. You are.

You do realize that you’re the climate change denialist of the tech world, right?

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Elections have consequences

My, your comments are becoming increasingly divorced from reality.

First, I don’t work for AEI anymore, but when I did nobody told me what to say. I wouldn’t have taken the visiting fellowship on any other terms.

Second, you played the shill card first: “you and your friends have helped to block off competition through bullshit crony laws.”

Third, your views on net neutrality have changed radically since you started blogging. Once you were against regulatory means to force IPS behavior, and now you support the most inappropriate means of protecting the Internet from imaginary harms: Title II.

And no, I’m not a climate change denialist, a vaccine denialist, an organic food supporter, an anti-nuclear delusionist, or a pot regulationist. That’s entirely in your head.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Abolish the FCC

Yeah, I mean corporations with little to no competition and no regulation generally are super favorable to their customers, with low prices, great customer service and high quality products and services. Let’s take away all the rules, I’m sure it will turn out great. "Monopoly" is Latin for "good for customers" right?

Curtis (profile) says:

Title II Common Carrier is FACT not a policy

Common carrier net neutrality is not an issue for politics but should always have been realized.

Reno v ACLU, (1997) was written by culturally senile Stevens and other elderly oligarchs addicted to pornography. This one case was obviously wrong and made the Communications Decency Act do EXACTLY the opposite of the goal and destroyed the rights of parents to raise innocent children.

Neeley Jr. v 5 Communications Commissioners, et. al. (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447) was dismissed after ALL demands were met because of calling a judge senile to his face in open court.

I promised not to further sue GOOG and MSFT but will make any attempt to further pollute common carrier wires very expensive. Mr. Eisenach and Mr. Jamison are hereby advised to be on guard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Title II Common Carrier is FACT not a policy

I love your brief, Curtis:

“This civil action should be the most significant communication case ever pursued in the United States, if not the entire Earth. The individual, moral, human right* and not the “American” legal rite* for exclusively controlling communications disguised as [sic] “internet” or copy[rite]* was before the District Court with a Plaintiff/Appellant seeking only to enforce federal statutes written decades before wire communications were disguised as [sic] “internet” and called a “[holy] new medium” in FACTUAL error.”

Yeah man, like totally righteous. Pass me that doobie, Masnick, your readers are fired up.

Curtis (profile) says:

Thank you sir. Unfortunately; Most of my filings are ignored by America’s dishonorable ‘corts’.
Wire communications defined in 47 U.S.C. §153 ¶(59) include [sic] “internet”, email, mobile phones, iPads, wi-fi, and land-line telephones and have since 1934. This is why the FCC should be completely rebuilt to regulate ALL broadcasts of communications.

Neeley Jr. v 5 Communications Commissioners, et. al. (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447)

FCC ECFS filings with the text "common carrier". See "common carrier" explained by Curtis J. Neeley Jr. to the FCC (over and over).

PDF Links active to 100’s of pages of legal filings within the FCC ECFS HERE

My children are older and GOOG/MSFT searches with my name in them almost never return any of my prior "porn" and are now safe unlike before.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...