Telecom Monopolies Win Again: Gigi Sohn Forced To Withdraw From FCC Nomination

from the dysfunction-junction dept

Telecom and media giants (News Corporation, AT&T, and Comcast, mostly) have spent big bucks to scuttle the FCC nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn. That’s involved seeding all kinds of bullshit claims in the press (with the GOP’s help) about how Sohn hates rural America, police, puppies, and freedom. Some of the most recent attacks have been grotesquely homophobic.

The goal was to keep the FCC without the voting majority to do much of anything deemed controversial by industry (like restoring net neutrality or imposing media consolidation limits). And because the U.S. is a corrupt shitshow, the gambit has been very successful. Sohn has ample experience and is widely popular across both sides of the aisle. She’s actually more qualified than several key recent FCC nominees of note.

It didn’t matter.

After several years of fighting, Sohn today announced she’d be withdrawing as a nominee, pointing directly at the telecom and media industry smear campaign as a major factor:

“It is a sad day for our country and our democracy when dominant industries, with assistance from unlimited dark money, get to choose their regulators. And with the help of their friends in the Senate, the powerful cable and media companies have done just that.”

Sohn’s been in Senate confirmation purgatory for the better part of the last two years thanks to blanket opposition from the GOP (which to a man almost always supports telecom monopolies despite its pretense about loving “antitrust reform”). But Sohn’s fate was also doomed by waffling by key Democratic Senators like Mark Kelly (AZ) , Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), and Joe Manchin (WV), who kept her from getting the 51 votes needed in a Senate confirmation vote (and at times parroted false industry claims).

Manchin finally this week came out in opposition to Sohn after a year of refusing to publicly state his position one way or the other. According to his statement, Manchin claims he opposed Sohn because he’s just super concerned about partisanship at the FCC:

There’s not much that’s coherent or factual here. Sohn’s entire career has been spent advocating for broadband affordability, and there’s really nothing she’s said or done at any hearing that could be construed as problematically partisan. Especially in the context of a modern Trumpist GOP that casually tosses around calls for civil war like they’re party snacks.

Sohn’s major crime appears to have been calling Fox News propaganda in a tweet (undeniably true) and retweeting calls for modest police reform.

It’s worth noting that Manchin voted in support of Trump FCC pick Ajit Pai, arguably one of the most captured and nakedly partisan telecom regulators I’ve seen in more than two-decades of covering the agency.

During Pai’s tenure his agency was caught making up DDOS attacks to try and downplay public anger at shitty policies, turned a blind eye while the broadband industry used fake and dead people to stuff the FCC comment process with illusory support for extremely unpopular policies, and rubber stamped industry mergers without even reading the supporting documents.

You’re to ignore that Comcast has been slowly accumulating Manchin staffers in a bid to influence his vote. Or that the aging coal baron has generally opposed meaningful accountability for numerous industries with very obvious monopolization, safety, and regulatory capture problems.

From my conversations with numerous DC insiders, Manchin has always opposed Sohn’s nomination, he just hasn’t been willing to publicly own it until now. Manchin was a primary reason Sohn’s Senate confirmation vote was scuttled last year, making Manchin the primary reason the FCC currently lacks the voting majority to do most of the things he’s pretending to care about now.

There was briefly some hope that the midterm victory by Rafael Warnock would change the math and make Manchin’s vote less relevant. With Manchin’s vote offset by Warnock, the hope was that Sohn could get the 51-vote-majority needed via support from Senators Mark Kelly (AZ) and Catherine Cortez Masto (NV). But both, like Manchin, proved repeatedly noncommittal and easily influenced by industry.

With Sohn understandably backing away from this corrupt shitshow, the FCC will remain in 2-2 partisan gridlock until Biden nominates somebody the telecom industry deems suitably feckless. At that point, any potential candidate will have virtually no time to do much of anything before the next presidential election, exactly as AT&T, Comcast, and News Corporation planned it.

There will be a lot of press chatter that misses the central point of Sohn’s experience. Namely that a completely manufactured joint propaganda campaign by the telecom lobby and GOP prevented a popular female reformer from being seated at a key regulatory agency because the United States is comically corrupt.

From Sohn’s statement:

Unfortunately, the American people are the real losers here. The FCC deadlock, now over two years long, will remain so for a long time. As someone who has advocated for my entire career for affordable, accessible broadband for every American, it is ironic that the 2-2 FCC will remain sidelined at the most consequential opportunity for broadband in our lifetimes. This means that your broadband will be more expensive for lack of competition, minority and underrepresented voices will be marginalized, and your private information will continue to be used and sold at the whim of your broadband provider. It means that the FCC will not have a majority to adopt strong rules which ensure that everyone has nondiscriminatory access to broadband, regardless of who they are or where they live, and that low income students will continue to be forced to do their school work sitting outside of Taco Bell because universal service funds can’t be used for broadband in their homes. And it means that many rural Americans will continue the long wait for broadband because the FCC can’t fix its Universal Service programs.

While the GOP and telecom industry operated in lockstep during the attack on Sohn, Democrats carry plenty of blame. A belated nomination, a repeated failure to whip votes, repeated decisions to bow to bad-faith industry attempts to hold duplicative hearings, and a comic inability to publicly support Sohn as she faced down a relentless smear campaign alone all contributed to her nomination’s demise.

Sohn’s withdrawn nomination is a new low point for very broken U.S. telecom and media policy. For four years, the agency was a mindless marionette for industry under the Trump FCC. And in the last two years, the FCC has been intentionally mired in partisan gridlock by that same industry. That’s six straight years of total regulatory capture, and another blistering example of normalized U.S. corruption.

Our myopic internet policy fixation on “Big Tech” will ensure this story doesn’t survive for more than a few days in the mainstream press. Still, this one’s going to leave a long lasting and ugly mark on U.S. internet policy and the public trust.

I expect the next FCC nominee will be appropriately feckless, as per industry’s wishes. And the agency will stumble forth behaving precisely as the telecom and media lobby wishes: lots of nebulous chatter about how terrible the digital divide is, but nobody with the political backbone to meaningfully stand up to the massive telecom monopolies directly responsible for the problem.

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 “Telecom Monopolies Win Again: Gigi Sohn Forced To Withdraw From FCC Nomination”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
86 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Telecom and their pet senators: We can’t let her take office, she might actually do something productive like telling us ‘no’ or break the deadlock that’s ensured nothing productive has happened for the last few years.

It’s certainly disappointing to see her withdraw but honestly I can’t blame her, she was thrown to the wolves not once but twice and left to fend for herself both times, forced to deal with a never-ending avalanche of lies and personal attacks by an industry and it’s stooges desperate to keep her from the position.

David says:

Re:

“dictatorship” is a category of government, about who wields the ultimate power. Democratic forms of government need to channel part of the power through mass manipulation. To turn it into an effective dictatorship, it needs a lot of organisation, footwork and psychology.

Capitalism helps with channeling power as a fungible resource, making it feasible to accumulate and direct it.

It allows for more of a structural than a personal dictatorship, making it more failproof.

Power accumulates more reliably if it does not have to be wielded by individuals.

David says:

Re: Re:

“democracy” is an idealisation. Distributing power to the people works as reliably against the accumulation of power as distributing water to raindrops works reliably against the accumulation of water in waterways.

It’s the start rather than the end of the power game. As long as there are impressionable minds, impressing them is currency.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

Man, fuck dark money and Citizens United. I really feel bad for the kinds of dumbasses who think that Citizens United was correctly decided right now. I wonder how they feel?

Er… I’m generally one who thinks that the core of Citizens United was properly decided (though some of the later interpretations of what it means for Super PACs is incorrect).

I don’t see how CU had anything to do with this result. Without Citizens United… I can’t see how any of this would have changed?

I often recommend this summary which clears up many of the confusions about Citizens United, and highlights how many of the things people blame it for are not actually accurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhpy1uzOvrY&list=FLuwMjWcVkCFyvN3pkH3GxYQ&index=2&t=50s

I’m furious about what happened with Sohn, but I don’t think Citizens United had anything to do with it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I continue to feel that Citizens United was correctly decided, of course. Banning speech (overtly political speech, in fact) because the speakers have organized themselves as a corporation is so obviously a violation of the 1st Amendment that is amazing that the case had to go to the Supreme Court.

As for Sohn, butting your head into a wall over and over again because you really, really want to get to the other side is insanely stupid politics. You nominate the best person who can be approved, not the one who won’t be.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Bernie Sanders is the closest thing America has to a communost, and I think he still nominally believes in capitalism.

If it was Europe, he’d be a democratic socialist, though it’s not an actual communist or socialist…

And no, I don’t actually buy “the perfect is the enemy of good” argument, considering that in America, voters already keep voting Democrat even though most of the DNC is just as captured by big superfunded as the Republicans…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

“voters already keep voting Democrat even though most of the DNC is just as captured by big superfunded as the Republicans…”

The sides are not equally corrupt, one is way worse.

The two party system has contributed greatly to our present predicament. Ranked voting possibly would be better, devil is in the details they say and anything can be corrupted.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The sides are not equally corrupt, one is way worse.

In terms of the Internet, apart from the few standouts that Techdirt praises for sound policy (Ron Wyden being the most prominent), both sides come out smelling like ass.

Even if one side isn’t selling out to the Russians and Chinese for cheap political gain. (Yes, the Dems aren’t that stupid, desperate and hostile… yet.)

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Yes, how dare they nominate someone over-qualified for the job

You nominate the best person who can be approved, not the one who won’t be.

Indeed, what were they thinking nominating someone who might have tried to get the agency to do anything rather than a person who understands that it’s purpose is to just rubber-stamp anything that the industry wants it to and release empty statements about how great things are going.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You cannot regulate an agency using someone who isn’t there. If you nominate someone who will not be approved, it doesn’t matter what good you think they can do, because they won’t be there to do it. Seriously, is this what woke ideology does to the brain? Do woke ideologues live in alternate universes with respect to absolutely everything, not just race and gender? How do you leave a nomination hanging for years?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Social Media Archaeoligists Win

If you want to be a partisan hack, that’s fine. Just don’t expect that your nomination to a supposedly non-partisan government position will go smoothly. Just as leftists might be concerned about an pro-lifer being nominated to head the NIH, conservatives are likewise opposed to a censor being nominated to head the FCC. If you’re gunning for a career bureaucrat position, you should probably keep your slander in check.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re:

If you want to be a partisan hack, that’s fine. Just don’t expect that your nomination to a supposedly non-partisan government position will go smoothly.

Oh shut the fuck up. Anyone who knows Gigi knows she’s no “partisan hack.”

And if we’re going to talk “partisan hacks” can we talk about Nathan Simington, Brendan Carr, and Ajit Pai? All three of whom were extreme “partisan hacks.”

conservatives are likewise opposed to a censor being nominated to head the FCC

She’s not a “cesnor.” She has spent years literally fighting for free speech rights.

If you’re gunning for a career bureaucrat position, you should probably keep your slander in check.

The only “slander” came from people who flat out lied about Gigi. Which you’re now repeating, because you’re a fucking fool.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

Oh shut the fuck up. Anyone who knows Gigi knows she’s no “partisan hack.”

She was Soros backed, you absolute fucking moron.

She’s not a “cesnor.” She has spent years literally fighting for free speech rights.

She wanted to take away Fox News free speech rights, and if you think that’s a good thing, you’re a partisan hack. I don’t think SM should be trying to determine “misinformation” but a government agency definitely shouldn’t, can not, legally, be trying to determine it for a news publication.

Fuck you no idea what “free speech” is, do you?

And if we’re going to talk “partisan hacks” can we talk about Nathan Simington, Brendan Carr, and Ajit Pai? All three of whom were extreme “partisan hacks.”

Ajit Pai opposed Net Neutrality, quite justly, because it involved effectively government regulation of speech and was a horrible fucking idea. Wasn’t the internet supposed to have ended by now according to you idjits? Sohn supported back dooring in net neutrality through administrative process which besides being a horrible idea means that she doesn’t believe in consitutional separation of powers. Fuck her.

“Everyone on my side is virtuous and everyone I disagree with is a partisan hack”. That’s literally all you’re saying. I’m saying the same I suppose, but whatever, Sohn was fucking awful.

I continue to be amazed at the amount of stupid you can fit in per character.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

She was Soros backed, you absolute fucking moron.

So she’s guilty by association, huh, dumbass? Point to an actual example of her being a partisan hack in action or fuck off with your nonsense.

She wanted to take away Fox News free speech rights

Citation needed. Networks more conservative than Fox supported her nomination because she’s fought for getting them carriage on cable systems. So it sounds like you’re pulling things out of your ass as usual.

Ajit Pai opposed Net Neutrality, quite justly, because it involved effectively government regulation of speech and was a horrible fucking idea.

Ajit Pai opposed net neutrality because he was a liar and a moron.

Wasn’t the internet supposed to have ended by now according to you idjits?

Nice strawman, numbnuts.

Sohn supported back dooring in net neutrality through administrative process

Citation needed, again.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

So she’s guilty by association, huh, dumbass? Point to an actual example of her being a partisan hack in action or fuck off with your nonsense.

I have already, but yes, actually, if Soros funded you are a far left partisan actor. I know of no exceptions to that statement. Sure “quilt by association”, I guess, it also happens to be true.

Ajit Pai opposed net neutrality because he was a liar and a moron.

I’m sorry, going to have to ask you to cite a credible source.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Soros was a Jew

Do you know that I literally had no idea he was Jewish until a lefty tried to call me an anti-Semite for opposing his policies? Funny that. And he’s a leftist because of his policies.

antifa, and therefore a far left partisan.

“Antifa” don’t fight nazis, or any other kind of fascist. Yes, I’m aware of the name. So N.A.Z.I’s are socialists and no one can argue different, then? (they are socialist, but because they seized the means of production, not the name)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

So tell me again, which communist organization is controlling George Soros again?

Soros controls Soros, he’s the source of the problem (and pretty well socialist, not that he got his), but are you trying suggest someone can only be “far left” by being not just a communist, but a literal communist state? Nothing else qualifies? DAFUQ?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Point being, where is your evidence that George Soros is a commie?

I can point to you the article Musk wrote for his CCP masters, there should be an equivalent quotation where Soros espouses Marxist ideology, or shills for a commie state.

It’s one thing to be suspicious of any person or organization with a shitton of money, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum or support for your side.

It’s another to slander the other side’s rich backers while ignoring the harms of you side’s. Which is what you’re doing.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:4

“Guilt by association” is a logical fallacy for a reason, chief.

No, it isn’t actually, not in the way you’re using it. You literally can be found guilty of many crimes for working with certain people.

Swing and a miss yet again.

I guess you would have to be smarter for me to bother trying to argue with you about it further.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

No, it isn’t actually, not in the way you’re using it. You literally can be found guilty of many crimes for working with certain people.

Legally, the prosecution has to show evidence that the one accused of being an accessory to crime is guilty of it.

Which is something you never do, since you’re simply here to harass us.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The “Right” wing smoke and mirrors around Soros is rank (and rankly dishonest) conspiracy-theory.

He literally funded the election campaigns of all the DAs in big cities that have reduced bail and refused to charge “petty” crime leading to the massive violent crime increases combined with stores leaving said cities. It’s a matter of public record, you walnut.

Anonymous Coward says:

Having been involved with the FCC staff in the past, we need someone who can get in there and clean house. I observed open bias regarding issues that the agency is supposed to be decide on facts, not opinions. I also learned how certain efforts by the agency give the big telecoms unusual control over decisions and intentionally foreclose the needs of smaller companies. Regulatory capture is alive and well at the FCC, which harms all of us.

Ronald Sonntag says:

Sohn Withdraws (FCC)

Just remember these names: Mark Kelly and Catherine Cortez Masto. It is not the first time Kelly has thrown a monkey wrench into what should have been easy progressive legislation that would benefit everyone! I name these two because THEY are what killed this nomination. Manchin is always a blocker, but, he was effectively neutralized. That these two supposedly more moderate Democratic Senators ruined this opportunity to help all Americans is inexcusable. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You realize a large number of people are actually against that, right?

A large number of people say and do things that are objectively not in their own best interest. Going from a bad legislative situation to a better situation is progress and if someone say that’s bad we can be damn sure someone is making money hand over fist in the current situation. Actual conservatives have no problems with progressive legislative changes when it makes sense but sadly they are a dying breed these days, I’m hard-pressed to name even one actual conservative in the GOP.

And in regards to how net neutrality would benefit everyone, it doesn’t. But it will certainly benefit the ISP’s customers in various ways.

I’ve watched your antics here on TD for a while now and I can only hope you actually get paid for being a contrarian heckler because the alternative is that you spend an inordinate amount of time on a site which you don’t like obsessively engaging with the owner and the commentariat which you also don’t like. I’m sure there is a medical term for your obsession in the latter case but I leave such things to mental health professionals.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I call that sort of harassment a form of terrorist act, motivated for ideological reasons.

Sure, it’s not the sort of terrorism you see on the news, but if constantly attacking the enemy online with the intent to either shut them down or intimidating them to not criticize their side isn’t a form of terrorism…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Your continued and frankly very aggressive and beligerent attitude, plus continued behavior makes me think otherwise.

Oh, there’s that one physical threat, coupled with your own declaration on one of your very first posts. Please don’t hide behind humor, you’ve never been one to joke about stuff unless it’s an insult against us.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:

A large number of people say and do things that are objectively not in their own best interest.

I loathe this sentiment with a passion. It’s one of the worst liberal instincts (right up there with being hilariously racist to any minority person who dares to be conservative). It indicates that not only do you think you’re smarter than someone else (despite evidence to the contrary) but that you are so much smarter than they that you can decide better than they can what is right for them, despite their obviously superior familiarity with their needs and desires.

It’s a sentiment that quickly turns fascist. (ironic, I know) It leads to you thinking that everything that is good should be mandated and everything that is bad should be banned and you are only right in mandating this for other people, perhaps even when they outvote you.

And in regards to how net neutrality would benefit everyone, it doesn’t. But it will certainly benefit the ISP’s customers in various ways.

To think this you would have to think government makes things better, which requires a spectacular ignorance of history.

Actual conservatives….

Lol, you have no idea what you mean by that but I think I can decide for myself whether I’m conservative or not and what I’ll support, k thx, chief.

I’m sure there is a medical term for your obsession in the latter case but I leave such things to mental health professionals.

I come here to tell people like you to get fucked, chief. I guess we can all be glad you have no power over me and your opinion is irrelevant.

HotHead (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

If you don’t mind, I’m curious about how you feel about the current state of internet access.

Who is your ISP? Would you want the FCC to change the way it regulates ISPs? What change do you want to broadband regulations? What is your opinion of municipal broadband? What is your opinion of fiber optic cable? (If your ISP is a big one like Comcast or Frontier, the I would struggle to understand if you were perfectly satisfied with the current legal environment.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I loathe this sentiment with a passion. It’s one of the worst liberal instincts (right up there with being hilariously racist to any minority person who dares to be conservative). It indicates that not only do you think you’re smarter than someone else (despite evidence to the contrary) but that you are so much smarter than they that you can decide better than they can what is right for them, despite their obviously superior familiarity with their needs and desires.

What’s with the word “objectively” you don’t understand? Do I need to refer you to a dictionary? All your huffing and puffing doesn’t make the statement untrue, society is chock-full of people doing things that are objectively not in their own best interest. The reality is that politicians and special interest groups know this and uses it to their own advantage, haven’t you yourself implied as much? Or are you so contrarian that you will contradict yourself?

It’s a sentiment that quickly turns fascist. (ironic, I know) It leads to you thinking that everything that is good should be mandated and everything that is bad should be banned and you are only right in mandating this for other people, perhaps even when they outvote you.

So objective statements lead to fascism? What about subjective statements? Or dishonest ones? Or straight up lies?

Lol, you have no idea what you mean by that but I think I can decide for myself whether I’m conservative or not and what I’ll support, k thx, chief.

It wasn’t a reference to you per se, it was a reference to how actual conservatives are wary of new regulations and legislation, a sentiment you have expressed in much stronger terms, and how the GOP today doesn’t hold that view and how they instead practice grievance-politics and toeing to monied interests.

I come here to tell people like you to get fucked, chief. I guess we can all be glad you have no power over me and your opinion is irrelevant.

So it was the latter then. You live a sad life, get help.

PS: If my opinion is irrelevant why did you try to refute it? Seems you actually think it’s not irrelevant at all. Personally, I ignore irrelevant things which I shall do with you henceforth.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well you didn’t have to wear your desire for a one-party Republicans-only government on your sleeve but here we are. You probably love the Florida bill to abolish the Democrats. You probably also love paying your $100+/month to Comcast and AT&T too for $10/month service.

Or are they giving you the money, Matt?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Well you didn’t have to wear your desire for a one-party Republicans-only government on your sleeve

I’m actually more a libertarian. We used to hate both parties almost equally but liberals have gone so fucking nuts and totalitarian lately that it’s hard not to side with the other guys.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

She was awful, full of bad ideas, and blatantly partisan.

She would basically be like putting Yoel Roth and Gadde (but with a WAY nastier attitude) in charge of the internet. We dodged a bullet.

like restoring net neutrality

Net neutrality was never in place, dumbass. Wasn’t the internet supposed to have ended by now?

And btw, advocating for “net neutrality” is really arguing for government control of the internet and making it less free. It was a bad idea then and is a bad idea now.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I did.

I mean, the article is actually just voicing a (dumb, uninformed) opinion so it can’t be a “source” for anything but it can’t be an educational text, either, but all that is waaaaaaayyyyy about your head. (seriously, there are a lot of dumb commenters here but I think you have to be one of the dumbest. Only the retard anon that shouts “terrorist!” at everything beats you, probably)

So I’ll just repeat: find a more credible source, next time.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The other article also refers to “repealing net neutrality” which is not a thing, because net neutrality was never in place.

There you go, being wrong AGAIN. The “Open Internet Order” was a thing from 2015 to 2017, but you didn’t know that because you can’t read.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

advocating for “net neutrality” is really arguing for government control of the internet and making it less free

What policy exactly, in your conception of net neutrality, would have done either of those things? Who would be controlled by government? Who would it be less free for?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

What policy exactly, in your conception of net neutrality, would have done either of those things?

Think that through, genius. Does or does not net neutrality require government deciding to at least some degree what data is carried through what pipes at what bandwidth? Does it limit ISPs ability to control that? (there ARE actually good and non-profit driven reasons for them to do that)

Has government every used a pretext of benign regulation to assert it’s opinions or to achieve political goals?

But of course you haven’t thought any of this through. Neither has Karl Bode.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Does or does not net neutrality require government deciding to at least some degree what data is carried through what pipes at what bandwidth

Net neutrality says that the ISP is a dumb pipe, and connects you to whatever end points you ask for without favoring any over any other. It stops ISP from deciding to package the Internet services you can connect to, and charging you extra to use some of them, such as video streaming services that compete with services they also own. It also stops them from tilting the table towards other services that they own, such as by excluding them from data caps.

That is net neutrality stops the ISP that connects you to the Internet from deciding what services you can use your Internet connection for. It would stop ISP’s from taxing Google, Netflix et. al. bt charging them for access to their customers if their plot to get the government to do it for them fails.

dickeyrat says:

“A corrupt shitshow”. My thanks to Karl Bode for coming up with a simple, yet highly accurate and descriptive term to wrap around our United States of America. Much more colorful than my simple proclamation of the U.S. as a “scam”, I’m sure I will be using Karl’s wording in many future conversations, yet to be crafted. And I intend to give Karl full verbal credit for his obvious dead-on handiwork as a wordsmith.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...