Are you tired of hearing about “net neutrality”?
I certainly am.
I get e-mails every other day from some of the organizations organized to keep the Internet free and open, and while I truly appreciate their effort, it’s getting a bit old. I feel like I’ve been stuck in a constant crisis mode, researching net neutrality and over governmental issues—I’m very political, sorry—and I’m ready for the government to stop screwing things up and stick to what it does best: getting nothing done.
The President—Finally Trying to Lead
On Monday, President Obama announced his opinions on the subject in a post on Medium, entitled “My Plan for a Free and Open Internet.” In his plan, the president is pressing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “reclassify” the Internet as an essential form of public communication, like radio and television, which would give them full regulatory power and would effectively prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) from throttling or censoring your Internet access.
Four Rules for a Free Interweb
Beside the above video, the post outlines four rules that should be followed in order to keep the Internet free and open:
- ”No blocking” In short, ISPs shouldn’t block you from accessing any website offering legal content.
- “No throttling” ISPs shouldn’t interfere with website load times—either by boosting some or slowing others.
- “Increased transparency” The idea here is that ISPs should be forced to to upfront and honest about their entire process and not just what happens to the data streams after it leaves their hub for your house. There are plenty of places before that final stretch of the information superhighway for them to cause mischief.
- ”No paid prioritization” Finally and most forcefully, the FCC shouldn’t let ISPs solicit or receive money from content providers for the sake of creating a “fast lane” for their content. Meaning this: Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Apple, etc. won’t be able to pay ISPs like Comcast, ATT, or TimeWarner for high(er) speed delivery of their content, making other providers seem slower by comparison.
While I agree with all the president’s points and applaud him for making this proposal, I have to say this: It’s about darn time, sir. The Internet has been going crazy over this—and I mean, really crazy, cat GIF crazy—for some time, and we’ve been asking you to step into this mess to offer some…what’s that word…leadership?
What were you waiting for? An e-vite?
Of course, just because the president spoke up doesn’t mean that the fight is over. You see, there is someone else that is standing in the way, sorta.
The Lobbyist
Technically, Tom Wheeler’s title is of “Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,” but to me, he’ll always be ol’ Tommy Wheeler, former president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and former CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. What that means, dear reader, is that the head of the FCC, the organization we’re asking to reign in, restrict, and regulate ISPs, used to work as a lobbyist on their behalf.
That’s like tapping an enforcer for a drug cartel to lead the war on drugs!
Appointing someone like Wheeler to be the commissioner of the FCC is beyond stupid. It’s basically an implicit statement of supporting his policies because—oh yes—many of the policies that the Internet is vehemently opposing were proposed by Wheeler himself! Clearly, this guy is very much on the side of the ISPs and working in their interest, despite the considerable resistance to it voiced by the engage citizenry of the US. Who would have appointed such a corporate shill to head such an important public position?
President Obama?!
The Elephant in the Room
Here we come to the point that really infuriates me. You see, time and again, the president has refused to truly lead the government, the country, or even the national dialogue on various topics. (Sorry, if that was a bit too far afield. My frustration with some of the president’s policies pales in comparison with my distaste for his weak, ineffective hands-off, “not my job” attitude towards actually doing his job.) One of those topics is net neutrality and the FCC, specifically. Both the White House and President Obama consistently refer to the FCC as an “independent agency,” distancing himself and his administration from the agency and its decisions. While the FCC does function as an independent agency, it’s still a part of the federal government, and as such, it receives its authority from that government. In fact, it is the job of the president to appoint and the job of the Senate to confirm the commissioners of this “independent” agency. Claiming that an agency is “independent” when you pick the individual who heads that agency is more than a bit deceitful.
Even though the president and Wheeler are both Democrats, there is a huge elephant in the room, a massive truth that the president refuses to admit: he appointed this chairman, and, theoretically, he could appoint a new one. It’s never happened before, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. Now, I don’t think Wheeler could be fired straight out, so essentially, the president would just tap one of the other commissioners and make them the chair of the FCC. What’s the worst that would happen if he tried? Well, for one, Congress could block it, which wouldn’t be surprising for a number of reasons—ISPs are lobbying Congress (i.e. Wheeler’s old job) and the Republicans would love to fight the president on pretty much anything involving more government regulation). But let’s pretend that Congress decides to the back the president—what else could go wrong? What would the president stand to lose?
It’s not as if he needs Tom Wheeler to campaign for him in Iowa or to raise another half a million dollars for another reelection campaign. Yeah, that actually happened. Before Tom got his job at the FCC. Are we seeing some issues here?
Conclusion
President Obama has outlined a great plan here, a plan that many have been asking him to back for months. His slowness to act, his continual distancing himself from his own appointee, his poor judgement in appointing Wheeler in the first place, and his passive refusal to apply any real pressure on Wheeler reveal just how little he truly cares about this issue. It would seem to me that despite his post today, we are effectively on our own.
I am concerned about the Internet, but I’m more concerned about he future of the US. Politics is getting more complex, more corrupt, more ancestral. There seems to be no way to clean it up, as the candidate who offered us the most compelling image of change in decades has turned out to be just as much of a politician as those he campaigned against.
What do you think about any of this? Net neutrality? The president’s plan? Tom Wheeler’s conflict of interest?
[via My Plan for a Free and Open Internet | Tom Wheeler on Wikipedia | Politico | Tip image via Spector1 via Compfight cc]
Eric Dye says
While agree something needs to be done to secure a free and open web, handing over Internet regulation over to the FCC feels like a bad idea. It’s then just one step away from web content regulation, which is the greater of the two evils. I think it would be more effectively regulated from a monopoly angle via the FTC.
Phil Schneider says
I agree concerning the monopoly issue (watch John Oliver’s video on the subject, he attacks the proposed TimeWarner/Comcast deal), but I don’t that pay-to-play/fast lane deals like what Netflix and Comcast inked would be covered in that.
Adam Shields says
I think Obama has been reluctant to get into a lot of issues because there is so much opposition to him as a person. So it makes sense that for many things the best thing he can do is stay out because many people will automatically oppose whatever he says, regardless of what it is.
I am glad he is on record for a relatively good plan, but the whole point of our system of government is that there is a separation of powers. And I am really not in favor of the president acting unilaterally on issues when they are more properly issues of an independent commission or of Congress.
But the FCC has dropped the ball, the Supreme Court has stayed out of it and Congress has refused to act. I think all three have more appropriate role than the President in this matter. So I don’t blame him for entering late, I blame the other three for not participating in the roles that they are more properly tasked with.
(And I agree with you that the FCC head was a bad choice.)
Phil Schneider says
You might be right about him being automatically opposed, but I would trace some of that back to past moments of poor leadership, as in the IRS scandal/ballyhoo and the “Fast and Furious”/Eric Holder situation when he refused to step in.
And I do agree that Congress should have really dealt with this first. In fact, I think my preferred situation would be a law passed by Congress that put the “four rules” into effect without giving power to the FCC. I agree with Eric here that the FTC would be better at this, though the FCC does make some sense too.
Now, I think you misunderstood me on one point, which may have been because this was very much a rant and so likely unclear, but the President is certainly the one to handle this situation with Wheeler and the FCC. He appoints the chair, and that’s why I’d like him to appoint a new one without the conflict of interest, who will listen to the people. The Supreme Court is a terrible choice (IMO) because it was the Court that granted corporations free speech on par with human citizens, and it was Chief Justice Roberts who argued that the rampant donation-fueled politics we have today is how the system was designed. (http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-273-auctioning-the-republic/)
The President should fix this mess because he made it, so if he’d like to step up and admit that, then maybe he could go to the Senate and get them to agree to replace his own appointee.