Image 01 Image 03

FCC votes 3-2 in favor of net neutrality

FCC votes 3-2 in favor of net neutrality

Neutral, eh?

Is there anyone who is surprised that the FCC has voted in favor of net neutrality, and that the vote followed party lines? I doubt it. The general trend has been for greater and greater control by agencies in matters that may seem innocuous, technical, and/or unimportant at the time but can have wide-reaching effects, especially when they are followed by ever-expanding restrictions.

The net neutrality rules don’t sound so bad. And maybe they’ll stay that way. But I wouldn’t bet a dime on it.

Here’s the “neutrality” part:

The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.

Trouble is that it gets the camel’s nose in the tent (although actually, I suppose the camel’s nose was already in the tent):

The most controversial part of the FCC’s decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.

Chairman Wheeler tut-tuts concerns:

This proposal has been described by one opponent as, quote, a secret plan to regulate the Internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.

So, which is it folks? Hint: Obama and the Democrats are for it, and Republicans and Libertarians seem to trend against it. Therefore my guess is “a plan to regulate free speech,” step by step by step. A certain step may seem perfectly fine and even reasonable at the time. But objections to this are not, as Wheeler so elegantly puts it, “nonsense,” because a step is almost inexorably followed by another and another and another, until a point is reached that isn’t so fine at all.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.”

Yeah, no. Pure horseshit.

“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.”

IF it was for “openness”, why was it kept in secret from the PEOPLE?

IF there was to be “an absence of gate keepers”, WHY did Wheeler refuse to come before the PEOPLE’s representatives in Congress to answer questions?

Why is there even an FCC?

    You beat me to it, Rags.

    “This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.”

    Bullsh!t. The First Amendment, by its plain language, cannot be used to regulate free speech, while the “net neutrality” plan — again, by its plain language — can regulate the Internet.

    The First Amendment is a restriction on the government’s actions to regulate free speech. “Net neutrality” is a framework fully capable of empowering the government to regulate the Internet. There’s a world of difference.

    It’s like re-writing the Second Amendment to say, “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, may be infringed as much as we see fit, as long as we give a good reason,” and claiming it’s “not a plan to regulate gun ownership” because they don’t plan to create burdensome regulations — yet.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2015 at 11:51 am

    “Why is there even an FCC?”

    So that if you’re listening to a favorite radio or TV station, another station with a more powerful transmitter doesn’t pirate that bandwidth and take it over.

    So that TV and radio shows don’t broadcast pornography depicting hetero and homo sexual acts during the daytime, when children are watching or listening.

    So that a few companies cannot completely dominate the market, and charge price gouging rates.

    And for purposes of national defense, and other public safety issues, like floods and health alerts, and terrorist attacks that require immediate public notice, to insure the airwaves are available, and not broadcasting commercials for aspirins or sanitary pads during emergencies.


    And if you don’t like the present FAA ruling get a Republican who agrees with you elected president. Then he/she can stack the FCC with a three-person majority, and rewrite the rules.

    Of course that means you have to find a candidate who reflects your net neutrality views who is ELECTABLE. And that means getting a significant number of Independents and Republican centrists and disgruntled Democrats to vote Republican.

    Good luck with that.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 27, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      Oh, I know all the rationalizations for the FCC, you moron.

      Better than you.

      I just don’t buy them. Just as I don’t buy that telephone companies MUST be subjected to Federal regulation. Or at least ANYTHING LIKE the regulations it has historically been subjected to.

      Here’s a question for the unthinking…

      “What government agency regulates DVD disks?”

      There isn’t one. Because the industry very effectively regulates itself. Why? Because self-regulation is very much its its own interests.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2015 at 4:01 pm

        The DVD industry? Nice choice for an example, dumb-dumb: a hard goods technology fast becoming obsolescent. Sort of like your thinking.

        And their self regulating was for their own self-interest: they didn’t want to go thru another war like they did with video cassettes; but customers haven’t fared as well, or haven’t you ever bought a DVD player with comparability issues with CDR/CDRW/DVD-R/DVD-RW/BE-R/BE-RE/DivX/MP3/WMA/ etc.

        DVDs are consumer products, like Jockey Shorts – also a self-regulated industry. Neither has much to do overall with the daily interchange of information between large numbers of people in the modern world. I rather trust a government agency like the FCC to oversee those information portals then for profit corporations like Time Warner or Comcast or AT&T whose entire existence depends on the bottom line.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 27, 2015 at 4:24 pm

          Yes. You’d rather trust the good folks who gave us ObamaDoggle, the IRS, and the tax code. You LOVES you that 19th Century BIG GOVERNMENT model that allows BIG BUSINESS players to capture markets instead of competing in them. You are remarkably stupid.

          I prefer more nimble players who are compelled to innovate and compete by market forces. I like being able to deal with people all over the planet. And, see, stupid, THAT is the future. Not your Kludge Kingdom of regimented subjects.

          Oh, and, BTW, my disk players have always worked for me. Must be something about you, ah reckon.

          Whadda moron.

    Chem_Geek in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2015 at 1:21 pm

    You’re all wrong. Without these rules, monopoly ISPs can decide that Legal Insurrection pages should be served at 300 baud and MSNBC served at 1 GBPS and *there is nothing you can do about it*. With Net Neutrality, that discrimination would be illegal.

    Maybe someone *should* throttle “conservative” Web sites and see how you like it.

      “Monopoly”? I live on an island for heaven’s sake, where we can’t even get free-to-air TV, and I’ve got several choices for Internet service providers.

      If you don’t like your ISP, you can change your ISP. If you don’t like any of the ISPs in your area, you can start your own or support someone who does so.

      It’s like if my current favorite local pizza place stopped serving pepperoni pizzas – I’d find a new favorite pizza place. If there were a big slice of the market hankering for pepperoni and all of the area pizzerias had stopped serving it – there’s a good chance someone would see that market gap and set up their own which did serve pepperoni.

      I wouldn’t demand that the Federal government step in and take over the restaurant sector – they’d probably end up putting Michelle in charge and apply her “school lunch” criteria to all of them!

      “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

        jayjerome66 in reply to Amy in FL. | February 27, 2015 at 4:07 pm

        And how will net neutrality change your ability to access any of those services you mentioned above?

        You have any proof it will decrease competitiveness? In fact, as seems to be happening in the Netherlands where it was implemented a few years ago, more options are becoming available to consumers there. And of course, faster speeds.

        So what’s the beef?

          Enjoy our Obamalunch today, did we?

          Me, I had a jerk shrimp po’ boy for lunch.
          Thought of you! xxoo

          There is a new personality on the internet right now, millions of unique hits in a few weeks. He calls himself Hillbilly Weatherman. He broadcasts on the unregulated internet because he can not broadcast on local channels or cable. If he could broadcast there he would not be the sensation he is on the internet. This is because the regulations that restrict the CONTENT of those broadcast mediums are the exact regulations that the FCC just voted 3-2 to enact on the internet. Tell me again how this regulation is good.

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | February 27, 2015 at 4:30 pm

        “You have any proof it will decrease competitiveness?”

        Yes. Everything we know about government regulation from over a century of experience. Seriously, how stupid are you?

        BTW, STILL looking for a link on a New York Post story accusing John Kerry of being gay.

        And I’m still calling you a liar, so you can prove me wrong.


          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 28, 2015 at 10:50 pm

          As usual, you’re full of crap.

          In any economy you need to strike a balance between regulation and the free market. Without some regulation, monopolies dominate the economic landscape, and competition and consumers suffer. Is your head stuck so far up your butt you don’t understand that unregulated corporations and monopolies and cartels STIFLE competition. In the short run, they can be beneficial in creating new industries, but always after that they kill competition, which generally leads to higher prices and inferior products. Some early examples are sugar, tobacco, oil and the meat-packing business. Show me proof that regulation stopped competition in those industries. AT&T is a more modern example. It was a government supported monopoly – a coercive public utility. And guess who broke it up – Ronnie Reagan. Are you insanely going to suggest we would have as much competition in telecommunications in the US now if the government hadn’t stepped in?

          One other thing: you keep calling me a liar over the Kerry headline. I included it along with half a dozen others to point out the garish tabloid nature of that newspaper. And they pop up at the Google site when you search for “NY POST HEADLINES” and click IMAGES.

          Are you saying none of those headlines are there? Or that the Kerry headline isn’t there? I just clicked on it again, and can see it now on my desktop Mozilla.

          Or are you suggesting I somehow planted ALL those graphics on the page, and am intentionally lying about them being there? And in regard to the punk-ass cowardly way you continue to refer to me as a liar, I have a suggestion how we can resolve it. Do you ever get back here, to LA? If so why don’t we meet up somewhere, and we can discuss it face to face.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 28, 2015 at 11:34 pm

          Governments are the only means for forming and maintaining monopolies.

          You are a complete moron. Which is a good trick.

          There is no such headline, and you’re ALSO a lying sack of shit.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 6:33 pm

          Try this, lump head:

          It’s a screen capture of the images found with a Google search for NY POST HEADLINES.

          In case you’re too stupid to read, you can see three of the headlines I referenced in the original comment I made: the “F*CKMASTER” headline, the “KERRY” headline, and the “HEADLESS BODY” headline.

          If you’re not as blind as you are stubbornly dumb, you can see the GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS at the link.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 6:37 pm

          “Governments are the only means for forming and maintaining monopolies.”


          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 7:05 pm




          I searched all those sources, you lying POS.

          I invite everyone to do likewise.

          Again, moron, how is a gruesome murder and its criminal law aftermath a BOGUS story?

          You are pathetic. Demonstrably. La.

          (In the future…to the extent you have one here…bear in mind I do this for a living.)

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm

          “Governments are the only means for forming and maintaining monopolies.”


          No, you illiterate puke. Adam Smith. “The Wealth Of Nations”.

          Reiterated by Dr. Thomas Sowell in “Basic Economics”.

          Gawd, you are stupid AND ignorant.

          Oh, and BTW, there was never an “oil monopoly” in the U.S. That’s just more of your Collectivist lying.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 8:37 pm

          You’re right about your searches: when I tried them nothing showed.

          But MY search terms shows what I said it shows.
          Tell the truth. Did you try the Google search as I described it?

          And did the images I described show up or not?
          Are you suggesting I counterfeited the entire Flickr photo?

          I invite everyone to do likewise as well: Google NY POST HEADLINES and click on images.

          And what’s BOGUS got to do with it? I was pointing out the TABLOID nature of the NY Post. I didn’t say the topless story was bogus. But that the paper is biased against Liberals and most other Democrats.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 8:48 pm

          I DID, and they DID.

          I’m not “suggesting” anything, but it DOES appear your source is MORE suspect than the New York Post.

          You told us the Post uses a tabloid style…?!?!?

          ShaaaaAAAAAAaaaaAAAzam…!!! Why, none uv us wulda known tha air.

          What you were doing is attacking the Post as a valid source for information, liar. Tabloids are merely a FORM, and they are quite as good a source as the NYT, if a lot more FUN and garish.

          You were also impugning the source because it is owned by Rupert Murdock. Which is just a smear, and a form of “shut UP!”.

          And doing it using your own…highly dubious…source which YOU didn’t bother to investigate. Remember, don’t swill everything you find on the internet.

          Some of those “NYP Front Pages” are obvious photoshops. The one with Tiger Woods that has the F-word in it, for example, was originally featured on VH-1 as a “headline we’d like to see”.

          That said, the Post is colorfully, wonderfully, unapologetically tabloid in presentation, and they are famous for their catchy, clever, “omigosh did they just SAY that?!” headlines. “Headless Man In Topless Bar” is a classic. Their more recent Weiner headlines were also unparalleled. As commenter Papaya is to this blog, the Post is to the otherwise staid and sober New York newspaper rack. Umami!

          P.S. The July 6, 2004 NYP cover “Kerry’s Gay!” Is a photoshop as well. Sorry to disappoint!

          So, given that 66.67% of Mr Jerome’s “evidence” as presented is patently bogus, I think we’re within our rights to dismiss him as a source now and into the future.

“IF it was for “openness”, why was it kept in secret from the PEOPLE?”

Exactly. The Founders would have strung these SOBs up from the nearest tree.

    MattMusson in reply to NavyMustang. | February 26, 2015 at 6:56 pm

    Another freedom bought and destroyed by Left-wing Fascists.

    Doug Wright Old Grouchy in reply to NavyMustang. | February 26, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    Hear, hear! First damned time I’ve heard someone say something intelligent about the FCC’s new Imperial Dictate!

    Would it be improper to say: “All Hail Barack I.”

    rinardman in reply to NavyMustang. | February 26, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    They kept it secret for our own good. See, we’re just not smart enough to deal with such a complex issue, and we may have hurt our brains if we had tried. Thank goodness they’re watching out for us!

And the stupid RINOS in charge of Congress are going to lie back and take it. This is exactly the kind of shit I was afraid of. Obama is in full ‘fuck all of you I’m going to do whatever I want’.

The very fact that this was done in secret tells you all you need to know about it. People that actually know they are doing something right don’t have to hide it. They WELCOME discussion of it, so they can explain the perks. The best defense of this bill is literally, “It’s not as bad as you think”.

This bill, just like SOPA before it, was designed with one single goal – to allow unelected bureaucrats total control. Stand by for things like demanding a license to set up a new website, demanding increasing ‘fees’ to the FCC for the pleasure of not having your website shut down, and ‘audits’ of websites.

To regulate it. And to tax it. Just wait.

If it was so awesomely awesome, why was the proposed rule internal-release only, with no public ability to review and comment before the vote. For that alone it should be overturned

    Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, anyone?

      jayjerome66 in reply to Archer. | February 27, 2015 at 12:03 pm

      “For the regulation to be invalidated, the Congressional resolution of disapproval either must be signed by the President, or must be passed over the President’s veto by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress”

        Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 27, 2015 at 1:43 pm

        You are so confused, Honeee.

        A regulation can be passed in violation of the rules, and is subject to being struck down by the courts.

        Innit? Ya moron.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 28, 2015 at 10:54 pm

          Tell it to Wikipedia:

          If they’re wrong, dick brain, you can change it there.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 6:23 pm

          You are so confused, Honeee.

          A regulation can be passed in violation of the rules, and is subject to being struck down by the courts.

          Innit? Ya moron.

          Again, yes or no, Honeee.

          Does the CRA even apply here, stupid?

          Yes or no.

          Has the FCC issued the required reports to the two chambers? If it doesn’t, which branch will enjoin the effect of the rule?

          Judicial or Elm?

          Ya moron.

        jayjerome66 in reply to jayjerome66. | March 1, 2015 at 7:17 pm

        “Does the CRA even apply here, stupid? ”

        You’re kinda weak North of the ears, aren’t you.

        I was responding to Archer’s initial comment, when he suggested it was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, dumb-dumb, which would come into play if congress or the president wanted to invalidate the new rules in the event the court found them OK. Get it now, numb-nuts? I was responding to the posted question.

          Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | March 1, 2015 at 7:30 pm

          No. You are lying again.

          The ACA and the CRA are two, distinct bodies of law.

          You’ve been caught lying AGAIN.

          The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations.

          ****The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law.****

          I can do this all night, if you REALLY want it.

It’s what a government does. Left-wing regimes are infamous for discrimination through regulation that favors establishment of monopolies.

Comm. Pai’s Stmt on President Obama’s Plan to Regulate the Internet

Anyway, another piece of Obama’s DRRAT (Displace, Replace, Regulate, Abort, and Tax) policy. Obama has his preferred corporations, nations, people, etc.

georgialordlaw | February 26, 2015 at 7:00 pm

With over 30 years of experience and a 9.8 Avvo rating, Georgia Lord Law is committed to winning your case. For more information on how she can help, visit her website:

    Spamming a website for legal business? Show a medium of dignity and find a nice new ambulance to chase. A shiny one with really cool flashing lights.

Liberal Fascism — it’s not just a book.

theduchessofkitty | February 26, 2015 at 8:07 pm

This should end in court…

Okay, so now we’ve seen a few press releases with a sentence or two about net neutrality.

Does anybody know what the remaining 325 pages are all about?

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Bill Quick. | February 27, 2015 at 12:14 am

    There are 8 pages of regulations, which have all been already described all over the place, there is no more. The extra 300+ pages are public comments and case law, even Ajit Pai has admitted this.

      That’s not true. Ajit Pai said this:

      The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

The goal here is to give the government the power to designate a website’s public support for a given political candidate to be a form of campaign donation, subject to existing regulations on campaign donations. Among political websites there will be winners and losers, of course, and double standards for left versus right websites.

This is how they plan, among other things, to shut down or intimidate conservative websites. The ‘other things’ would be gateway taxes here, there, and everywhere.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 26, 2015 at 9:22 pm

    “The ‘other things’ would be gateway taxes here, there, and everywhere.”

    Excuse me. Make that ‘user fees’.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 27, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    Will the Republicans be doing the same thing when they’re in power?

    Board members are appointed by each new president. Though by law there can’t be more then a 3 member majority for either party, the chairman is appointed by the president.

    And in all the years of FCC existence, can you point to any political meddling of the kind you describe above?

    Keep sipping tea party paranoia, Henry, and soon you’ll be peeking under your bed at night, looking for listening devices planted by the FCC.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 27, 2015 at 1:48 pm

      Nice CATCH, Bass Mouth…!!!

      What you DON’T comprehend…among so much else…is that there was NEVER the kind of direct pressure applied to the FCC as was applied by Pres. ScamWOW.

      Gawd, you’re stupid AND uninformed.

        Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2015 at 2:28 pm

        Where did Bass Mouth’s comment go?????

        FCC censorship already? snark

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 28, 2015 at 11:24 pm

        Once again your ignorance surfaces.

        The FCC had constantly been under pressure, from presidents and congress. You must have your head deep in the recesses of your anus not to remember the political battles involving the FCC during the Reagan and Bush-1 years, over the Fairness Doctrine, and various deregulation rules.

        It would serve your credibility better if you cleared the cobwebs from what’s left of your brain.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 6:33 pm

        See, that’s a FAVORITE troll trick, rat thar, you lying SOS…

        The ol’ move the goal-posts, throw open the barn ploy.

        Coupled with the ol’ “don’t you remember” fallacy.

        “The FCC had constantly been under pressure, from presidents and congress.”

        First, THAT is a lie. The FCC has gone relatively unmolested for long periods…when it wasn’t being used as a means to quell free speech, for instance.

        Second, NO president has acted as has Pres. ScamWOW. IF you’ve got some history, LINK IT, you lying SOS.

        Third, we weren’t talking about PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS. My point was…and IS…the pressure applied personally by Barracula is unprecedented. PUT UP LINKS if you have some, because you’ve been outed as a liar, typical of Collectivist trolls.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jayjerome66. | February 27, 2015 at 3:51 pm

      Oh, I’m content to wait and let doubters see. This FCC action is directed by the WH. That’s all one needs to know.

Does anyone remember if the Board that voted has members who were illegally recess appointed?

    Walker Evans in reply to lawdoc. | February 27, 2015 at 2:01 am

    Yes, I remember and no, there weren’t. The illegal appointments were all made to the National Labor Relations Board.

Well, I might be one of the few individuals that might get some minor benefit out of this. If I’m reading this right, it means that AT&T can no longer throttle my Data Useage on my phone.

I’m probably one of the few, few individuals left that still has an “All You Can Eat” data plan, with an express provision in my original contract that says so long as I don’t change the terms of my service, I can renew my contract as it was written and AT&T can’t cancel it. They can make minor/minimal price differential changes, but I’ve never noticed.

Anyway – no more throttling for my phone every month if I exceed that 3GB download “cap”

    this doesn’t address this at all as far as I can tell. it does nothing to last mile/end user speeds. this is about, supposedly, regulating how content providers (not your isp/carrier) interact with the isp themselves.
    a solution looking for a problem to justify itself.

    and it may also force netflix to remove cache servers which would be bad, but need to study up on that a bit more before can say for sure.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to dmacleo. | February 27, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      Actually just the opposite, the rules mainly apply to interactions with the end user not the edge provider.

Glenn Beck seems…um…not to like it.

Rush, too, BTW.

Time to reverse this crap before it can climb in the chest of the body politic.

Hmmm, wasn’t there a legislative bill in recent years passed so fast nobody knew what was in it? We were told we’d know once it was passed, and we did, and it was crap. Oh well. I’m sure their intentions were good.

Now we have a wildcat FCC action which also won’t tell the people what’s involved. Hmm. Gosh, why would they want it kept secret? Gee, I hope it isn’t another crap snadwich, but I trust my government. They’re only looking out for my best interests, after all.

You know, we really should have a third branch of government beyond the executive and judicial. Then we’d have checks and balances.

healthguyfsu | March 3, 2015 at 12:00 am

Missed this post while away. Very interesting to see jayjerome try and pick his battles then lose and move on every single time.

    Doug Wright Old Grouchy in reply to healthguyfsu. | March 3, 2015 at 12:11 am

    Ah so, exactly! Yet, the life of a troll is a lonely one, with few rewards and much sorrow from being left out of games the big boys play!

    Pity them not, for they choose their meager, soulful existence!