Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’

“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that he opposes the Federal Communications Commission’s attempts to regulate broadband Internet providers… the likely 2016 GOP presidential candidate argued that the FCC’s decision last month to approve the strongest-ever rules on net neutrality would ‘stifle competition, stifle innovation,'” Zeke J Miller reports for TIME Magazine. “”

“‘The idea of regulating access to the Internet with a 1934 law is one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard,’ he said. It was the first time Bush had weighed in on the subject since the FCC voted,” Miller reports. “‘Just think of the logic of using a 1934 law that was designed when we did have a monopoly for wireline service as the basis to regulate the most dynamic part of life in America,’ Bush said. ‘It’s not going to be good for consumers. It’s certainly not going to be good for innovation.'”

Miller reports, “Bush accused Obama of ‘steamrolling’ the independent FCC by calling on it to make the decision. ‘I hope that Congress acts on this’ to reverse it, he added.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote over eight years ago:

We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for just one example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so extensive regulations can have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net neutral.

Related articles:
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015
Legal battles loom over FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC OKs so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules on party-line vote – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ expected to unleash slew of court challenges – February 26, 2015
EFF: ‘We are deeply concerned; FCC’s new rules include provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach’ – February 25, 2015
The U.S. FCC’s Orwellian Internet policy – February 25, 2015
Democratic FCC commissioner balks at so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 24, 2015
FCC chief pressed to release proposed regulations governing so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 23, 2015
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Obama’s plan a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet – February 10, 2015
Congress launches investigation as Republicans claim Obama had ‘improper influence’ over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 7, 2015
FCC chairman proposes to regulate ISP’s under Title II – February 4, 2015
U.S. congressional Republicans’ bill aims to head off Obama’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ plan – January 17, 2015
U.S. Congressional proposal offers Internet rules of the road – January 15, 2015
U.S. FCC says it will vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’ in February – January 3, 2015
FCC hopes its rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ survive inevitable litigation – November 22, 2014
Obama-appointed FCC chairman distances himself from Obama on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 12, 2014
What does so-called ‘net neutrality’ mean for Apple? – November 12, 2014
AT&T to pause fiber investment until net neutrality rules are decided – November 12, 2014
There’s no one to root for in the debate over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. FCC plays Russian Roulette with so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner: Republicans will continue efforts to stop misguided scheme to regulate the Internet – November 10, 2014
Tech Freedom: Obama cynically exploits confusion over Title II, misses opportunity to lead on legislative deal – November 10, 2014
Obama want FCC to regulate the Internet; Cruz calls it ‘Obamacare for the Internet’ – November 10, 2014


  1. No more royal families in the USA. Lady Hillary of Clinton has managed to throw her campaign off the tracks with her secret email account. It’s time to throw Lord Jeb of Bush off the tracks as well. Neither of them have two honest brain cells to rub together. I want neither of them messing with my Internet.

    1. Your “logic” is confusing.

      You want to throw Bush “off the tracks” because he wants the government to leave the Internet alone because you want your Internet left alone.

      You don’t seem to have two logical brain cells to rub together. No offense.

      Democrat Party: Wants to regulate the Internet with a 1934 law that would allow them to do pretty much anything they wished (as if the FCC won’t ever flip to Republican control). (By the way, Democrats, I trust that when the White House invariably flips to Republican control, you’ll enjoy the Executive Actions as much as you do today.)

      Republican Party: Wants to allow the most innovative portion of the U.S. marketplace continue to be able to innovate.

      The choice is stark. The Democrat Party believes in centralized bureaucratic control and the Republican Party believes in maintaining the freedom to innovate.

      1. We don’t need another Bush in the White House, no matter how much he lies about being his own man. The chaos, death and misery in the Middle East can be laid directly at the feet of the Bush clan and big oil. Of course it wasn’t made any better by that clown in D.C. right now.

          1. The fact that the original law dates back to 1934 is completely irrelevant, unless you are looking for grandstanding talking points. There lots of good old laws and poorly written new laws. The date has no predictive value either way.

            Republicans are mistaken about what the most innovative portion of the US economy is. It is all the businesses and people connecting through the Internet, not the ISPs themselves which simply benefit from being in the middle and inheriting technology they didn’t even invent. Yes IPSs are important to make that work, but they are not the point of the Internet and should not be allowed to change the internet from its successful roots.

            If the Republicans really wanted to leave the Internet and ISP businesses in top innovative form they would have put a stop to consolidation of that industry long ago so that healthy competitive market forces could have kept them in check.

            Funny thing about Republicans, they say they want free market solutions but when companies with deep pockets want to reduce competition the Republicans jump.

            (And to be clear I have exactly as low an opinion of anyone identifying themselves as a Democrat. Either you can think independently, or you can’t, and parties are not sold on independent thinking.)

            1. the US needs to make all laws simple and easy enough for even an eight-year old to understand, not thousands of pages of legalese that only the small elite of the court system can interpret. Get the common man on equal footing with the rich. Power to the people.

          2. Oh, Firsty, such shenanigans. If you did/do not back Bush for President then that means only one of two possible outcomes; you didn’t vote or you voted for the Democrat. Clearly, your partisan hackery would never allow support of any Democrat, any where or at any time. Once again, your disingenuous reply fools no body.

            1. My response was to the comment “We don’t need another Bush in the White House.”

              I never said I’m backing Jeb Bush, only that he’s right about the FCC’s illegal power grab.

            2. @F2014 ..

              Ah, so I see: what you’re saying is that you’re knowingly dodging & evading. The fact is that you did say: “…I trust that when the White House invariably flips to Republican control…” after you had desparaged the other political party.


              The simple facts of the matter are that you’re using an interesting definition of what “innovation” means. Where the market currently stands is with a few large service providers who are leveraging their ‘Natural Monopoly’ status to maximize their profits … that doesn’t really align well with what “innoviation” is generally accepted to mean on a technology-centric website.

              Perhaps you can find like-minded individuals who use the “I” word in this sort of fashion over at Cramer’s “Mad Money” discussion groups, but that’s an entirely different context.

            3. Clueless much, Montex?

              It is painfully obvious Firsty did not vote for Jeb Bush. He is not on the ballot and Election Day 2016 is a long way off.

              And I read – HH is just as clueless.

              That is why Firsty will not respond to either if you. No honor in besting fools.

            4. @Me2Sense

              Apparently, you’ve never seen anyone ever “play it straight up” (which differs from being clueless) so as to simply let the other party dig their own grave.

            5. Head games, whatever.

              Obviously, -HH and Montex clearly misunderstood what Thirsty was saying.

              Jeb Bush was not on the Presidential ballot for 2008, 2012 or 2016.

              How both of you could interpret something otherwise is completely baffling to me.

            6. @Me2Sense:

              On the contrary: it isn’t “baffling” at all – – it is merely pointing out that F2014’s terse ‘Jed’ comment – – – when applied directly to the question which was posed to him can only mean that he was claiming to have had (yes, past tense) voted for Jed.

              Instead, we are now being asked to believe that the response is retroactively being changed to NOT be the answer to a question, but is instead a grossly understated claim of agreement with an abstract position.

              Sorry, but that magnitude of backpedalling is not at all plausible…and in the context of his highly partisan comments, not credible either.

              So the original question remains open and unanswered, despite ample opportunity to be honestly responsive.

              At best we have a restatement of an earlier position which was that F2014 is claiming to be in agreement with Jed Bush’s attempt to vilify this activity based on it being based on an “old (1934) law, which has already been highlighted as a fallacy because of all of the equally “old” laws on the books which we accept as still valid (such as prohibitions on theft, murder, etc).

              All in all, nothing new here in his argument at all…each of its points have already been thoroughly discredited.

            7. I don’t think F2T2’s comments are discredited. Quite the contrary, they are an accurate reflection of what is going on in the world. Besides TMac, no one has put out more facts than opinion.

              I don’t agree with the terse description or his lack of clarity which made perfect sense the first time I read it. Just not to yourself and Montex.

              Which is perfectly understandable. The PC Left vocabulary makes a sport of semantic wordplay splitting hairs and looking for minutiae cracks in plain and simple English.

              Also relish the opportunity to poke fun and smugly diss and discredit everything in the post simply because your political views are polar opposites. A fair and honest person sees it for what it is …

              As to your defense of the 1934 law because laws against murder and the Constitution are much older is comparing apples and oranges.

              It is not about numerology, we’re talking laws that apply to mankind, technology, science, commerce — et al. You have no trouble parsing Republican comments but I read you stumbling through numerals and the meaning of laws as they pertain to many circumstances and time periods it seems the same parsing power is totally absent.

              The Internet is so young it sports no gray hairs and no reading glasses. Murder has been against the law since words were carved in stone tablets and the wheel was invented. We’re talking technology that needs a 2015 solution and not a 1934 law that does not apply.

              As always, the Left conveniently finds a precedent no matter how ridiculous a STRETCH and uses it as a blueprint to take over by GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

              And we have all seen how that played out with healthcare. More confusing, wasteful spending, bureaucrat control, all costs rocketing skyward, IRS threats, premiums unaffordable, people losing their homes over medical bills, you can’t keep your doctor and more … for what?

              Answer: Empty feel good political platitudes and symbolism absent reality. The DNA of LIBERALISM.

              You will be glad to know this is my last post on this thread. Betting I have not changed any minds, but I will still defend correct common sense wherever it comes from, left or right. Nice talking with you.

            8. “The Internet is so young it sports no gray hairs and no reading glasses.”

              Really? The Internet isn’t a technological “baby” in 2015: the modern Internet (not the first one…its pedantic ‘birth’ goes back to 1961) started a third of a century ago (Flag Day to institute TCP/IP was on 1 Jan 1983).

              FYI, when we look at where the commercial aviation industry was 30 years after it got started, that was the mid-1970s and there already were trans-continental flights and Boeing 747’s – – and the supersonic Concorde entered commercial service in 1976.

              “We’re talking technology that needs a 2015 solution and not a 1934 law that does not apply…”

              You’re half right.

              The maligned 1934 law (FYI – updated in 1996) **does** apply because the Internet as a technology is employing an equally-old service distribution business model. This business model has been found to have elements of a Natural Monopoly in its form, which is known to marginalize competition and historically has proven to be quite highly susceptible to abuse.

              Note that this is a business cost of infrastructure issue as it relates to competition (and noteably, as a barrier to entry of competition), which has nothing to do with the technolgy of if the internet is being piped by wires, fiber, or whatever: it still costs money to run that physical connection the proverbial “last mile” to each customer, which then gets multiplied by 100 million households.

              Fix the infrastructure build-out expenses problem and you’ll eliminate it as a barrier to entry to competition and you won’t have the “Natural Monopoly” problem which invokes public interest to regulate the industry.

              So! Just what specific and concrete business plans do you have which will fix the ROOT CAUSE problem? I’ve not heard of any at all – – so please enlighten us instead of running away.

              FYI, I’m not enamored with the idea of Title II regulation either, but I do have to agree that that regulatory approach has worked quite effectively in managing the degree to which prior Natural Monopoly utility serives were able to exploit their customers. In other words, it may not be the greatest solution, but it is known to work and be effective at protecting the public from gross exploitation – – and most importantly, we also know that there aren’t any better alternatives until such time that someone invents a new technology which has essentially zero infrastructure build-out distribution expenses.

              That’s the business case in a nutshell. The rest simply boils down to the bribes being paid to the various political parties to protect their revenue streams from full & open competition.


              FYI as an aside, this discussion has nothing to do with the utter mess which is the US Healthcare system, so kindly knock it off. While the tiny dogs yapping over the trivialities of Obamacare, all they’re doing is demonstrating that they can’t even perceive the much bigger and more fundamental problems that are being blithely ignored.

            9. @Me2Sense: Your inability to make any real world concrete suggestion on how to fix the basic business case distribution costs issue …. is so noted.

              FYI, I don’t have a solution either, which is why I’m not opposed to the Title II band-aid to limit the damage.

              If I did have a better mousetrap, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull out the stops, set up a third company and go after it…when someone does finally crack this nut, they’ll be disruptive because they can sell the product at half their current retail price and still make a tidy profit. Some folks have speculated that WiFi is the way to go, but it doesn’t really reduce the costs enough, particularly once you budget for spectrum allocation to do it right.

            10. “enlighten us instead of running away.”

              The last time I checked I was not on your payroll, thank God.

              Oh master of word salad, you have no solutions.

              Here is mine: No government control of the Internet. If the last mile of pipe is abused by monopolies — take them to court.

              The government takeover of healthcare is the shining example class study 101 where the political platitudes displace reality. Abject failure of the current administration that is now headed to take control of the Internet.

              Sad you are so clueless.

            11. @Me2Sense:

              “If the last mile of pipe is abused by monopolies — take them to court.”

              Reading Comprehension fail, because while you were busy with your lame insults, you missed the fact that two days ago, I already pointed out this option, as well as noted it as personally preferable.

              Repeating: IMO, I’d rather see a Federal Anti-Trust lawsuit, since Title II won’t ever assign liability (let alone extract punishment) for the already known illegal practices.


              “The government takeover of healthcare …”

              Still utterly irrelevant, as the Gov’t didn’t actually take over healthcare.

              FYI, had they had actually done so, they might have been able to finally start to fix some of the far more significant structural problems that we have in the US Healthcare system — and FYI, for which Obamacare is ignoring and merely “kicking the can down the road” on. Once again, you’re refusing to see the forest for the trees.


            12. Me2Sense:

              “If the last mile of pipe is abused by monopolies — take them to court.”

              “Reading Comprehension fail, because while you were busy with your lame insults, you missed the fact that two days ago, I already pointed out this option, as well as noted it as personally preferable.”

              The only fail here is I remember your previous post and agree with you. Conflate much? Or, you’re on another discredit mission to a point of view that won’t hold down your breakfast?

              “The government takeover of healthcare …”

              “Still utterly irrelevant, as the Gov’t didn’t actually take over healthcare.”

              You are so right. The government has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. 11,000 new IRS hires are a myth to enforce the law. The Nancy Pelosi Congress did pass a healthcare bill with ZERO Republican votes, but that is not government.

              Well, the healthcare industry today can do damn what they please, RIGHT? No government takeover or involvement. No government regulations. No government laws. You are SOOOOOO … RIGHT!

              Besides, your bottom line is always the same — liberals never screw up. Just those EVIL, GREEDY, BUSINESS REPUBLICANS.

            13. @Me2Sense:

              You’ve made it quite obvious that your axe to grind is with Healthcare, and you’re using how the Corporations there have not been able to be reined in through regulation to blame this attempt at regulating a Natural Monopoly, despite the historical fact that the general strategy of regulation to protect against the illegal exploitation of Monopoly power here **has** in fact been effective.

              Case in point:

              For those technologies/services which we enjoy today which have become reasonably mainstream where their distribution model conforms to the definition of ‘Natural Monopoly’ – – can you think of any examples where private industry has acted reasonably responsible such that they are effectively free from regulation?

              For example, we’ve already mentioned electric, water and telephone as examples where the Gov’t stepped in to minimize abuses of Natural Monopoly structures by private industry.

              FYI, the same also happened with the Railroads too: know your history of the “Robber Barons”.

            14. BTW, I do very much expect another “… not on your payroll…” bailout to avoid answering the question.

              The bottom line is that Capitalism has consistently proven that it can’t resist the temptation to lock out their competition by any & all means possible, including illegal exploitations.

              Quite frankly, I’d hope that this pattern has not been 100% of the time, but by the same token, I can’t personally recall ANY example where a corporation in a large Natural Monopoly situation has not eventually succumbed to the temptation to exploit it. If there are any notable exceptions, I’d really like to be wrong in condemning them all and hear about them.

        1. Oh my, you blame Bush for the mess in the Middle East when it clearly belongs at the feet of Islam? Your name may be Logic, but you clearly have none.

          You have to go back about 1500 years tomfind the root cause of this mess over there to a humpback power mad psycho who set this chain of events in action.

          Or maybe to the guy invented gas engines in the first place, you hate ‘big oil’ so much (probably while you’re tooling around in your Prius, which is just as energy burning as any other cart by the time you figure in the making of the batteries, let alone the ful you need to keep it moving).

          Then again, guys like you probably want to also blame ‘The Jews,’ never mind 6 million of them being slaughtered by a ‘Socialist’ egomaniac who sounds an awful lot like a certain guy wants to blame everybody else for all the problems he creates.

          But really, what it is, you’re just so full of hate and pettiness that you’re not about to allow facts get in the way of your stupidity.

          1. Taking your own comments — there’s been a quagmire for the past 1500 years … upon what basis do you then decide that its a good idea to go meddle in it?

            Laying this as Bush’s feet isn’t just the opinion of a couple of whack-a-doodles on MDN. Case in point:

            “Sadly, this crisis was caused by many hands, starting with the 2003 invasion of Iraqand numerous bad decisions, like disbanding the Iraq iArmy and removing Sunni loyalists from the government and military, which served only to create an angry group with the training and the weapons to become a problem. And they did.”
            – Editorial in “DEFENSE NEWS”, June 23, 2014 (page 20).

      2. YOU talking about being ‘confusing’? The choice is stark: Use the brains we’re given, or be another herded sheeple. I choose the former and have no use for the latter or it’s propaganda pundits, such as our boring bot, First – Then.

        1. Agreed. You would think an Apple site would have more independent thinkers on it. Thank goodness there are some!

          Anyone who thinks solutions come in Red or Blue or that either party acts consistently with the principles they wave like flags has a blindfold on.

          Republicans add to government size and debt just as much as Democrats. Democrats side with corporate welfare as much as Republicans. Both parties love to politicize issues that the other party acts productively on.

          Not even the FCC chairman thought Title II was the best approach, but the telecom industry and Republicans shot down other approaches without offering anything that worked except “trust the telecoms” and “let them keep reducing competition with mergers”.

      3. Misinformed as well as bats*** crazy. Jeb Bush is a lying, hypocritical dim bulb who is unloved on all sides. My personal preferences for president are Bernie and Elizabeth, but I’ll gladly take Hillary or even Anthony Weiner over any single conservative rightwing republican. To vote blue is to vote a homegrown extremist with a cross around his or her neck. This country must be purged of those mentally challenged and disturbed obstructionists. I’m sick of it, and I guess I’ll head elsewhere again for a while for my Apple news.

        1. There are some great Republicans, but they are not right wing fringe enough for the party to rally around. Look at how McCain got warped by his own party.

          You have to deny science and fight any good ideas on the other political side to have a chance in the Republican machine right now. And a lot of people think this is how politics are supposed to work. Right now the Democrats are acting somewhat saner, but the pendulum goes back and forth.

          “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” – John Adams

          In other words, only two teams continually fighting over power makes for horrible governance.

          We need term limits for parties so that more diversity of solutions and candidates can have a chance. But neither party will vote for something that puts the countries ability to govern first at their own expense.

      4. I have met Jeb at a fundraiser when he was running for governor of FL, that man will lie to your face with a smile on, I would never trust a thing he says. As for the two parties, the Republicans don’ t think government can work at all and will do all in their power to make sure it doesn’t, they believe in maintaining the rights of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The Democrats believe that government can work if done properly but lack the balls to beat the republicans into submission and lack the communication skills to get through to the working people just how much the republicans are screwing them over.

        1. WTF, dude, your crazy Marxist in the White House is using tyrannical actios weekly to jam a bootheel down on the necks of your evil Repubs, using demagoguery and blantently ignoring the law and Constitution.

          Wealthy vs The People – just another lazy jealous bum can’t work his hatred out of his soul, have to drag everybody else into the gutter of mediocrity. Shouldn’t you be lurking on an Android site with all the the other dumb lazy Marxists?

          1. Anyone that uses “Marxist” to describe anyone in our government is an idiot. Add, “Hitler” and whatever other sensational terms you can come up with… You sir are a nut job along with anyone else that uses these terms.

      5. Anyone who thinks there is significant difference between the two parties is living in a fantasy world and is bein way too easily duped.
        I did get a good laugh out of the idea that the Republicand are for anything but serving their moneyed masters. At least the democrats try to hide it. A little.

      6. Fwhatever, you would parrot the “1934 law” idiocy. The same people who claim to revere the principles embodied in a 200+ year old document or a 2000+ year old book are the same ones who came up with this little gem about a law that is less than a century old.

        It is the same label, repeat incessantly, and discredit strategy that has been used so effectively over the past couple of decades.

      7. “Republican Party: Wants to allow the most innovative portion of the U.S. marketplace continue to be able to innovate.”

        Yes because we know that the giant internet companies will always give us users a fair and honest deal, and NEVER over charge us.
        And besides if we do not let them overcharge us,how will they have the money to donate to the Big Business party.

        Last thought. NEVER has a company innovated when the government locks in their greed for giant underserved profits.

        Just a thought

      8. “allow the most innovative portion of the U.S. marketplace continue to be able to innovate”
        I’d hardly call TimeWarner and Optimum Online “the most innovative portion” of anything. And, if they get to dictate terms, the true internet innovators will have to stop at their tollbooth.

      9. How are the ISPs innovating again? Would that be the $150 monthly bill they charge me for so-so service?

        they’re surely going to run out of ways to keep their investors happy, I can guarantee that.

      1. I’m laughing this morning at the DemoCraps who have no one so far running for president in 2016 because of Lady Hilary of Clinton standing in the wings. If THAT is all they’ve got to strut on the runway, OMFG. Such is the Life Of A Party. Nauseating. :-Q***

  2. This is truly a bizzarro world.

    The craziest idea he’s ever heard is a law written in 1934 regulating telecom.

    I can think of a “crazier” one: steering an entire country by the Constitution, ratified in 1788! Ha, HA! Just having some fun about “antiquated documents.”

    1. This is truly a bizarro world. Only in such a world would there be some deluded souls who’d ever attempt to equate a 1934 telecom act with the U.S. Constitution.

      1. I get your point, but there have been *plenty* of times when people say “Constituition” to justify something without merit.

        Let’s take that whole “2nd amendment” thing, for example….”right to bear arms.” Makes a lot of sense for 1700s post-colonial America, with muskets and such, wildlife much more prevalent, hunting a *necessary* part of everyday life.

        In 2015, with semi-automatic weapons with large-clip quick-change magazines available at a pittance (relative to the comparable cost in 1770s), and zero need to hunt for food, I think that part of the Constitution is a bit outdated.

        And before you go off on some “you’re one of those fascists who wants to take our guns” rant….I own three pistols, a rifle, and am taking a concealed carry class in May.

        But the literal interpretation that gun nuts want to make of the Constitution nowadays is absurd. SOME regulation is needed.

          1. Yep, that militia that consisted of every able-bodied male in the country. You know, just like today, where every male between 18 and 25 has to register with the Selective Service.

      2. The whole “1934 Act” bit is a disingenuous misdirection. For example, it has been illegal for more than merely 80 years to murder someone, or commit theft … and also to abuse Monopoly Power.

        But hey, you’re ready to throw all of these “old = obsolete” laws away too. I can belive the last one, of course.

          1. @Sean, that question has been asked before (and repeatably), but it is the wrong question to ask.

            The reason why is because it is *NOT* a formal Policy statement yet (nor a “Call for Public Comment”) but is an internal communication which are known as “Pre-Decisional” discussions: as per FOIA, it constitutes “…materials reflecting deliberative or policy-making process…”

            As such, the “300 page” document falls under FOIA Exemption 5 (at least; there could be others too); see the full list at:

            In plain english, look at your own work email account – – would you be willing to have every single one of your business communications become public record? Of course not – – so then suggest that yo apply this same professional consideration to others, lest you be a hypocrite.

            1. Understand the 300+ document is exempt from disclosure.

              Still, it should be released as it pertains to government takeover of the FREE, OPEN, NEW FRONTIER Internet.

              As we have seen with healthcare, the more information BEFORE a vote is taken, the BETTER.

            2. > Understand the 300+ document is exempt from disclosure.

              Thank God that someone does understand this! Seriously.

              > Still, it should be released…

              Yes, it should be released – – but the Devil is in the details. Pragmatically, it is usually a lot easier (and better) to write an entirely new document specifically for publication than to take an existing internal document and recuse out all of the information that is still non-releasable.

              The basic reason why is because FOIA has multiple exemption categories and it is quite easy for a paper to have a long discussion on how A interacts with B & C .. and the net result when recused for FOIA release is that entire pages of this “A vs B, C” end up disappearring. Naturally, long blanks are interpreted as “suspicious looking” by those who don’t understand FOIA. Plus because of the way that the disclosure rules work, you’re not allowed to *add* anything to the recused document, such as an explanation of what information was removed and why it was removed, this inability to be allowed to explain just makes the “they’re hiding something!” paranoia worse.


              > … as it pertains to government takeover of the FREE, OPEN, NEW FRONTIER Internet

              Except that the Internet effectively isn’t “Free & Open” for many of its consumers anymore, because a few large businesses have bought up the “last mile” connections and their practices are acting as an anti-consumer Duopoly.

              True, being a Monopoly (Duopoly) isn’t illegal in of itself – – it only becomes illegal under US Law when one “abuses” one’s market power – – but this has already been demonstrated with instances of anti-competitive actions taken, such as actively blocking new competitors from entering the market.

              The Sherman Anti-Trust act of 1890 (including its subsequent amendments) would be one remedy to these illegal business practices … another would be to invoke the FCC’s existing Title II authority.

              IMO, I’d rather see a Federal Anti-Trust lawsuit, since Title II won’t ever assign liability (let alone extract punishment) for the already known illegal practices. The big legal problem with this is that some of these practices were “made legal” at the State/Local level, so there would end up being a “Fed vs States Rights” mess on top of this, which would simply drag things out for a decade.


  3. Jeb is 100% spot on. Imagine the Internet ruled by a 1934 law. Is that the best the Democrat party can come up with?


    That said, no Bush and no Clinton coronated to run in 2016.

    Walker and Florina. Eight years of Walker straightening out the pension mess and Florina waiting in the wings to be the first female president in history.

    Her business success and experience makes Billary look like a kindergarten teacher. Nothing against teachers, mind you. While her blather gets raves from the mindless media and celebrities she is an empty skirt.

    Clint, time to bring out the kitchen chair …

      1. Speaking of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard, how about electing a racist radical to the White House?

        “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.” – Barack Hussein Obama

        “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.” – Barack Hussein Obama

        “There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white.” – Barack Hussein Obama

        “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.” – Barack Hussein Obama

        “I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa , that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.” – Barack Hussein Obama

        “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” – Barack Hussein Obama

        1. Has anyone else noticed that you can safely ignore people’s comments on Obama with almost 100% certainty of their lack of objectivity if they insist on using his middle name in referring to him?

          I’ve yet to find even a single instance of someone being reasonable or objective in a political discussion if they use terms like “Obama Messiah,” “NObama,” “Hussein,” “BHO,” etc.

          Of course, the same is true for the other side…saw “McLame” used a lot to refer to John McCain….they always showed incredible bias, too.

          It’s a useful filtering criteria, actually, so please don’t stop!! 🙂

      1. How easily manipulated you are?

        A barley water afternoon and misspelling (L versus I) makes me instantly disqualified Mr. Smug Super Genius?

        Grasping at straws … whatever, dude.

        Fiorina has more smarts on her worst day than PC Queen Clinton has on her boring blathering shrill-yelling best day.

        No ambassadors or executives died under Fiorina’s watch.

        No billing records disappeared and then magically reappeared on her boardroom table.

        No clueless personal relationships or interns were violated in the workplace.

        Ben Carson also looks very formidable as a VP candidate.

          1. Significantly absent from your post is your ignorance of Billary cluelessness.

            No comment about Billary or Ben Carson? OK, fine.

            Fiorina killed HP? Friday HP traded at $33.18 per share.

            And no one died in an embassy or on the boardroom table.

            1. RE: HP’s stock price

              You do realize that’s also about what their stock price was in 1999, right? You know, the year Fiorina became HP’s CEO? So, ZERO net growth in 16 years. That’s hardly stellar success in the business world….as a comparison, Apple (a competitor) has gone from a split-adjusted $1.20 or so in 1999 to a closing price of $126.60. (Didja see how I brought this back to Apple?!!?)

              But the important thing is that she was kicked out of HP in 2005….so what was their stock price in 2005? Around $20-$21/share, on average. Sooooo, that’s a THIRTY PERCENT DROP under her tenure, at a time when most of their competitors were GAINING in price. Sounds like lousy leadership to me, but maybe you have some secret FoxNews conspiracy information that their stock price was the Clinton’s fault? Or Obama’s, perhaps? 😉

              Quote from Fiorina’s wikipedia page (with references….go click on them yourself):

              “Fiorina frequently has been ranked as one of the worst CEOs of all time”

              That pretty well sums it up, I think.

            2. Forgot Carson again.

              I didn’t comment on him before because I don’t know that much about him….and I don’t like to spout off about someone and sound like a doofus if I don’t know much about them (such as even how to spell their name correctly). 😉

              However, since you asked, he seems like a bright, well-balanced, reasonable guy, but as far as I know he has ZERO government experience, which rules him out in my book.

              I don’t care how smart he is, how great a surgeon, or what great ideas he has…I’m not even going to let him work on my car if he’s never even changed his own oil, to use a crude analogy.

              But he can certainly be my surgeon anytime, should the need arise!

              If there’s qualifying info I’m missing on him, though, please enlighten me.

        1. And for the record, I wasn’t being smug. Just accurate.

          If you view everyone spouting those silly “facts” as smug, then perhaps it’s because your own views are so misinformed that the truth looks foreign to you.

          Finally, your misspelling of Fiorina’s name clearly wasn’t a typo, because you spelled it wrong *consistently*.

          1. “Finally, your misspelling of Fiorina’s name clearly wasn’t a typo, because you spelled it wrong *consistently*.”

            Feeoareena spelling is a juvenile fixation put down and so unimportant. Well, at least to some of us.

            And for the record, you have nothing. Consistently demonizing the right while blind to the left shortcomings.

            Good luck with that.

            1. Fact: You don’t even know how to spell the name of someone you claim to support for VP. I don’t think it’s a stretch or juvenile to say that SEVERELY weakens your insistence that she’s qualified….I think it’s fair to say that if you know a candidate well enough to say “yes, they’d make a good leader of this country,” you should have picked up the correct spelling of their name by now.

              And for the record, I’m not wild about Hillary, either. Plenty of qualifications, smart lady, knows the world stage due to Bill, etc…BUT I don’t fully trust her and don’t agree with her completely. I was thrilled to have her as a Cabinet member for Obama as I think she had value to add, but I’m not sure I want her as head honcho. I’m hoping for better options come election time, yes, from *either* side of the political fence. I’m a die-hard Independent, for the record, and McCain almost received my vote. He likely would have if he hadn’t picked Palin as running-mate…she’s a disaster and set a very bad precedent of HORRIBLE decision-making in McCain’s first major decision as a presidential candidate).

              But speaking of blindness…your apparent obsession with Benghazi as a single focal point has blinded you, just like Fox News (“which they should have renamed to the Benghazi Misinformation Network”) wants you to be blinded. It’s a typical game of misdirection, of which they are the masters.

              There has been no proof of anything improper with respect to Benghazi. Even the bi-partisan Congressional investigations cleared Hillary and Obama.

              Quote from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to ‘cover-up’ facts or make alterations for political purposes”

              Summary from House Intelligence Committee review: “…report, released November 21, 2014, stated that it found no intelligence lapses”.

              There were, of course, reports that said the entire Obama administration was to blame for everything….but they were hopelessly biased “reports” that were put together exclusively by Republicans with an anti-Obama agenda (probably with editorial assistance from Fox News) and zero input from Democrats in the House.

              The more objective, bipartisan reports were clear. But I’m sure you’d rather believe the biased, one-sided reports, because they support your existing, obsessive beliefs.

              And that’s your right, if you wish to be misinformed and engage in willful ignorance. It’s a free country, after all.

            2. Full belly laugh!

              And just where am I supposed to find UNBIASED CONCLUSIONS?

              The media?

              The Administration?

              Scald Sicko?

              Your apparent lack of facts is duly noted.

            3. Gosh, and your posts have just been chock-full of indisputable facts…you know, like …well, there was…and then…um, I guess….

              Oh, wait! Let me guess…all those “facts” that Fox News spoon-feeds you (or perhaps you’ve gone to an IV?)


              And I’m betting you don’t realize the irony of your post.

              Under due process in our system, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Many Republicans (and their proxy, Fox News) have accused the Obama administration of covering something up with respect to Benghazi.

              And that’s their right. And if they REALLY thought there was something being covered up (vs. just the “let’s disparage a likely potential Democrat Prez candidate” opportunity I suspect it was), then the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the accusers.

              There isn’t any, which is why we haven’t heard it. All we’ve heard is endless accusations, with zero proof.

              If you were a logical person, you’d understand that it’s impossible in many instances to prove that you DIDN’T do something. You could accuse me of killing someone. The only sure-fire way I could PROVE that I didn’t do it is if I could find them and prove that they’re still breathing. You could accuse me of breaking into someone’s car.

              Even if I have an alibi, that’s still not proof. If you have video of me doing it, fingerprints on the steering wheel, etc…that’s proof.

              That’s why the burden of proof is on the accuser. You know, that whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept.

              So, the one who should be providing the facts in this discussion is you. We’ll be waiting.

            4. “And if they REALLY thought there was something being covered up (vs. just the “let’s disparage a likely potential Democrat Prez candidate” opportunity I suspect it was), then the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the accusers.”

              Certainly right about BURDEN OF PROOF.

              Try and wrap your head around this one: Private e-mail server at Hillary’s house when she was Secretary of State. Where are the Benghazi e-mails? Stay tuned, proof is coming.

              Unless of course the hard drives and computers either failed or went missing, tactic used successfully in the IRS debacle. Also, the matter of the private delete key. I mean really, we are talking about the cloudy Clintons here, try to keep up …

              Despicable tactics by despicable people. Fingers crossed facts are shown the light of day. Maureen Dowd from the New York Times just wrote a scathing column on this very topic (Hillary and Benghazi e-mails). Oh, guess you were too busy partisan ranting and missed that one …

              I have to correct you all knowing presumptuous one. I am a lifelong independent voter that reads the NYT and WashPost EVERYDAY, watches CNN and Fox News and also listens to NPR.

              Your hatred of conservative media is apparent and duly noted. I enjoy broader views of all media biases when TRUTH and FACTS are presented.

              Truth has no party. Facts have no party. Remember that, ScaldWeak.

  4. The applicable law in question was passed(updated) in 1996. Anyone who says 1934 law is purposely trying to mislead. Telecommunications section passed in 1996 is what applies. BTW the second amendment was agreed to back around 1776 right? So, should we as that it can now way have any application today? Of course not. Please grow up. Plenty of legit arguments to make on this topic but 1934 line is just straight up trolling.

        1. I’m sorry, have you read anything about this proposed legislation whatsoever? The legislation actually includes crap for fact checking search results. Also, do you know how the Internet works, how it runs? Do you realize that the Internet has flourished without an iota of Government interference. It is living proof that lack of regulation allows spontaneous order to take place.

          1. There is no legislation. Legislation would have to come from Congress. The FCC implements regulation, under the authority of legislation. Lets try to keep the relative responsibilities of our government branches clear. The 1934 law was passed to enable regulatory control of a monopoly.

            While there are multiple broadband providers, in most instances they are in a monopolistic situation, that is any given citizen has access to only one provider. Some densely populated cities may support competing providers, but most do not.

            Monopolies are always bad for consumers because they lack market incentives to provide better goods for less money. They will always opt for the worst goods they can sell for the highest price they can get. Since the internet has become the central factor that it has, regulating its monopolistic leanings seems like a good idea.

            As far as fact checking search results goes, it would help to know that the top search result was manipulated into that spot. I seem to recall a situation a few years back wherein Mac users were not offered the best prices when searching for hotel rooms on line. They were offered more costly pricing, since the Mac demographic was seen to be able to pay a higher price. I’d like to be the one making the decision about how much I’m willing to pay and I sure as hell object to a company lying to me about what is available. Seems that a little oversight wouldn’t hurt.

          2. I agree with kaplanmike 100%.

            My credentials: Cisco certified. Former consultant at: Cisco, AT&T, Verizon, MCI (both MCI Worldcom and MCI Metro). Former employee of UUNET (and if you don’t know that one, you should just STFU right now).

            Ex-girlfriend was one of Worldcom’s top sales reps, so I’m well familiar with that side of telecom, too.

            I think it’s safe to say I understand the telecom industry quite well. Regulation is needed to keep the greedy telecoms from screwing both customers and anyone who tries to compete with them.

  5. I am not in the U.S. so this has no direct affect on me.
    That said the the ISPs in the U.S. have had plenty of time to stop ripping off their customers, keeping prices artificially high and double dipping on fees. So iff regulation is what it has come down to so be it. By double dipping I mean, if I pay to access a product at a particular speed and Netfix or other pays their ISP to send it at a particular speed the my ISP should not be able to step in and charge Netflix extra to get to me at the speed I pay for.

    1. Jeff, your “feeling” on this is understandable, but it is based on an over simplified and inaccurate perception of how the Internet works, and therein lies a great deal of the confusion on Net Neutrality.

      In order for Netflix to work, both ISPs and Netflix have had to take steps to provide a higher speed path to people’s homes. Netflix has paid more to do this. Net Neutrality could “regulate away” their ability to do so.

  6. When you hand over the kind of power the FCC wants over the Internet to the Federal Government, the Internet becomes the pawn of politicians.

    It becomes hostage to every nutcase and kook organization that crawls out of the woodwork and complains about the content of a website, from radical leftists to ultra conservative Christian, the government will listen and take action against the Internet on behalf of these people.

    We talk about not wanting the Internet to look like cable television. If you think that’s bad, what happens when it starts to look like FCC censored broadcast television?

    Liberals, I get it. You hate corporations. You like using the government like a giant cudgel to bash away the liberties of those you despise. I get it. That’s your way. Here’s the thing. Do you really want to sacrifice the Internet we know to the UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Really? Do you really hate the country that much?

    I guess maybe that’s a stupid question.

    1. The goals of Federal regulation of the internet are:
      • Surveillance
      • Censorship
      • Taxation

      when do we get to read the 300+ pages of Federal regulation of the internet?

  7. Think of it this way, sooner or later there’s going to be another Reagan or George Bush in the White House. They will then be in charge of populating the FCC with their people.

    Then those people will decide what you can and cannot see on the Internet. Is that what you want? Wouldn’t you rather have politicians and government out of YOUR internet?

  8. Bringing Title II to the Internet is like giving the government 1000 knobs with which to tinker with the Internet with. The Internet is not like telephones, radio, or television. It’s wide, it’s dispersed, it’s millions of networks of networks. Title II makes absolutely NO SENSE applied to the Internet.

    The FCC says, “Well we won’t take advantage of most of the law.” WELL THEN WHY FREAKING ATTACH THE BURDENSOME BULLSHIT TO THE INTERNET TO BEGIN WITH???

    There are already laws in place FTC laws, antitrust laws, etc. to take care of the major issues of Net Neutrality. The simple requests of Net Neutrality could have been specified in one paragraph. Instead we get 300 pages of SECRET legislation from the “open administration.” If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, you’re crazy.

    So if net neutrality could be expressed in a page or less, what is in the other 299 pages? Variations on control, censorship, taxes, and restrictions on freedom. That’s what governments do.

    Governments seek out ways to acquire the wealth of the people. In order to do that, you must of course, follow the money. As the money moves on line, it is only natural to expect the government to attempt to follow and take a predatory stance. Do you think things like Bitcoin would be allowed to happen if the government controls the Internet? When ever a dollar moves, the government wants a cut. Watch out for taxation of transactions to services like Paypal.

    If you want to set up a website, right now you just get a domain and boom, you’re on. What happens when the government decides you need a license to do this? What happens when the government decides you need an Internet ID that controls your login to all websites?

    Do not give them this foothold.

    Keep the Internet FREE.

    The only kind of person who could be in favor of this is a died in the wool socialist. This is Hugo Chavez thinking. This is Communist China thinking. This is Arab dictatorship kind of thinking. Only those sorts of people want to control the Internet.

    If the government wants to build an alternative network, fine go ahead and do so. In the meantime, leave the private one alone.

    1. The FCC agrees with you, Title II was not their first choice as to how to maintain the net neutrality we had before the Internet got taken over by an ever consolidating industry.

      And the FCC chairman struck off more Title II regulations with regard to ISPs than they did for previously lightly regulated industries, so I think he still agrees that general Title II was too heavy handed.

      We got to Title II because both the industry and Republicans fought off any lighter tools without providing an alternative to keep an important property of the Internet intact despite low levels of competition.

      So I am not sure what the complaints regarding the FCC are. It has taken measured steps the whole way.

      The FCC actually agrees with a lot of what critics are saying, but the critics apparent alternative “trust the consolidating telecoms to keep the Internet a level playing field for small and new entrants” is a joke. Comcast does not want to give its customers equal access to anything it sees as competition.

  9. “Bush said. ‘It’s not going to be good for consumers. It’s certainly not going to be good for innovation.””

    Other than find ways to pick our pockets, just what other innovations have the IP’s come up with?

  10. It is pretty sad that if republicans oppose something you can be sure that whatever it was oppose would be good for us.
    Just look at net neutrality. To the repubs here, tell me how is it bad for us? Not for your party, for us.

  11. Up until this ridiculous statement I was pro Jeb Bush who I thought did an excellent job as Governor when I lived in Florida.

    It seems national politics just drive people to insanity. What an absolutely dumb thing to say.

    No hope for this country.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.