Jeb Bush Is The Latest Politician To Demonstrate Absolutely No Understanding Of Net Neutrality
from the politicians-don't-understand-anything dept
Like many folks, I'm dreading the seeming inevitability of a Clinton-Bush presidential campaign next year involving Hillary Clinton against Jeb Bush. I'm 40-years-old and half of my life has involved a Clinton or a Bush in the Oval Office (and it's even worse if you count Vice Presidency). Both seem completely out of touch with the real issues of today. Instead, both are so surrounded by political cronies and yes-men that it's difficult to see either candidate as being willing to actually take on the real challenges facing the world today. Clinton is currently dealing with the fallout from her decision to expose her emails to spies while shielding them from the American public. And Jeb Bush is now spouting pure nonsense on net neutrality.Bush's comments aren't surprising, because despite Democrats and Republicans alike both strongly supporting net neutrality and those who truly understand the details favoring these rules, in Washington DC, net neutrality is a partisan issue. The reason almost certainly has to do with campaign finance. Splitting an issue down partisan lines makes it an issue that politicians can raise money around. Things that everyone agrees on aren't useful for fundraising, and since politicians these days need to spend half their time fundraising, politics gets distorted pretty quickly.
But Bush's comments are particularly clueless, trotting out both debunked talking points and clear misstatements that appear to have been fed to him by the broadband players.
“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.Except, you know, that's not true. The 1934 Telecommunications Act was rewritten in 1996 by Republicans, who set it up this way with a clear plan for broadband to be covered by Title II. As Tim Lee at Vox recently explained:
“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.”
The awkward thing about this is that the rules were drafted by a Republican Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In that legislation, Congress created two legal categories for online services: a low-regulation category for online services (known unimaginatively as Title I) and a high-regulation category for companies that provide basic infrastructure (called Title II).But Bush trots out the 1934 argument in a totally misleading way. And yes, in 1934 there was a monopoly for wireline service, but in 1996 when the Act was rewritten (again, by Republicans), there was actually a lot of competition in the ISP business thanks to line sharing. Yet, today, everyone knows that there's basically no competition. While not a monopoly, it's at the very least an oligopoly with very little choice for most consumers.
When telephone companies began offering broadband access using a then-new technology called Digital Subscriber Lines, it was widely accepted that Title II — the stricter regime designed for basic infrastructure — would apply. After all, telephone companies had been governed under Title II for decades before that. Title II rules had ensured that telephone companies didn't strangle the burgeoning market for dial-up ISPs, which provided internet access over telephone lines.
Furthermore, the rules are pretty clearly just basic rules to prevent anti-consumer behavior by the ISPs. How that's going to be "bad for consumers" is hard to fathom. And considering that many of the most innovative internet companies have come out strongly in favor of net neutrality, it's hard to see how it's going to be bad for innovation. You can't even argue that it's going to be bad for broadband companies either, since many independent broadband providers, like Sonic.net, have come out in favor of the rules. As we've noted in the past, it's only bad for broadband providers that want to treat customers badly.
So, does Jeb Bush really think he understands internet innovation better than all these internet companies that have pointed out how the new rule is helpful to innovation?
Is Jeb Bush giving a giant middle finger to internet innovation? That hardly seems like a good campaign move.
But, apparently, Bush not only is doing that, he's also going to totally misrepresent others to do so:
Bush said that Netflix and other backers of net neutrality are already regretting the scale the FCC’s action. “There is no support for this now,” Bush said. “The people who were concerned about this, the content providers like Netflix and others, have now disowned this.”That's just hogwash. There's massive support for this, which Bush would have noticed if he actually paid attention to the internet, which celebrated when the rules were approved. Anti-net neutrality folks have seized upon an out-of-context statement from a Netflix exec claiming that it would have been preferable to find another route -- but that's not disowning the rules. We've been among those who have pointed out for months that reclassifying under Title II was simply the best of a bunch of not great solutions. Yes, it would have been better to have something even cleaner than reclassification, but that option was not on the table.
Restrained rules, based on Title II, are a perfectly reasonable solution to stopping broadband providers from implementing anti-consumer practices. The only "innovation" it may harm is the broadband guys innovating new ways to screw over consumers and successful internet companies. If Jeb Bush is looking for support from the most innovative sector on the planet, spewing lies and misrepresentations about key issues for the internet world seems like a piss poor way to go about it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: innovation, jeb bush, net neutrality, partisanship, republicans, telecommunications act
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good luck with this challenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purchased Ignorance = Malice.
Ergo, malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know this comment is slightly off-topic but choosing between Clinton and Bush is like choosing between death by liquid gold or molten magma. The end result will be the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree. Neither of them will get my vote under any circumstances. We've had plenty more than enough of both the Clinton and Bush families.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"choosing between Clinton and Bush is like choosing between death by liquid gold or molten magma"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "choosing between Clinton and Bush is like choosing between death by liquid gold or molten magma"
Absolutely.
The idea of electing a president that was actually for and by the people, would be a deathblow to those who make their incomes by exploiting the people by bending the laws and buying their "right" to steal, lie and cheat.
Any candidate that you might have respect for would necessarily be one that would have no desire to assist the criminal elements of US society, or promote their criminal activities.
Therefore, since the corporations pay for the election, they insist on getting their money's worth.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At any rate, that's a family. In contrast, predicting Clinton by looking at what kind of a president Clinton was does not seem workable. He seemed a lot more straightforward and open in his political principles. She isn't. That's not a good sign.
So basically, Bush/Clinton would amount to a race between an appalling and a scary candidate. The latter could certainly end up as a total sellout like Obama. The former looks like one from the start.
God bless America. She'll need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree. The only reason the end result will be the same is ultimately our own fault. Instead of doing something about it, we're sitting here on online forums commenting about everything that's wrong. Our collective apathy is what creates these situations in the first place. Before we hold the politicians accountable for their bull and all their perceived incompetence, maybe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and actually do something about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Before we hold the politicians accountable for their bull and all their perceived incompetence, maybe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and actually do something about it?"
We should not wait for one before we do the other. We should do both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What would you suggest we do?
Don't be brief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politician
Elect only those who don't want the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politician
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politician
So much of the actions by political actors of that time relate to what happens now scares the hell out of me, except that we have managed to get to here despite political operatives. Or, here we are due to those political operatives, may they rest in hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy
Just think of the logic of using a 1787 constitution that was designed when we relied on hand-operated printing presses as the basis to regulate the most dynamic part of life in America. It’s not going to be good for consumers. It’s certainly not going to be good for innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy
I don't think of myself as a Jeffersonian "tear it up, and start over every generation" type, but is sure seems like we could use some updates just to make sure that there are no uncertain terms when it comes to the rights of citizens. Then even if the government doesn't care, then at least the people might.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crazy
The problem is that the courts, etc., are trying to reconcile the Constitution with the multitude of layers of interpretation that have been piled up on it over the centuries. That's not a fault in the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeb Bush is not looking for support from the most innovative sector on the planet, he's looking for support from the deepest pockets on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throwing Rocks at Glass Houses
Jeb Bush may not get it, but he's not the only one including most of the "tech press" that posts about it. The entire reclassification of ISPs under Common Carrier rules has very little to do with any existing rules or regulation. It is about the FCC justifying that it has the authority to more deeply regulate broadband service and what we call The Internet.
Once the actual order is released, the public will get its first preview of the new regulations that will apply to broadband and The Internet. Any speculation on what the reclassification will mean for ISPs until then is exactly that, speculation. What is contained in the order is just the initial round, the FCC could implement any other regulations as time progresses as long as it has been giving authority for that particular aspect of service by law.
You will see the reclassification challenged and while many will like to cry that the opposing party is against "network neutrality", it is mostly challenging whether or not the FCC has the authority to deeply regulate broadband service and The Internet in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush Clinton
and if you count Secretary of State...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He says the things he says for political reasons, not because he thinks they are correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Espionage act, anyone?
Well then what about the Espionage Act of 1917 Snowden was charged under? Or the Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution (1787). All just crazy ideas because they are old right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Espionage act, anyone?
It's what Jeb is doing, make shit up and see what sticks. An awful lot seems to stick long enough for these guys to get their way. I'm sure Clinton will say something equally idiotic. One-upsmanship is very popular in the partisan circles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The GOP hasn't won a Presidential election without a Bush or Nixon on the ticket since Hoover in 1928. (Eisenhower's VP was Nixon. Reagan's VP was Bush I.)
Nixon has a grandson with an undergraduate degree in politics, a law degree, worked in John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and ran for Congress in 2010. Endorsed by Jeb Bush.
But he needs a few months in Congress or as a governor before being seen as qualified. So until 2020, they're stuck with Jeb.
(Am I being serious, or sarcastic here? I honestly can't tell any more.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Having no record is as good as having a clean record, when you're running against the Usual Wack-Jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you very much, Sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mmmm waffles
Then in prepping for his presidential run, he wrote a book that basically assumed the GOP wave would continue, so he took the Tea Party line on immigration.
Cue massive and quick national shift on immigration to favor amnesty.
Jeb quickly claims he didn't really write the book...
..ok it's a little more nuanced than my description, but still pretty bad for his big issue.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/jeb-bu sh-flip-flop-immigration-pathway-citizenship/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can we get some variety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Clueless Bush
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality
Lawmaking has been compared to making sausages - the problem is not the meat in the sausage, but all the OTHER crap that gets ground up and packed into it.
Wait and see what happens - until it either works or blows up horribly with unforeseen consequences.
I know what *I* think is going to happen, but I'm just basing my opinion on what has been the preferred method of growth in government lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techdirt infirmaties
Likewise, the repetitive appeals to who does or does not "favor" the government encroachment du jour is characteristic of those unable to justify said encroachment otherwise.
But, hey, who will remember that when they came for the big ISPs that Masnick, et al., not only merely didn't say anything, but cheered them on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: techdirt infirmaties
Oh, man, this had me laughing out loud. Wait, wait, you're not being serious, right?
Now, take a breath, go read what Net Neutrality actually is, then read your statement again. Notice how you have it completely backwards? No? Darn.
Let's try again. First of all, net neutrality has nothing to do with network security. Zero. Zip. Nada. Not even the idiots against net neutrality argue this.
Second, you have to be insane to think the current system is "freedom." Do you actually use any of the main ISPs? Do you use your internet for more than email? If so, you may have noticed a) you have a maximum of 2-3 options for your internet, if that, and b) all of your options are awful. Your real choice is either crappy, abusive internet or no internet. Yeah, that's freedom.
Third, the Title II rules can't do what you're afraid of. Even if we haven't seen the full rules we can ignore most of the FUD purely based on the other industries already regulated under Title II. You know, like the internet itself prior to broadband, which was regulated under Title II. And your cell phone, which is regulated under Title II. And these exist under rules that are more strict than the rules the FCC is proposing (we know this, because they already announced it).
Weirdly, you have significantly more choice in cell phone carriers, and there were more ISPs during dial-up internet than broadband. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but hey, I haven't seen the FCC regulating what calls you make or how much porn you watch on your phone. Now, Apple may not like your porn-viewing habits, but the FCC has never even made a statement on controlling online or phone content, let alone attempted to regulate it.
Must be nice to live in a black-and-white dream world where government = bad and business = good. So easy to conceptualize and understand. Completely divorced from reality, but hey, who needs that when you've got it all figured out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Does Net Neutrality Relate to the Politicians' Own Politiical Objectives.
President Obama is different. He's an old community organizer, and he knows community organizing when he sees it, and the difference between astroturf and real support. When he sees millions of comments in support of Net Neutrality, he mentally translates those into votes, and decides that antagonizing that many votes is simply not worth a campaign contribution. However, Obama is more intelligent than most politicians, and therefore more of a realist. His brainpower is more characteristic of a judge (a B student in law school instead of a C student).
Now, Jeb Bush, he's conflicted. His better angel wants to come up with a long-term solution for all the Hispanics and Mexicans and South Americans, around him and to points south. In the short term, however, he has to work with elderly southern white men. His instinct probably runs with big companies. The problem about being a party of the rich is that there are not remotely enough rich to win elections. So a party of the rich has to find allies whose objectives do not conflict drastically with those of the rich. The classic alliance was with the small shopkeeper, but shopkeepers are in trouble in the age of WalMart and Amazon. Subsequent alliances with the religious right have not been very successful. The most singular thing which happened to Jeb Bush was that, as a young man, he went to Mexico, and married Mexican. Subsequently, he worked in real estate in South Florida. He must have spent a lot of time on construction sites, and one suspects that his vision of the new Republican base is a Mexican-American construction tradesman. He probably has some difficulty seeing how a construction tradesman, someone who works with his hands, would care passionately about the internet, at a level transcending bread-and-butter issues. Again, Bush is likely to see the internet as something to be traded off.
What we should be thinking about is not the mental defects of politicians, but how to use wireless technology to shift the focus of combat. By wireless, I include the various kinds of communication satellites ,smart handsets, the lot. Wireless is a libertarian technology, it's starting premise being that the air is free to all. If wireless technology can be made to shift money away from the old legacy companies, they will start thinking about the possibilities of being bought out by the local sewer district, and their natural tendency for crookedness will be channeled to getting an unrealistically high purchase price. We can live with an unrealistically high purchase price. Legally containing wireless technology would require a lot of new laws, and we can block new laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Does Net Neutrality Relate to the Politicians' Own Politiical Objectives.
Methinks the next POTUS will be someone we have yet to meet.
Hillary and the rest of the apparent wacky wanna-bees are just the window-dressing needed to give the US citizens something they DO NOT want to vote for, so that the New Corporate POTUS - who will say all the right things and have an impeccable background "story" - can be (s)elected as the "only sane choice" - just like O'bummer was, and the phony overwhelming "vote total" in favor can be laid at the feet of the US Public and the pundits can all say, the "people's choice", every thirteen minutes for 6 months.
I'm pretty sure the idea of Hillary being POTUS will scare the beezeejums outta most folks so bad that they will actually mostly vote for any smooth talking con-man that the CEOs in charge of Selections might offer up.
As long as there is an "obvious" reason for the popular vote to theoretically be cast for the new-comer, its a shoe-in to convince the public that they really did indeed vote for the pre-selected corporate crown prince.
Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again...
After all, the public never catches on to these gimmicks anyway. They're all too busy trying to make ends meet in a world specifically designed to insure that the ends seldom meet for the majority of US society.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Someone we have yet to meet"
We're going to probably get an election between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, and everyone in media is going to smile and grit their teeth and pretend that this is what they always wanted, just like they did with Romney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Someone we have yet to meet"
But the Obama Scam worked perfectly.
Most Americans thought "Gee. A Black Guy as Pres. Wow. He will definitely be something new and wondrous because he's not just another in a long line of white pretty-boys with a silver spoon up his nose."
He was groomed by Republicans and his campaign was financed by Republicans and he was elected by Oprah! :)
The Fascists are not that original and not the brightest balls in the bag outside of turning one dollar into three dollars over and over again.
They'll run with this scam at least once more because it worked and because it is in fact still working.
I seriously think the next POTUS has not even shown his face yet, but will be all over the TV very soon - once the public has had all it can stomach of the Wacky Wannabe Troupe of Faux Candidates, whose entire purpose is to drive the public towards the Ringer's Tent.
We shall see.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope Bush and Obama serves as an example
Obama was the Hope and Change guy. Nominal change. Not much in the way of hope that we're going to undo a lot of the evil shit that Bush did.
I'm now in the no confidence party. Whatever a candidate says while campaigning is irrelevant to what she is going to do in the Oval Office. I think anyone on the ballot is going to give pretty much the same thing: More stuff for big money, less stuff for the rest of us, and the same old torture, the same old surveillance, the same old police state. The same old wealth-disparity economy.
I want to believe that the rest of the people of the United States can add the same numbers and get the same sum that I do and predict the same pattern, and then make a huge fracas about it.
I've been disappointed by the people of the United States. They seem to be easily placated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope Bush and Obama serves as an example
Once in power, even if it were done by an honest popular vote, the POTUS is only a figure-head who works for the billionaires that run US Inc., and either he does what they tell him to do or he will be replaced with one of the willing minions waiting in the wings.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing who they've hired for the job of POTUS this time.
Roger Strong, above, suggested this:
"Nixon has a grandson with an undergraduate degree in politics, a law degree, worked in John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and ran for Congress in 2010. Endorsed by Jeb Bush."
Almost looks like the perfect corporate candidate, but we will see. They'd still have to make him appear to be at least slightly Democratic first.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality Opinions for Hurried Researchers
http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-what-people-are-saying-post-adoption-obama-internet-plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always thought there was a link between the so-called climate change threat (more like geo-engineering kept on the hush-hush, amirite?) of killing us all back after the USSR folded was just some white lie, that yes we gotta worry about the future, more than ever again, even if the cold war is over ( I was 10 when the USSR dissolved), for the first few years it was like all wars are over! All these african dictatorships are dissolving and becoming democratic! Humanity is saved! Wasn't long until we were warned of an intangible non-human factor.
Could be anything really, but anotheer Clinton/Bush showdown, with both wanting to bomb Iran to smithereens even if the proofs and the intelligence agencies everywhere tell these dumbass leaders not to worry, that Iran doesn't want a nuke are all over, they fall on deaf ears. I say we won't make it past 2018. And that's not being alarmist, the Oxford Institute's department on studying this particular field (I forgot the actual name) said back in 2013 that we had 5 to 100 years left if we continued this way. 5 in 2013 sounded a bit close but they said that technology, especially how fast and how powerful it becomes is our most dangerous enemy. 3d-Printers that print out carrier groups and B-2's for China who just stole all that data (through israel nonetheless) suddenly appear, bricks are shat all over america. I'll be the odd one out cheering, unless the US becomes so overwhelmed it just resorts to the fantasy of a "winnable First Strike". If such was to happen, they need to use those mini nukes that are proven to exist by now, and not only the US have them...
I'll just eat some valium and call in sick today, the world sucks the energy out of my brain and it'll be one less day of working for the man with this great chemistry degree I use making useless shit (paint factory).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My dear old Meme.
Most of the people spewing false information and scare stories about Title 2, "Do Know How Net Neutrality Works.
Absolutely.
If they did not know how Net Neutrality Works, they would be unable to lie about it as effectively as they have been to date, and they would be unable to cash in on the Anti-Net-Neutrality campaigns financed by the Telecom Giants.
Mind you there are likely a few of them - like Jeb "The Dolt" Bush - who are too simply stupid to fully comprehend the nuances of Net Neutrality - or life in general for that matter - who are just repeating the script handed them by the Telecos.
But even for them it would be obvious that if they're being paid to lie about it, then the statements they're being paid to repeat, must be the opposite of the truth.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Massive support?
The last idea I heard that was this bad was when someone said, "Hey! Let's invade Vietnam!"
We all know how well that turned out. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]