Jeb Bush Proudly Promises To Axe Net Neutrality If Elected

from the going-backwards dept

Wed, Sep 23rd 2015 9:34am — Karl Bode

The Jeb Bush campaign this week unveiled a major part of the candidate's technology platform, and it likely includes taking a hatchet to net neutrality rules. The new policy outline on Bush's website spends some time butchering the very definition of net neutrality as well, parroting several long-standing incumbent ISP narratives that net neutrality is somehow about content companies not paying their fair share, or that modernization of existing rules is somehow "antiquated." Indeed, Bush's definition of net neutrality is rather unique:

"The Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality rule classifies all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as “public utilities,” subjecting them to antiquated “common carrier” regulation. Rather than enhancing consumer welfare, these rules prohibit one group of companies (ISPs) from charging another group of companies (content companies) the full cost for using their services."

Except as we've been over this ad nauseum; net neutrality isn't about prohibiting ISPs from charging content companies, it's about mammoth broadband providers abusing the lack of last-mile competition to give themselves a leg up in emerging markets. I assume the Bush campaign is referencing the FCC's plan to police interconnection deals between ISPs and the likes of Netflix, something that has actually improved the health of the Internet already. Bush doesn't appear to understand this (or is pretending not to understand this), and proceeds to trot out examples of some poor, little ISPs that will be hurt by the FCC's push to encourage a healthier Internet:

"Small broadband operators—like KWISP (475 customers in rural Illinois) and Wisper ISP (8,000 customers near St. Louis, Mo)—have declared under penalty of perjury that the Net Neutrality rule has caused them to cut back on investments to upgrade and expand their networks."

Any ISP or WISP that has actually cut back on necessary infrastructure investment due the FCC's net neutrality rules frankly either doesn't understand them, or is playing personal partisan patty cake. Even the nation's lumbering mega-ISPs, who've fought net neutrality tooth and nail, have admitted (through their own SEC filings and earnings reports) that their network investment is as healthy as ever. As noted recently, if there are network investment declines, data suggests they've got nothing to do with net neutrality. That net neutrality kills network investment is a dated, disproven dodo that simply won't die.

The Bush policy missive then parrots the idea that the FCC imposed net neutrality rules in "relative obscurity," despite a decade filled will countless open meetings, roundtables, and endless (sometimes nauseatingly so) conversation:

"Agencies today make far more laws than legislators. But unlike courts and legislators, regulators conduct their deliberations in relative obscurity, often outside of the public’s view and effectively accountable to no one, not even the president."

That's just the thing though: net neutrality was passed by regulators only after an unprecedented groundswell of public support demanded protections. It's about protecting consumers and small businesses from the AT&T, Verizon and Comcast's of the world in the absence of competition. Bush is too busy pandering to the mega-ISPs to bother mentioning what his solution for this lack of broadband competition is, or if he's even capable of admitting a lack of competition exists. But in standing up for the mega-ISPs Jeb makes it pretty clear his technology policies are dated somewhere around 2002 or so.

None of this is surprising, since earlier this year Bush proudly declared that net neutrality was the "craziest idea he's ever heard." Of course the craziest idea I've heard is a candidate running in 2016 who thinks it's a smashing idea to defend AT&VerizoCast, and walk back a decade of progress on a subject it's abundantly clear he doesn't actually understand.

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: broadband, jeb bush, net neutrality, politics

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:42am

"Agencies today make far more laws than legislators. But unlike courts and legislators, regulators conduct their deliberations in relative obscurity, often outside of the public’s view and effectively accountable to no one, not even the president."

They've confused Net Neutrality with TAFTA/TTIP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:42am

Well fuck
Here I thought life would turn out swell with the new rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:42am

Well fuck
Here I thought life would turn out swell with the new rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:43am

"Small broadband operators—like KWISP (475 customers in rural Illinois) and Wisper ISP (8,000 customers near St. Louis, Mo)—have declared under penalty of perjury that the Net Neutrality rule has caused them to cut back on investments to upgrade and expand their networks"

'Under penalty of perjury...." now that's funny.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:52am

despite a decade filled will countless open meetings,

Filled *with* countless open meetings?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:56am

Bush imperialism
We are your overlords, obey and all shall be well, obey not and we will put DHS/TSA right outside of your door to ensure your compliance!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:56am

"Small broadband operators—like KWISP (475 customers in rural Illinois) and Wisper ISP (8,000 customers near St. Louis, Mo)—have declared under penalty of perjury that the Net Neutrality rule has caused them to cut back on investments to upgrade and expand their networks"

I'm sure it's true. They took that part of their budget and bought themselves a cand....I mean spend it on campaign contributions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Feedback (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:06am

Re:
Not to mention the fact that holding up legislators (i.e. Congress) as a model of transparency in this day and age is laughable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:08am

i would be all for abolishing net neutrality, aslong as incumbent ISPs are no longer allowed to lobby against, or making it prohibitively expensive, or in any way try to oppose, the creation of new competitor ISPs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:10am

Where is Jeb supposed to get donors? Being elected requires a lot of money and so he must appeal to corporations that have that money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:13am

Re:
The problem is even if they claim to remove anti-competitive laws or temporarily remove them they will eventually reestablish them. But once net neutrality is removed it will never be reestablished. Only laws in the interests of those that buy politicians are permanent. Laws in the public interest are only temporary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:19am

Re:
Oh, ok. We'll give him a pass then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:25am

Re: Re:
It's not just the laws that are the problem. The incumbent ISP's were subsidized building out their networks. It is very difficult to come up with the cash needed to actually run physical lines in rural areas. So while you may be able to get Google fiber in urban areas, many people in rural areas will continue to have little to no competition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:26am

There is his corporate masters exposed then
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:35am

I live pretty close to Wisper. I think I'm going to go speak with them and get back to you guys later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:36am

Re:
Big banks, mostly, according to OpenSecrets.

How do these guys not know that 89% of Republicans are in favor of Net Neutrality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:42am

So you're telling me a guy who's raised over $100 million dollars from Wall Street and uber wealthy Americans... wants policies that only benefit the large and wealthy ISPs?!?

OMG! Color me shocked! Who could have EVER foreseen this!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:42am

Didn't the first two Bushs' do enough damage already? Why would we need a 3rd? Besides when did he become an expert in something that he knows nothing about? What's the point of having Committee if their time and effort to help the people is just destroyed be candidate with an agenda to help his donors? Although then again look at the FTC, they are a complete corruption and all of them should be jailed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:51am

Re:
I'm sure Comcast et al will be happy to fatten his accounts after this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Teamchaos (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:51am

Re: Re:
89% of Republicans are in favor of Net Neutrality

Source please. I don't think 89% of Republicans can agree on anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:53am

Haven't we had enough family dynasties? Each has had it's moments when exposed to the light of day came out seriously lacking as far as the public was concerned. If Bush and Hillary are the two main candidates, then count me as an independent.

Today's political processes are a joke and a bad one at that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:53am

Re: Well fuck
Thanks to Net Neutrality, your ISP is losing money that it otherwise deserves: you double-posted, but they aren't allowed to double your monthly connection fee. Anyone that supports NN is a Communazi!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 10:59am

Sounds like a plea for contributions to his campaign to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:19am

Re: Re:
Speaking of opensecrets.org, I browsed their Lobbying & Special Interest section under "Telecom Services & Equipment" and, for some reason, couldn't find Net Neutrality Corp. Inc. listed anywhere. After a site-wide search, I was relieved to find the Net Neutrality Coalition. Sure, the Coalition hasn't existed since 2006, but it still seems to me like everyone's interests are represented equally.

(http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B09)
(http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/c lientsum.php?id=F17991&year=2006)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:24am

Re:
Besides when did he become an expert in something that he knows nothing about?
Long ago, the moment he first thought "Politics? Yeah, that sounds good."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:24am

Re: Re: Well fuck
Yeah that double post happens. Don't know why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:35am

JEB!

Jeeeeeeb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
connermac725 (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:21pm

Not The Everyman he claims to be
out of touch with what the public wants, he only hears what his ISP overlords tell him
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 12:24pm

Panic ye not as soon as bush's underage sex scandal hits the press, hos campaign is dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groaker (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 1:05pm

No concept of technology, what it is, what it means, how it is powering the little left of US productivity. Now that manufacturing has pretty much been destroyed, without the ability to export tech, we will be left as a producer of agricultural goods.

The worst part emotionally for me, is that these idiots are proud of what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
383bigblock (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 2:58pm

The apple rolled a long way
I guess this apple fell and rolled down the hill and came to rest under a Pear Tree.

WTF..... Have we not learned anything over the past 8 years.
Pull AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, TMOBILE and every other ISP's dick out of your mouth and grow a pair otherwise its dumbass statements like this will have you watching the elections from your easy chair in lieu of being involved with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:00pm

Re: Re: Re:
Source please.

You're kidding, right? Here's one of about a gazillion out there. Are you super ultra mega lazy or what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 23 Sep 2015 @ 6:26pm

Re: Re:
Because they realize that the 11% that don't either don't understand the subject at hand, or are getting paid quite nicely not to learn about it, and they'd really like to get into that second category.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JC, 23 Sep 2015 @ 7:03pm

Aaaand that is how Jed Bush lost any hope of ever winning the election.

"Let me p**s off everyone online, that'll help."

What a dingus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
reese, 23 Sep 2015 @ 8:05pm

Re:
How is upgrading your infrastructure not an investment? ... wait never mind, for a second I thought happier customers could be considered and investment.. I'm losing it..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 23 Sep 2015 @ 9:17pm

Wisper ISP
Well, I went to Wisper this afternoon just before 5. The owner's assistant was leaving, but stopped to speak with me, along with a gentleman who did not identify himself. When I asked to speak with the owner she said he was attending a party in a distant part of the state.

The gentleman asked me what was up (and no, he was not the owner). I asked him if he knew that Jeb Bush had said that net neutrality has caused them to lower their investment in Wisper ISP. His said, "That was a misrepresentation." I asked what part of it was a misrepresentation. He talked all over the place answering nothing. Then I asked if they had heard of net neutrality. Again he answered, "Yes, that's a problem." I wanted to know how that was a problem, was the owner for or against. This dude was clever, and his answer was to let me believe whatever I was disposed to believe. Again, I asked is he for or against net neutrality. His assistant spoke up, "I would not presume to speak for him."

I asked if he would be available tomorrow and essentially got a no dice--he's a busy man. So I said, "I will assume the whole answer to my questions is no cobmment," and left. But not before noticing the two brand new cherry pickers in the parking lot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2015 @ 11:03pm

Nice. Let the "smart" Bush shoot himself in the foot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 1:12am

Thats why congress is irrevellent...bullied by this president...we elect congress to check and balence agencies like the F.C.C.& D.E.A.....etc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:08am

Re:
"The worst part emotionally for me, is that these idiots are proud of what they are doing."

You have to expect that. Very nearly everybody (especially people who are doing great evil) thinks that they are the good guy and are working for some sort of ultimate good. Politicians are no exception.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fear the walking dead, 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:16am

dated, disproven dodo that simply won't die
I've always liked the term "Zombie idea" as a quick way to explain them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 8:15am

Re:
This article is about bush. We're not sure to what your 1/2 sentences refer. are you herb cain?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2015 @ 3:04pm

Re: Re:
Your words, while true give very little comfort. We've been bushwhacked before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 24 Sep 2015 @ 5:26pm

its a legit position
I'm not saying I know enough about NN to say Jeb is right or wrong, but I think it's worth understanding why people are opposed to it. I know I am and I think this article sums it up better than I could:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality /
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BernardoVerda (profile), 24 Sep 2015 @ 7:49pm

Re: its a legit position
That's a badly misinformed article by a marketing dweeb who -- to be kind -- appears to be misrepresenting himself as
(a) a techie,
(b) knowing anything about Net Neutrality

Of course, I might be wrong -- he might easily just be a cynical, lying PR shill for the big ISP corporations. Considering that he is
(c) not presenting any sort of relevant arguments, but rather, merely smearing NN with utterly irrelevant, ideological "Big Gubbermint is BAD" blatherings, this is perhaps the likeliest conclusion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GEMont, 25 Sep 2015 @ 3:42am

Hulk Crush!!
"...and walk back a decade of progress on a subject it's abundantly clear he doesn't actually understand."

Ummm... we're talking about Jebi-Duh Bush remember.

A Bush needs know absolutely nothing more, than what is the desired outcome of the people putting money in his hand.

Destruction is not really a process that demands intellect or deep thought - just determination and the right tools.

And Jeb is definitely the right tool for the job.

---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CFWhitman, 25 Sep 2015 @ 7:10am

Re: its a legit position
What's wrong with the article? Well, basically, the reasons it gives for opposing Net Neutrality are:

'1. I distrust the government.
'2. I distrust the government.
'3. I distrust the government.'

Well, welcome to the club. What does it suggest as an alternative to enforced Net Neutrality? 'Let the free market give us net neutrality.' What free market is that? There is no free market when it comes to ISP's. The ISP's have lobbied for legislation that gives them local monopolies and makes the market not free.

When they're ready to deregulate the cable industry and make the market free then the market will be ready to create Net Neutrality on its own. My guess as to when that will happen is never (well, while the current government continues, anyway). The only relief I can expect to see from the current local monopoly is that someday fiber may actually come to the area I live in, and I will have a choice between Time Warner Cable, Verizon Fios, and Google Fiber instead of being stuck with a "choice" of Time Warner Cable or a much slower DSL connection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 7:14am

Re: its a legit position
"I think this article sums it up better than I could"

I could not find a valid argument in that article. The arguments are resting on assumptions and interpretations that just aren't true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 25 Sep 2015 @ 9:14am

Re:
'Under penalty of perjury...." now that's funny.

Nobody has ever lied under those circumstances, so we know it's true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AC, 25 Sep 2015 @ 11:17am

Corporate whore - as expected
Jeb jumps when his owners tell him to, just like Hillary does.

http://i.imgur.com/CcP4clS.png
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2015 @ 8:10am

Re: Re: Re:
Actual people, who may be republican, are in favor of most of the Net Neutrality ideas... as long as they are not told they are signing on with "obamanet", just like "obamacare" used to be called "standard republican healthcare proposal"
[ link to this | view in thread ]