Jeb Bush Proudly Promises To Axe Net Neutrality If Elected
from the going-backwards dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They've confused Net Neutrality with TAFTA/TTIP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well fuck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Under penalty of perjury...." now that's funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody has ever lied under those circumstances, so we know it's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filled *with* countless open meetings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bush imperialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do these guys not know that 89% of Republicans are in favor of Net Neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Source please. I don't think 89% of Republicans can agree on anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG! Color me shocked! Who could have EVER foreseen this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today's political processes are a joke and a bad one at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeeeeeeb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not The Everyman he claims to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The worst part emotionally for me, is that these idiots are proud of what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The apple rolled a long way
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 chronology ]
"Let me p**s off everyone online, that'll help."
What a dingus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wisper ISP
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dated, disproven dodo that simply won't die
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its a legit position
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its a legit position
(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 chronology ]
Re: its a legit position
'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 chronology ]
Re: its a legit position
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 chronology ]
Hulk Crush!!
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 chronology ]
Corporate whore - as expected
http://i.imgur.com/CcP4clS.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]