6 ms·

The FCC weighs breaking with Obama over the future of the Internet

44 points by waterlesscloud 12y ago

001sky 12y ago
rule # 1 of propoganda: things are never as they seem
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  It's interesting the FCC chairman is pretty much straight out saying he's not going to do what Obama wanted.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - dima55 12y ago
    The FCC chairman was appointed by the President, so who really knows what either of them truly want
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Some in attendance seemed to believe that Mr. Wheeler disagreed with Mr. Obama’s approach. The Washington Post reported late Tuesday that Mr. Wheeler told the group “that he was moving in a different direction.” F.C.C. officials flatly denied that on Wednesday. “There was absolutely nothing he said that indicated that he was going to diverge from the president,” said Gigi Sohn, who serves as special counsel for external affairs to Mr. Wheeler and who was at the meeting. “What he said was all options are on the table.” Aha...so...let us see what happens next
salimmadjd 12y ago
This is what happens when you're hiring a former lobbyist for the industry [1] Also, I think Net Neutrality was a bad name. I think many average Americans wouldn't care about "Net Neutrality". I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. [1] http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-loyalist-seen-as-fcc-frontrunner/ http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobby...
- sdrothrock 12y ago
  > I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. I agree that the naming leaves something to be desired, but think it should have been the other way around. Rather than the status quo being "net neutrality," I wish the proposed changes had been labeled something like "Increased Internet Provider Penalties and Fees." Then it would be more clear that people want to change from what we have now to something that allows providers to penalize and charge people.
  - Joeri 12y ago
    'Private Internet Tax'
  - oscilloscope 12y ago
    I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net Neutrality might actually reduce monthly charges and increase their available bandwidth. For example, let's say T-Mobile's Music Freedom program (which uses packet inspection to whitelist Spotify, Pandora, and a few others so they don't count in data metering) expands to also encompass popular video streaming services: Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc. Now a consumer could pay T-Mobile for an inexpensive plan, say $20 for 1 GB of data on a mobile device. They stream high-definition video and music every night, maybe using 40 GB of data this month. But they only pay for 1 GB, which is still available to them for email and general internet browsing. No extra penalties, no extra fees. That's a great deal for the consumer, since the majority of their bandwidth use is probably streaming media from these services. The free streaming is a value-add which encourages users to pay for streaming services, but it doesn't count against the advertised data they pay for. This clearly discriminates different kinds of traffic and provides preferential treatment to certain services. But it doesn't cause general internet services to be slower. Storing the media in hard drives near cell towers may cause the preferred media to be faster.
    - simoncion 12y ago
      > That's a great deal for the consumer... Remember Hulu Plus? The deal there used to be that you paid the major "Content Providers" a monthly fee and in exchange, you got advertisement-free access to a small slice of their catalog. Shortly after people started paying for the service the advertisements crept in, but the monthly fee stayed the same. The truth of the matter is that today's great deal can be eliminated at a CRO's whim tomorrow. Moreover, "great deals" such as these throw substantial roadblocks in the way of non-favored players who which to participate in the marketplace. This substantially reduces competition, and substantially reduced competition has lead to the sorry state of the US's consumer telecommunications and Internet service "market".
hirsin 12y ago
Pro: despite the "woe is us" rhetoric too often found in online communities, getting a bunch of people to complain actually made a political entity wake up and take notice. Con: They only noticed for political reasons rather than that whole "representing the people" thing. Con: Wheeler got the position after arranging several hundred thousands in donations to the campaign of the "no more lobbyists" candidate. He's unlikely to listen to the president he's already paid off. Con: It doesn't seem like Obama is willing to actually fight for what he said he wants by leaning on those three of five. His record certainly indicates that he won't. Con: Wheeler says "I am an independent agency" when there are several other people involved in the decision making. Implies total power, or at least distended ego. It was great that Obama made a statement - it brought the issue to the attention of people who otherwise dismissed it as nerd rage. I don't think it will change anything.
- kristopolous 12y ago
  I believe both major parties reach the same conclusion, it's just that the Democrats do some dramatic act of high-minded rhetoric, then cry uncle and are forced to give in, shaking their fist at the sky. It's all for show. The game is rigged. US politics is the dramatic art of competing narratives to get there.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  > It doesn't seem like Obama is willing to actually fight for what he said he wants by leaning on those three of five. His record certainly indicates that he won't. How exactly is he supposed to "lean on" those 3 commissioners? It's not clear to me that he can unilaterally fire any of them, which means removing them would likely involve congress, which is basically asking the impossible these days. > Wheeler says "I am an independent agency" when there are several other people involved in the decision making. Implies total power, or at least distended ego. FCC doesn't act at the direction of the president, and that the commissioners make decisions independently, hence the term "independent agency." And this is by design, to prevent political pressure from the executive affecting rule making by a regulatory body. Edit: There may be one thing he can do - make another commissioner the chairperson. Never been done, but probably legal.
quattrofan 12y ago
"Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industry," There's your problem right there, how did that fool get appointed in the first place? Wolf and sheep etc.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  You think this is unusual? This is par for the course in dc. There's practically a revolving door between industry and government these days.
  - Jgrubb 12y ago
    I'd say it's a little more like they're conjoined twins at this point.
golemotron 12y ago
> “I am an independent agency,” Wheeler told them repeatedly, according to several officials. Under the Executive Branch. This guy needs to be slapped down.
- rtpg 12y ago
  wondering about this very thing recently; does Obama have the capacity to fire him? I've never really gotten what 'independent' means in this sort of situation
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    He can't fire any of the FCC commissioners, but he could promote one of the other ones as chairman over Wheeler, in theory. It would probably turn into a pretty big political shitshow if he did though considering how the Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking they have a "clear mandate" (which seems to primarily involve wanting the opposite of whatever Obama wants, regardless of what that is).
deciplex 12y ago
> Wheeler is well aware of concerns that ill-considered regulations could stifle innovation and slow the growth of the country’s broadband infrastructure Is anybody really scared that we might slow that growth, considering there hardly is any growth in the first place? We've already spent billions trying to prod these companies to pretend like they're in some kind of competitive market, but instead they've just taken that money without so much as a 'thanks'. I think the only way the FCC can make things worse with regard to building out America's broadband capability is to deliberately go out of their way to do it - otherwise, I don't see much merit to the argument that they need to avoid unintended consequences.
Cowicide 12y ago
Can Obama force him to resign or outright fire him? I'd like to see a "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out" approach from Obama at this point.
tomelders 12y ago
Wheeler went into that job with a clear mandate not only from the executive branch, but from the US electorate. He's ignoring his mandate and charting "his own course". He's corrupt.
- adestefan 12y ago
  That's a huge leap to make. Is everyone that doesn't agree with you corrupt. Am I corrupt?
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    >That's a huge leap to make. Is everyone that doesn't agree with you corrupt. Pot, meet kettle.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      ITT, when someone says that the sky is blue, someone else asks if everything above everyone's head is blue, then asks if they are blue. This is considered a logical progression.
  - tomelders 12y ago
    No, and that's a nonsense retort. Wheeler has the history and is behaving in a way consistent with a person who is corrupt. His position flies in the face of the facts, and is out of sync with all but the biggest players Telcom industry. If you're looking for a smoking gun, you're not going to find one. If you wait for a smoking gun before arriving at an opinion then you'll sleep walk your way into a tiered internet and everything that brings with it. If you want net neutrality, acknowledge that the person with the power to keep you from getting it is working for and on behalf of the Telco business. He's a public servant. Demand his removal or lose your free and open Internet.
ww520 12y ago
Can Obama just fire the guy since he's appointed? If he won't, it shows who are really running the show.
discardorama 12y ago
Goes to show who has the real power: the President, or Comcast? <rant> This is what bugs me so much about Democrats. They refuse to fight for their principles. In the old days (think Civil Rights Act, SS, etc.) they showed some backbone. But now? Obama makes some noise, the FCC barely looks up to see what's the noise, and then the FCC goes back to doing the industry's bidding. Shame on Obama.</rant>
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  Shame on all of our elected representatives, and shame on the rest of us too for largely ignoring and refusing to involve ourselves in politics.
enobrev 12y ago
I'm confused about the consistent reference to the fact that Tom Wheeler used to be a lobbyist. It seems that having that sort of experience in the past would mean that he knows how to deal with lobbyists better than those who never have worked in the industry. Why is it assumed that because he used to lobby for the cable and telecommunications industry that he is now definitely corrupt? I don't know anyone, anywhere, who still goes to bat for their former position in priority over their current position. edit: It's not my intention to defend Wheeler. I don't agree with his position, which has barely been stated. I just don't think it's quite so obvious that he's explicitly doing the bidding of the cable industry purely for his own benefit, or theirs.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >I don't know anyone, anywhere, who still goes to bat for their former position in priority over their current position. Then your experience of government regulators may be limited. edit: It may be more accurate to say that he's going to bat for his future position over his present position.
- jameskilton 12y ago
  Because he says things like this: > “What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.” No, no he doesn't need to "split the baby". He's refusing to listen to everyone else and is giving preferential ear to the cable companies. If he gives them anything, they will take it all and destroy the Internet as we know it.
  - andrewstuart2 12y ago
    I'm not a fan of this reference either, though for different reasons. We're to believe he needs to "split the baby" between the 320 million Americans who should be able to use the internet, and the handful of companies that provide it?
    - 12y ago
Shivetya 12y ago
Good for Wheeler. Obama waited until the Democrats lost control of the Senate to drop this bomb. He knew it would be DOA on arrival in a Reid controlled Senate and I really doubt he would have made this move with Reid still there. Now the onus is on the incoming Republicans, who may be at odds with their own base if they don't do something to prevent companies from charging for access by Netflix and similar. Regulation of such, turning these providers into utilities isn't going to come up all roses. There exists a distinct possibility many will see less options going forward, roll outs of new tech may slow and even never reach many users, all because nothing moves slower than a utility, especially heavily regulated and protected ones. So unless the government is in turn going require the deployment of specific speeds to all regions and set dates all I see is higher costs and less new services. Call me a pessimist, but after waiting years for Bellsouth to provide reasonably priced high speed internet I was more than happy when the cable company came to town
- themartorana 12y ago
  No no no no no. You're a pessimist. I mean yes, Obama is a jerk for waiting until this moment to declare these intentions. But I don't ever, ever want Comcast or other monopoly being able to bundle data providers as an anti-competitive practice and charge me extra for access to them. "Comcast Search for free, access to Google or DuckDuckGo comes with our Premier package! Or get them for free for 6 months when you buy Triple Play." I pay for bandwidth only, and where they become public utilities, they have to offer competitive access to the last mile. Just like phone companies. Remember dial-up ISPs? People ran them out of their homes because phone companies weren't allowed to regulate what you used the lines for. They were the bricks that built the Internet. Right now my access to data is locked behind a permissive firewall, where Comcast has only tightened the screws on Netflix so far, but who knows what else is next. Edit: I meant to comment on Wheeler's misguided need to please everyone. The government is supposed to look out for the interests of its citizens, not semi-monopolistic corporations. I don't understand this need to find a middle ground. I mean, I get that "why" is likely big piles of cash, I'm speaking more altruistically. Silly me.
- skywhopper 12y ago
  You overestimate the incentive of Comcast et al to improve what they have in place now. They have essentially a monopoly in most of their markets over what is a utility service. The priority at this moment has to be prserving the de facto status quo of net neutrality. Allowing Comcast to use their monopoly position to extract rents from their competitors like Netflix is not a precedent we can let stand. If we go down that road, the Internet will quickly become a very different place.
alkonaut 12y ago
Is there anywhere to read up on this topic? I don't understand why the FCC would want to please the large telcos here? What would happen if the FCC simply took an extreme stance on neutrality here? Are telcos threatening with anything?
- skywhopper 12y ago
  Most likely Wheeler's retirement as a highly paid consultant with no responsibilities at one or many of these ISPs.

rule # 1 of propoganda: things are never as they seem

waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's interesting the FCC chairman is pretty much straight out saying he's not going to do what Obama wanted.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dima55 12y ago
  The FCC chairman was appointed by the President, so who really knows what either of them truly want
- 001sky 12y ago
  Some in attendance seemed to believe that Mr. Wheeler disagreed with Mr. Obama’s approach. The Washington Post reported late Tuesday that Mr. Wheeler told the group “that he was moving in a different direction.” F.C.C. officials flatly denied that on Wednesday. “There was absolutely nothing he said that indicated that he was going to diverge from the president,” said Gigi Sohn, who serves as special counsel for external affairs to Mr. Wheeler and who was at the meeting. “What he said was all options are on the table.” Aha...so...let us see what happens next

This is what happens when you're hiring a former lobbyist for the industry [1] Also, I think Net Neutrality was a bad name. I think many average Americans wouldn't care about "Net Neutrality". I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. [1] http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-loyalist-seen-as-fcc-frontrunner/ http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobby...

sdrothrock 12y ago
> I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. I agree that the naming leaves something to be desired, but think it should have been the other way around. Rather than the status quo being "net neutrality," I wish the proposed changes had been labeled something like "Increased Internet Provider Penalties and Fees." Then it would be more clear that people want to change from what we have now to something that allows providers to penalize and charge people.
- Joeri 12y ago
  'Private Internet Tax'
- oscilloscope 12y ago
  I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net Neutrality might actually reduce monthly charges and increase their available bandwidth. For example, let's say T-Mobile's Music Freedom program (which uses packet inspection to whitelist Spotify, Pandora, and a few others so they don't count in data metering) expands to also encompass popular video streaming services: Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc. Now a consumer could pay T-Mobile for an inexpensive plan, say $20 for 1 GB of data on a mobile device. They stream high-definition video and music every night, maybe using 40 GB of data this month. But they only pay for 1 GB, which is still available to them for email and general internet browsing. No extra penalties, no extra fees. That's a great deal for the consumer, since the majority of their bandwidth use is probably streaming media from these services. The free streaming is a value-add which encourages users to pay for streaming services, but it doesn't count against the advertised data they pay for. This clearly discriminates different kinds of traffic and provides preferential treatment to certain services. But it doesn't cause general internet services to be slower. Storing the media in hard drives near cell towers may cause the preferred media to be faster.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    > That's a great deal for the consumer... Remember Hulu Plus? The deal there used to be that you paid the major "Content Providers" a monthly fee and in exchange, you got advertisement-free access to a small slice of their catalog. Shortly after people started paying for the service the advertisements crept in, but the monthly fee stayed the same. The truth of the matter is that today's great deal can be eliminated at a CRO's whim tomorrow. Moreover, "great deals" such as these throw substantial roadblocks in the way of non-favored players who which to participate in the marketplace. This substantially reduces competition, and substantially reduced competition has lead to the sorry state of the US's consumer telecommunications and Internet service "market".

hirsin 12y ago

Pro: despite the "woe is us" rhetoric too often found in online communities, getting a bunch of people to complain actually made a political entity wake up and take notice. Con: They only noticed for political reasons rather than that whole "representing the people" thing. Con: Wheeler got the position after arranging several hundred thousands in donations to the campaign of the "no more lobbyists" candidate. He's unlikely to listen to the president he's already paid off. Con: It doesn't seem like Obama is willing to actually fight for what he said he wants by leaning on those three of five. His record certainly indicates that he won't. Con: Wheeler says "I am an independent agency" when there are several other people involved in the decision making. Implies total power, or at least distended ego. It was great that Obama made a statement - it brought the issue to the attention of people who otherwise dismissed it as nerd rage. I don't think it will change anything.

kristopolous 12y ago
I believe both major parties reach the same conclusion, it's just that the Democrats do some dramatic act of high-minded rhetoric, then cry uncle and are forced to give in, shaking their fist at the sky. It's all for show. The game is rigged. US politics is the dramatic art of competing narratives to get there.
meepmorp 12y ago
> It doesn't seem like Obama is willing to actually fight for what he said he wants by leaning on those three of five. His record certainly indicates that he won't. How exactly is he supposed to "lean on" those 3 commissioners? It's not clear to me that he can unilaterally fire any of them, which means removing them would likely involve congress, which is basically asking the impossible these days. > Wheeler says "I am an independent agency" when there are several other people involved in the decision making. Implies total power, or at least distended ego. FCC doesn't act at the direction of the president, and that the commissioners make decisions independently, hence the term "independent agency." And this is by design, to prevent political pressure from the executive affecting rule making by a regulatory body. Edit: There may be one thing he can do - make another commissioner the chairperson. Never been done, but probably legal.

quattrofan 12y ago

"Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industry," There's your problem right there, how did that fool get appointed in the first place? Wolf and sheep etc.

InclinedPlane 12y ago
You think this is unusual? This is par for the course in dc. There's practically a revolving door between industry and government these days.
- Jgrubb 12y ago
  I'd say it's a little more like they're conjoined twins at this point.

golemotron 12y ago

> “I am an independent agency,” Wheeler told them repeatedly, according to several officials. Under the Executive Branch. This guy needs to be slapped down.

rtpg 12y ago
wondering about this very thing recently; does Obama have the capacity to fire him? I've never really gotten what 'independent' means in this sort of situation
- georgemcbay 12y ago
  He can't fire any of the FCC commissioners, but he could promote one of the other ones as chairman over Wheeler, in theory. It would probably turn into a pretty big political shitshow if he did though considering how the Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking they have a "clear mandate" (which seems to primarily involve wanting the opposite of whatever Obama wants, regardless of what that is).

deciplex 12y ago

> Wheeler is well aware of concerns that ill-considered regulations could stifle innovation and slow the growth of the country’s broadband infrastructure Is anybody really scared that we might slow that growth, considering there hardly is any growth in the first place? We've already spent billions trying to prod these companies to pretend like they're in some kind of competitive market, but instead they've just taken that money without so much as a 'thanks'. I think the only way the FCC can make things worse with regard to building out America's broadband capability is to deliberately go out of their way to do it - otherwise, I don't see much merit to the argument that they need to avoid unintended consequences.

Cowicide 12y ago

Can Obama force him to resign or outright fire him? I'd like to see a "I brought you into this world, I'll take you out" approach from Obama at this point.

tomelders 12y ago

Wheeler went into that job with a clear mandate not only from the executive branch, but from the US electorate. He's ignoring his mandate and charting "his own course". He's corrupt.

adestefan 12y ago
That's a huge leap to make. Is everyone that doesn't agree with you corrupt. Am I corrupt?
- pessimizer 12y ago
  >That's a huge leap to make. Is everyone that doesn't agree with you corrupt. Pot, meet kettle.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    ITT, when someone says that the sky is blue, someone else asks if everything above everyone's head is blue, then asks if they are blue. This is considered a logical progression.
- tomelders 12y ago
  No, and that's a nonsense retort. Wheeler has the history and is behaving in a way consistent with a person who is corrupt. His position flies in the face of the facts, and is out of sync with all but the biggest players Telcom industry. If you're looking for a smoking gun, you're not going to find one. If you wait for a smoking gun before arriving at an opinion then you'll sleep walk your way into a tiered internet and everything that brings with it. If you want net neutrality, acknowledge that the person with the power to keep you from getting it is working for and on behalf of the Telco business. He's a public servant. Demand his removal or lose your free and open Internet.

ww520 12y ago

Can Obama just fire the guy since he's appointed? If he won't, it shows who are really running the show.

discardorama 12y ago

Goes to show who has the real power: the President, or Comcast? <rant> This is what bugs me so much about Democrats. They refuse to fight for their principles. In the old days (think Civil Rights Act, SS, etc.) they showed some backbone. But now? Obama makes some noise, the FCC barely looks up to see what's the noise, and then the FCC goes back to doing the industry's bidding. Shame on Obama.</rant>

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
Shame on all of our elected representatives, and shame on the rest of us too for largely ignoring and refusing to involve ourselves in politics.

enobrev 12y ago

I'm confused about the consistent reference to the fact that Tom Wheeler used to be a lobbyist. It seems that having that sort of experience in the past would mean that he knows how to deal with lobbyists better than those who never have worked in the industry. Why is it assumed that because he used to lobby for the cable and telecommunications industry that he is now definitely corrupt? I don't know anyone, anywhere, who still goes to bat for their former position in priority over their current position. edit: It's not my intention to defend Wheeler. I don't agree with his position, which has barely been stated. I just don't think it's quite so obvious that he's explicitly doing the bidding of the cable industry purely for his own benefit, or theirs.

pessimizer 12y ago
>I don't know anyone, anywhere, who still goes to bat for their former position in priority over their current position. Then your experience of government regulators may be limited. edit: It may be more accurate to say that he's going to bat for his future position over his present position.
jameskilton 12y ago
Because he says things like this: > “What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.” No, no he doesn't need to "split the baby". He's refusing to listen to everyone else and is giving preferential ear to the cable companies. If he gives them anything, they will take it all and destroy the Internet as we know it.
- andrewstuart2 12y ago
  I'm not a fan of this reference either, though for different reasons. We're to believe he needs to "split the baby" between the 320 million Americans who should be able to use the internet, and the handful of companies that provide it?
  - 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago

Good for Wheeler. Obama waited until the Democrats lost control of the Senate to drop this bomb. He knew it would be DOA on arrival in a Reid controlled Senate and I really doubt he would have made this move with Reid still there. Now the onus is on the incoming Republicans, who may be at odds with their own base if they don't do something to prevent companies from charging for access by Netflix and similar. Regulation of such, turning these providers into utilities isn't going to come up all roses. There exists a distinct possibility many will see less options going forward, roll outs of new tech may slow and even never reach many users, all because nothing moves slower than a utility, especially heavily regulated and protected ones. So unless the government is in turn going require the deployment of specific speeds to all regions and set dates all I see is higher costs and less new services. Call me a pessimist, but after waiting years for Bellsouth to provide reasonably priced high speed internet I was more than happy when the cable company came to town

themartorana 12y ago
No no no no no. You're a pessimist. I mean yes, Obama is a jerk for waiting until this moment to declare these intentions. But I don't ever, ever want Comcast or other monopoly being able to bundle data providers as an anti-competitive practice and charge me extra for access to them. "Comcast Search for free, access to Google or DuckDuckGo comes with our Premier package! Or get them for free for 6 months when you buy Triple Play." I pay for bandwidth only, and where they become public utilities, they have to offer competitive access to the last mile. Just like phone companies. Remember dial-up ISPs? People ran them out of their homes because phone companies weren't allowed to regulate what you used the lines for. They were the bricks that built the Internet. Right now my access to data is locked behind a permissive firewall, where Comcast has only tightened the screws on Netflix so far, but who knows what else is next. Edit: I meant to comment on Wheeler's misguided need to please everyone. The government is supposed to look out for the interests of its citizens, not semi-monopolistic corporations. I don't understand this need to find a middle ground. I mean, I get that "why" is likely big piles of cash, I'm speaking more altruistically. Silly me.
skywhopper 12y ago
You overestimate the incentive of Comcast et al to improve what they have in place now. They have essentially a monopoly in most of their markets over what is a utility service. The priority at this moment has to be prserving the de facto status quo of net neutrality. Allowing Comcast to use their monopoly position to extract rents from their competitors like Netflix is not a precedent we can let stand. If we go down that road, the Internet will quickly become a very different place.

alkonaut 12y ago

Is there anywhere to read up on this topic? I don't understand why the FCC would want to please the large telcos here? What would happen if the FCC simply took an extreme stance on neutrality here? Are telcos threatening with anything?

skywhopper 12y ago
Most likely Wheeler's retirement as a highly paid consultant with no responsibilities at one or many of these ISPs.