The “most transparent administration in history” says it won’t let the public see its 332 page net neutrality plan until after the FCC votes on its implementation
The Obama administration has just said that it won’t let the public see its 332 page proposal for net neutrality until after the FCC votes on its implementation.
Which reminds me of this Nancy Pelosi gem regarding Obamacare:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Paisaid has seen the proposal. Paisaid said Obama’s net neutrality plan was 332 pages long, and that:
“It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works…”
“The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”
“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market… As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”
The Daily Caller reported:
In his initial cursory overview of the plan, the commissioner said it would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.
I don’t know if Paisaid’s comments about the proposal are true or not. But I do know the public should get to see the plan before it’s implemented, and I wonder why Obama is so afraid to let that happen.
Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog 
EDell replied:
Did you miss the one about the 28 pages that still won’t be released on why Bush actually went to war in Iraq that, for those few Congressmen that have read it, purportedly casts some grave doubt on the validity of the whole operation and who claim is something that seriously needs to be addressed – as if there was any real doubt in saner minds? No, I guess you missed that one because, well, Bush, after all, was a white president, and a right wingnut white president at that, so that’s perfectly excusable. Now, which would you rather know more about more? The still-unreleased 28 pages of the House-Senate Committee Report that puts Bush, and apparently the Saudis, in a negative light or the 300+ pages meant to ensure that you have the same access to the internet now and not hijacked by Corporate America? Let’s see how sane your mind really is.
February 12, 2015 at 2:26 pm. Permalink.
danfromsquirrelhill replied:
No, I had not heard of it.
February 12, 2015 at 7:14 pm. Permalink.
EDell replied:
Of course you hadn’t. Like I said, Bush was a white right winger, so he could do no wrong in your eyes, otherwise you would’ve posted thousands of anti-Bush articles just as you have for the black man in the White House. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages
February 13, 2015 at 12:14 am. Permalink.
Andrea replied:
I certainly missed “the 28 pages” and would be eager for you to tell me exactly (date, publication, author at minimum) where I can read about “the 28 pages” and come to my own conclusions. Thank you very much!!
February 12, 2015 at 4:33 pm. Permalink.
EDell replied:
Sure. Just get in touch with the House Intelligence Committee and I’m sure they’ll let you have a peep at them. But oops, they can’t. The 28 pages are verboten to you. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages
February 13, 2015 at 12:12 am. Permalink.
5WarVeteran replied:
All I know it this “administration” is about as transparent as my fat ass and does not smell as sweet.
February 12, 2015 at 10:47 pm. Permalink.
Tommy Mind Trick replied:
Of course, those “28 pages” were related to intelligence and the political bugaboo of Saudi financial support for hijackers (bin Laden was getting funding from Saudi for years is no secret). But the Saudi’s didn’t intend for a direct terrorist attack. Saudi support for bin Laden was to fight their Muslim enemies, but bin Laden also got support by fighting the West, so it was a tricky political scenario.
That said, the 28 pages are MUCH different than the NN legislation. And none of the NN legislation is classified like the original 28 page report, where in the normal course of governance should NOT be hidden, while classified government intelligence in the normal course of business SHOULD be hidden. Lastly, The New Yorker article EDell links too talks about bipartisan calls for Obama to release the 28 page report, but even Obama refuses. So obviously it has to have some merit and not just be a product of evil right wing white Bush’s fault.
February 13, 2015 at 11:31 am. Permalink.
EDell replied:
If it has some “merit,” it’s still sure freaking out some of the Congressmen who have read the 28 pages. I don’t believe there’s any “merit” in keeping it classified, just as I never believed there was ever a legitimate reason for the US to go to war in Iraq. Bush allowing members of the Saudi family to flee the US in the days after 9/11 when no one else could fly is suspicious in itself. Why only the Saudis and no other high-level foreign representatives? The pieces are all there, you’ve just got to put them all together, including the hidden ones.
February 13, 2015 at 2:15 pm. Permalink.