Bwaaahaaahaahaa!!! Cable companies 'stunned' by Obama's 'extreme' net neutrality proposals

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/cable-companies-obama-net-neutrality-proposals-fcc-fight

America’s major telecoms and cable companies and business groups came out fighting on Monday after Barack Obama called for tough new regulations for broadband that would protect net neutrality, saying they were “stunned” by the president’s proposals.

The president called for new regulations to protect “net neutrality” – the principle that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally. His move came as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finalises a new set of proposals for regulation after the old rules were overturned by a series of court defeats at the hands of cable and telecom companies.

In response, Republican senator Ted Cruz went so far as to call Obama’s proposal for regulating the web “Obamacare for the internet”, saying on Twitter “the internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

The powerful National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), which represents cable companies including Comcast and Time Warner said it was “stunned” by the president’s proposals.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. if it pisses off big business and/or republicans, it must be the right thing to do for the people!

[santamargarita]

15. Exactly!

[Flatulo]

23. Ha, spot on.

[rock]

24. +1

Follow that one rule blindly and you'll automatically be 20 to 30 IQ points smarter!

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

31. +1 ...

... for you, too!

[RKP5637]

56. Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[adieu]

69. It pisses off only one group of big businesses

it is very gratifying to another group of big businesses. Google, Netflix, Apple, Yahoo, and all those content providers love net neutrality. It's only those who own the cables that think they can somehow wring more cash via their monopolistic control of the infrastructure who are pissed.

Republicans are pissed because Obama did something. If Obama was completely for dismantling Net Neutrality, they would be pissed. Indeed, Cruz's words would not have been any different regardless of which direction Obama took, or if Obama chose to not take a direction.

[Fred Sanders]

100. Making it a public utility would piss off ALL the corporations....

[brewens]

89. All during the workup of the ACA, I kept looking for medical insurance companies stock to tank. I

would then have believed we were onto something. I'd say we got an improvement with the ACA though. We did get a national health care bill passed. I'm looking foreward to that leading to more improvements.

I was amazed when looking over my DISH options to see an ala carte menue. I think, "no shit! I can actually pick and choose?" I thought they would never allow that. Clicking on it, it was like a selection of the dregs of the scrub channels you could ad if you were dumb enough. I really kind of suspected as much.

Cable or DISH could charge me fair market value for whatever I want easily. I may end up paying $50 bucks a month for 12 freakin' channels but it would be the 12 I really want! I say bring it on!

[appalachiablue]

93. RE DISH choices, you must be w/o CNN, TMC like me. Bummer. I only watch 8-10 channels too.

[vi5]

102. What people don't seem to get....

When you have cable, you're not paying for all of those scrub channels. They're essentially free with the higher cost channels that make up the bulk of your cable bill.

A La Carte pricing is going to end up costing people the same amount as their current cable bill, only you won't get those free scrub channels included. And last I checked nobody was making anyone watch those shitty channels. So basically people screaming for a la carte cable are basically asking to pay the same price for fewer channels and telling them to not throw in any of that free stuff.

[brewens]

104. I get it about the free channels. I'm sure I would save something with a la carte by not choosing

some quality channels than many people enjoy that I just never watch. Any premuim DISH package has all kinds of good stuff that I never have time to watch even if I wanted to. Would they be able to jack everything up so that we all pay $100 per month no matter what selections we make? I doubt that.

[vi5]

108. Of course they can jack everything up.

Especially once more people are doing away with cable altogether.

As one article on the subject put it, "If your ideal cable package includes only things like C-Span, Spike TV, National Geographic, and the Oxygen Network then you'll get a great deal with a la carte pricing." Everyone else will be saving next to nothing.

[quakerboy]

110. I think you have missed a key detail

There is fairly good evidence that that is not correct.

The strongest argument against your claim: Most of the media corps fought long and hard against A La Carte. It seem to be a save assumption that they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, for consumers sake, or to save "scrub" channels. It is a safe bet they are doing it because it would would cost them money.

[vi5]

116. They still get some ad revenue from those channels.

I'm not at all saying that the cable companies want a la carte pricing. They want business as usual, with a high monthly fee for a large cable package with lots of channels, that each generate some degree of ad revenue. But they are only going to sustain that model for so long.

My point is that when they are forced to go the a la carte route (as they will be), then it will be the top tier channels demanding the highest prices. They aren't just going to go "Oh, o.k. you can pick any 10 channels you want for $3 each per month." and hope that people pick all these second tier channels. They are going to charge according to demand and based on that demand they aren't going to charge the same amount for ESPN or NBC as they do for Logo or SpikeTV or C-Span.

I forget where it was (I believe somewhere in Canada) that already went to a la carte, and the numbers bore out my main point. Overall cable bills went down nominally, if at all.

It's the same issue I have with people demanding everything be streaming now, under the assumption that all these media companies are just going to send all their stuff to Netflix and everyone will get to pay their $9 a month to stream current content. That's not what's going to happen. What will happen is that the companies are going to all start their own service, and even if they each charge $5 a month for theirs, it will all add up to not that much less than what people are paying for cable now.

[quakerboy]

119. I was reading India has required an Al A Carte option

and it sounds like its been in place a few years, but I couldn't find any numbers on how that had worked out.

I think that the difference is between who will be paying for it. Right now, If I want to watch TV, it will cost me 50+ per month. For two channels. Back when I had cable, I only watched MCNBC and Comedy central. then they moved MSNBC to a higher cost tier. That meant paying 15 more a month. For one channel. And left me paying 40 a month. For one channel who puts most of the content I actually want on their website. That's when we dumped cable.

So for me, alacarte channels would be great. If channels were $5 each, I'd have a significant savings even as compared to the lowest tier currently offered. Id probably save even more with pay per view, full alacarte by the show.

If someone wants to use all the channels and leave it on all the time, more power to them. They should have the honor of paying for the services they want.

[vi5]

120. I've done away with cable altogether as well.

I have a great over the air antenna reception so I get all the major networks. Plus. Hulu and Netflix prescription, and I buy season passes for shows on iTunes. And on a monthly basis I am better off.

I think there are those of us who can and will get off cheaper doing things a la carte. I think we're the exception though. Especially since I don't watch sports or cable news. But I think by and large most people won't make out well. Also, what you're looking at now for pricing assumes cable companies and media content providers won't jack up pricing and screw people over as more people start to do what we're doing and cutting the cord.

[quakerboy]

121. I think you are incorrect

At worst I think people would become a bit more aware of what they are spending money on. perhaps I am too optimistic, but I suspect having to pay for each thing would induce a larger number of people to narrow down what they actually care about watching.

[vi5]

122. I think you are optimistic.

Both about the intelligence of consumers and also the desire and ability on the part of media companies to make their money one way or another. When has any corporation (let alone the sleaziest ones like cable providers) chosen to just take less profit rather than jacking up prices when their business model changes due to consumer demand or otherwise.

You are correct about people narrowing down what they care about watching and that's a good thing culturally. But my guess is that the things they would cut out would be those peripheral channels which are essentially free and included with cable packages. The good news is that they'll do away with seondary fluff like the Real Housewives or the Duggars or the Kardashians or whatever. But again, that is not going to save them money if they still want to watch sports on ESPN or American Idol or Mad Men or Walking Dead or Game of Thrones, etc.

Maybe you're right and consumers will all of a sudden become aware and make intelligent choices. And maybe cable companies will go "Well, sure we'll make less money but hey the people want a la carte pricing so who are we to get in the way?"

I'd be happy from a cultural perspective if you were right and my predictions were wrong. But I'm not optimistic about either thing.

[madokie]

99. No doubt about that one.

[yuiyoshida]

103. This!

[BadGimp]

111. +1

[C Moon]

118. +1

...and another +1 for the Patriots.

[rocktivity]

2. They're shocked -- SHOCKED!

That public airwaves should belong to the public!


rocktivity

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

4. "Good heavens man! What do you mean by public?!!!" :-P

[msongs]

3. appoints officials who oppose his views. then pulls a nice PR stunt like this. cool nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

6. Point taken. Let's see what happens now..... nt

[RufusTFirefly]

40. Yes. This is a common DiFi technique, too, namely fighting a battle she's already rigged to lose

But this posturing can sometimes have unintended consequences, so I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt for now, hoping that even if it was just an empty PR gesture that the public can transform it into a truly meaningful one.

[loudsue]

97. This typical Obama bait & switch has worked FOR us at times, but we've been on the short end

of it WAY too many times.

[GoneFishin]

105. +1

[global1]

5. I'm Confused Here - What Is Ted Cruz Objecting To?.....

Is Obama's proposal trying to keep things as they are now and is Ted Cruz wanting to change things or is it the other way around.

Who's on first?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

7. Basically Mr. Cruz wants us to fellate Comcast and AT&T while granting them human ownership of our

first borns in order to have speed better than dialup. He's always fighting communism..... imagined communism but nonetheless.

[Fred Sanders]

98. In return Cruz will be ass fucked with wads of cold hard cash, some inserted secretly and darkly.

[NewJeffCT]

27. Internet companies want to be able to charge more

for higher speed access to the full internet.

If you pay $20 (for example) a month, you get only "internet lite" and at lower speed and only enough capacity for X number of devices.

For $50/month, you may get the full internet at lower speed, or internet lite at a higher speed, and also for X number of devices.

For $80/month, you get full internet at a high speed, but still only for X devices.

Then, for $150/month, you get X times two devices and a still higher speed and maybe some "premium" internet content.

Then, for $300/month, you get X times four devices and an even higher speed, and you also get access to even more special premium internet content.

[markpkessinger]

35. Actually, that's not quite right . . .

. . . The fees in question would be levied against content providers, not end users. The problem, of course, is that this favors larger, wealthier, mostly corporate content providers over small, independent content providers whose content, if they cannot afford to pay the higher fees, would be prejudiced by being relegated to being delivered at a slower speed.

[SharonAnn]

41. No, if a website pays more, it will get to your computer faster.

If a website doesn't pay more, it will get to your computer much more slowly. this will cause serious problems with access to websites for non-profits, individuals, schools, and most businesses.

I understand the problem with some people consuming a lot of bandwidth while others don't. But giving some the fast lane while relegating others to the slow land is addressing the wrong end of the situation. I really think that pricing should be like a utility (electricity, water, even cell phones. The user pays more if they use more.

There's a basic price for access and then incremental cost for everything above that level.

[Recursion]

92. No. That exists now and is 100% legal

ISPs can always tier their bandwidth plans like that. They can also filter or block sites at their discretion.

The issue is whether or not a content provider like NetFlix can lease or build private fiber lines to reach networks without then allowing other networks' traffic to go over those lines.

[chelsea0011]

32. Ted Cruz isn't objecting to net neutrality, he is objecting to anything Obama related

[a kennedy]

37. That's the whole stinking reason....

I just detest these people. Ugh....

[littlewolf]

45. this is correct. I believe this is the position of 90% of the GOP

on this issue. I personnally do not want the Gov't to regulate the
internet like a utility. maybe they could let the NSA run it /s

I would like the net to be faster for less money like europe/asia
but I do not trust the gov't here to run it.

[charliea]

74. Government's don't run the Electric Companies

And they won't run the internet. As I've said elsewhere:
...
It's a fundamental inconsistency that the Internet, designed as an adaptive, survivable communications network, developed with our tax dollars BTW, was reclassified as an information service. All 'net neutrality' is saying is that the fundamental design goal should be maintained, meaning that each TCP/IP packet is treated as equal to any other at each and every node it passes through.
...
All the President wants is for the Internet to remain as it was originally designed, and I'm damn glad he does. The 'pipe owners' would then have to compete on bandwidth/price, because they'd be common carriers, not squeezing more money out of providers and consumers by examining each packet they're transferring. In fact as common carriers they'd be liable for loss of packets, or if properly interpreted, for even examining the contents of any individual packet aside from its routing information. The NSA would need a warrant to look at any packet (yeah I know they'd get around that).

From wikipedia a common carrier is "... a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and that is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport... "

And yes I've been bitching about this to my Congressman and Senators since it happened in 2002.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/News_Releases/2002/nrcb0201.html

[BlancheSplanchnik]

109. ^ n/t

[myrna minx]

8. K&R nt

[lpbk2713]

9. Cable & Telcos still can't catch a break.

After greasing all those palms in Congress and at the FCC they are still seeing a bottleneck.

The way it usually works, they write the laws and the regulations, the FCC gives them the
rubber stamp approval and then Congress runs it rhough with a wink and a nod. Things
will be back to the old way when the GOP Congress takes over.

[Spazito]

10. Cable companies will do just fine, there is a republican Congress in power...

thanks to a 36.6% voter turnout.

[jalan48]

11. Sounds Like a Great Campaign Issue

Too bad he didn't make this an issue 3 months ago. Now that Republicans control the government he won't have much of a chance to make it happen. Then again, can't blame him for not trying, right?

[merrily]

64. oops.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Obama is a leader for the future.

I think he knows that Republicans want to control information. Information is really our only weapon. On the internet, we share ideas that can slow down Republicans who are constantly looking for ways to game the system.

Smartest move a Democratic leader has done in years.

[rhett o rick]

17. Smart move alright if you don't want net neutrality. He can propose all he wants and it means

very little. He choose Tom Wheeler that isn't in favor of a free internet. It's up to Tom and the committee.

Next thing he will do is "propose" to roll back the Patriot Act, knowing full well it won't be with this new Congress.

He should propose to strengthen SS and Medicare and end the wars in the Middle East.

[markpkessinger]

57. Exactly . . .

. . . Bullshit PR moves during the lame duck period of his presidency.

[Enthusiast]

59. +1 an entire shit load.

[Enthusiast]

62. You forgot the sarcasm thingie.

[Baitball Blogger]

70. We are not going to win this next election if we don't come in strong.

[War Horse]

13. Someone said on another board that younger voters

would come out and vote D in droves if they actually knew that access to and speed of the Internet was at stake.
It's a bit harsh, but there's a grain of truth to it.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

16. "John Oliver’s net neutrality rant may have caused FCC site crash"

“The guy who used to run the cable industry’s lobbying arm is now running the agency tasked with regulating it,” Oliver said. “That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo. … With the fact that they are practically overseeing their own oversight, it is hardly surprising that cable companies are basically monopolies now. A federal study found that 96 percent of the population had access to two or fewer cable broadband providers. It’s almost at if they’ve agreed to stay out of each other’s way, like drug cartels.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/04/john-olivers-net-neutrality-rant-may-have-caused-fcc-site-crash/

I really do not understand Obama's timing.

[ReRe]

39. I do...

... he's getting ready to pass the TPP trade deal, he's getting ready to okay the XL Pipeline, and a brain fart is preventing me from thinking of the other thing. The entire inside of the beltway is in disarray.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

48. Immigration? (n/t)

[ReRe]

73. No, that will be a good thing...

... depending on the details. It was something else. I'll think of it later and come back and edit my post. Have to go listen to Norman Goldman now... maybe he will remind me of the missing issue.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

82. Yes, good. I was thinking more along the lines of "controversial."

I'm hitting the bubble bath with a good book. LOL Too much DU today!

[truebluegreen]

117. Third thing is the Grand Bargain on "entitlements." nt

[Enthusiast]

58. "I really do not understand Obama's timing."

You will have to exercise some creative thinking.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

63. I'm cynical enough, thank you!

It's not like this might have motivated some of those wired, non-voting Millennials, or anything.

And I see that the rah-rah APEC photo threads have started...

[RedCappedBandit]

19. This is a viral issue in internet communities

and has been for quite some time. It's not going to make young people vote for D's unless they see D's actually do something about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. It's true.

The message may be lost, or incomprehensible, to the "Gramps and I are sending out a petition from my AOL email address asking why we can't do more to censor internet porn" age demographic.

But what you've said, here, is true.

[Doctor_J]

87. then why did he wait until a week after the election?

is he incompetent or corrupt?

[C Moon]

14. I'll be the head of the FCC has his phone ringing off the hook.

[Orrex]

18. Well, now they have their grounds for impeachment.

[Oktober]

20. Welcome to the party...

This would have been more useful a year or four ago...

[DeadLetterOffice]

21. This makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...

[Ykcutnek]

22. It's official: You either stand with POTUS or Time Warner.

I choose POTUS.

[markpkessinger]

61. It's official: if the President had been serious about net neutrality in the first place . . .

. . . he wouldn't have named Tom Wheeler to head the FCC.

[Ykcutnek]

67. Whatever.

Real champions of Internet freedom are praising the President for his actions.

We can't hear your bitter snipe over all the cheering:

[markpkessinger]

79. It's a very commendable stance for the President to take . . .

. . . particularly if you overlook his own prior role in undermining any chance of it actually succeeding.

Real lovers of Internet freedom object to Wheeler's appointment in the first place, but were shouted down by the "Rah! Rah! Chorus."

[Phlem]

90. yep.

[lsewpershad]

25. Mr President we have your back

You work for all of us not only for big businesses who are [by the way] doing quite well.

[drm604]

26. Stunned, I tell you, stunned!

Don't you just love the over-the-top manufactured outrage?

[MindMover]

28. The only time it works in America is when you grease the wheel with

plenty of money ... the interests of the people is always going to run dead last ... if it even finishes ....

[shenmue]

29. I've got a shiny Roku box

I can get the channels I want.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

30. “the internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

Uh huh....

[Half-Century Man]

42. The internet is powered by hot air???

Since when?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

85. Twitter....

Or Christian Mingle.

Take yer pick.

[Half-Century Man]

86. Yeah, I had to leave earlier so I couldn't self delete.

The internet is powered by hot air for a large part. With 30 seconds of thinking, the answer was surprising as dawn in the east.

[Thav]

33. The Internet's not a big truck!

It's a series of tubes! These tubes shouldn't operate at the speed of government!

Cruz must be forgetting talking points, there's no mention of Benghazi anywhere.

[proReality]

34. “...the internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

That's right Ted! We expect our internet to work and to be a helluva lot faster than government, especially this particular Congressional government.

[Half-Century Man]

46. Good thing we already pay the most for mediocre service.

We should just put in a national infrastructure of fiber optic lines and let county and states reap the revenues at 10% over costs of operation.

[TBF]

36. Good - will this be replicated

in TPP or will it take these protections away?

[a kennedy]

38. and isn't it true that here in the States, we've got the slowest and most expensive cable rates

already??

[Enthusiast]

51. Yes. Already.

But elections have consequences.

[WinkyDink]

43. Why, to a Republican, is "government" crappy at everything but war? THAT they think govt is

BRILLIANT at.

[merrily]

60. in reality, we haven't been that great at war.

[WinkyDink]

72. Well, I do know that. But I'm a Democrat against illegal invasions.

[Calista241]

94. Actually, we're super fantastic at war.

We're just not that great at fixing the place back up afterwards.

Historically, countries just invaded some other country to rape, pillage and loot the place. That's unacceptable in today's society, and we haven't figured out how to make it all hunky dory after we've finished killing people.

The fact that we put the military in charge of fixing the place up right after they leveled it probably has something to do with it.

[merrily]

95. I think we've been lousy at wars for decades.

We're good at killing and destruction.

[Crunchy Frog]

44. They're going to set up internet death panels. n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

47. I'm sure Obama can strike a "compromise" with them. He's very good at that sort of thing.

[Enthusiast]

49. This isn't good considering the media acts as if Ted Cruz is a paragon of wisdom.

[The Wizard]

50. Democrats should have played this theme

to get the youth out to vote. I'm sure they'd be as motivated as those who believed Obama was coming for their guns.
They should have kept reminding people that Republicans want them to pay more for texting and downloading.

[DonCoquixote]

52. the true Tragedy

as usual Obama proposes something far to the right, and far weaker, than what is needed..

then

The right wing squeals that is is too far left, as if they were Pigs getting dragged to the butcher!

[WillyT]

53. K & R !!!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. Kabletown has a sad.

Too bad.

[RKP5637]

55. Fuck them! Let them be stunned. This, is how things get done and moved forward. I'm fed up with

appeasing these Fuck-Twits.

[NorthCarolina]

125. "Stunned" in a play-acting sort of way I think.

I'm pretty convinced the cable providers know full well what measures will be enacted...they wrote them.

[Marr]

65. I think we're watching more kabuki theater.

Considering Obama's appointment to head the FCC, this seems a lot like the "I won't sign a bill that does not contain a public option" drama.

[markpkessinger]

80. Bingo! n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

114. I hope you're wrong and I'm sure you do as well. But I'm guessing neither one of us will

be holding our breaths.

[elleng]

66. Robert Reich says

"'Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government," tweets Republican Sen. Ted Cruz today in response to the President’s call for stronger government regulations to prevent the biggest and wealthiest Internet users from getting faster lanes than anyone else. Once again, Cruz is dead wrong.

The practical way to accomplish net neutrality is to reclassify broadband providers as “common carriers,” like telephone companies, under the Telecommunications Act. But Internet Service Providers like Comcast (America’s largest ISP) and Time Warner (the nation’s second-largest) are strongly opposed, as is Cruz and the Republican right.

If Comcast and Time-Warner remain opposed, the Administration should bar them from merging, as they're trying to do. You agree?

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich?fref=nf

[plcdude]

68. internet and the world

http://www.businessinsider.com/internet-speeds-in-the-us-and-around-the-world-2014-5

[Puglover]

71. Good..

Fuck them. Oh and fuck Ted Cruz.

[deaniac21]

75. It was still take years to get the rules changed.

Hopefully, it will all turn out well.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

115. GTFO! I had hoped months not years. If so, we're truly fucked. It just seems

like there is no refuge from these vultures.

[malokvale77]

76. Let them squirm...

They'll get what they want in the end. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. K&R

Good for Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

81. Hopefully the FCC complies

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

113. That's the trick right there. Appointing industry hacks to this board won't

make it any easier either.

[colsohlibgal]

83. One On The Plus Side For Obama

I hope he sticks to his guns on this - but I'm not terrifically optimistic about that.

[Cha]

84. Another fucking reason to have voted for Dems.. we wouldn't have to get DU's pages

inundated with the sociopathic cruz' quotes.

From your link..

"Obama’s statement also set him at loggerheads with David Cohen, the executive vice-president of Comcast, who has been one of the president’s biggest fundraisers.

Cohen said the cable company “fully embraces the open internet principles that the president and the chairman of the FCC have espoused” but argued section 706 of the telecommunications act – the regulatory legislation preferred by the cable and telecoms industry “provides more than ample authority to impose those rules”.

The president’s move has set the stage for a political showdown in Washington where the cable industry has been left looking flat-footed by a vocal and well- organised grass roots opposition."

Thanks Guy Whitey

[Doctor_J]

88. er, there is no election now for two years

And here's a clue, Cha. People don't come out to vote for empty rhetoric. This isn't going to happen, and even if it was, it's too late to use for the campaign anyway.

[Phlem]

91. But, but, but she has over 150,000 posts.

She must be right about something.

[Fearless]

96. Words are just words unless actions are taken.

Actions are not being taken. The president is asking a committee to consider possibly doing something... It won't happen. The FCC is bought and paid for by Big Media.

[JustAnotherGen]

101. If made Public

Then do we also have to take on the corporations' debts? There is massive debt on the books. Does it get erased?

It would be a way to stick it to the banks the network providers owe it to.

[Baitball Blogger]

106. It's time for them to pay back.

Time Warner was able to set roots in my county during the nineties because they hired a lawyer who had fluid ethics. This attorney was once the president of the chamber of commerce and seemed to have problems finding where to draw the line between public and private interests. He was able to represent the cable company before a county level board that was chaired by one of his city commissioners. Oddly, that city commissioner should have been reigned in that year for her dual office holding problem, but the city attorney just kept mum.

And that's how they play it in Central Florida!

[NorthCarolina]

107. Precisely why it will likely never come to be. Good talking point though. nt

[lonestarnot]

112. Never is a long time.

Consider just until money stops buying elections.

[NorthCarolina]

123. Wheeler operates independently. Are we perhaps just being scammed with some more

meaningless populist rhetoric intended for public consumption only? I assume so. Sorry, but I'm skeptical since Obama is the one that appointed Wheeler in the first place, and I assume he was and is completely comfortable with Wheelers real intentions on the issue or he obviously would not have appointed him the first place were he NOT. Is this just a scripted performance of "Good Cop-Bad Cop" scenario playing out? Likely.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

124. As I said above. We'll see. I can't blame anyone for their skepticism. This was posted more because

of the predictable but still annoying, industry bullshit reaction.