Why did President Obama appoint Tom Wheeler to head the FCC?

[okaawhatever]

117. i've been reading more since my last post. Last night I read probably ten or twenty articles, but

they focused more on the merger and the court ruling. Tonight I was reading up on net neutrality and the specifics of that. Actually, wikipedia does a pretty good job of giving all the viewpoints.
What I noticed was the term net neutrality is somewhat generic. A lot of anti-net neutrality folks say they're for n.n. but they don't mention the part about being able to charge content providers for fast access. There are 4 basic concepts in n.n. so they may say they support it, but only support 3. You know, typical b.s.

One thing I do kind of understand from the anti-side is that a lot of this came about when YouTube and bit torrent were taking up almost all of the bandwith. In France, their leading wireless internet provider Orange threatened to sue Google because YouTube alone was taking up 50% of their bandwidth. Now, we could make the argument that they should charge the individual user for excessive usage, but I hate those agreements because you know they're going to screw somebody. So that is one honest concern. The only other legit thing is that the law be written in such a way that it allows the provider access in the event of an denial of service attack to do what's necessary to save the system.

Believe it or not, the main opponents aren't just computer companies. Surprise, it's Cato Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute and the other neo-con orgs that don't want the federal government to have any power. Verizon has promised to take this to scotus and filed patents shortly after the court decision for software that would slow down certain providers.

There seems to be another element that i've read some tech types discuss and that is government subsidies to build the infrastructure. what I read was that Verizon wouldn't take any of the money, apparently so they wouldn't have any issues down the road. I guess the gov't can't claim partial ownership or whatever. Just wanted to throw that out there because I've read that twice.

A bill was introduced in Congress on Feb 4 to overturn the court ruling. Markey is supposed to introduce a similar one in the Senate, but the Republians have promised to fight it the entire way. Of course, the Republicans also promised to overturn the 2010 amd 2009 legislation that allowed all of this to happen in the first place. If they retake the Senate they may try but Obama would veto it.

Chairman Wheeler is looking at different options, he mentioned earlier today that the best route may be to monitor each provider and sue each one individually. That would avoid the regulatory fight in the courts, and the legislative fight in Congress. That is how they got Comcast. They took Comcast to court and Comcast agreed to make some changes. They signed a net neutrality agreement until 2018 no matter what the outcome of this recent case, they agreed to offer a low cost package for low-income individuals and I can't remember the other stuff. Because Comcast is locked into this agreement until 2018 I wonder if that's why they want to merge with Time Warner. If net neutrality doesn't pass, they're at a disadvantage. I don't know I could be imagining things. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Sorry for such a long post, but you seem interested in what's going on so I wanted to share what I learned. Please pass on anything you learn if you have the time.