Politicians Freak Out Over New FCC Neutrality Moves, Not Realizing They Probably Won't Do Anything
from the I-have-absolutely-no-idea-what-I'm-upset-about dept
Now that I've had some additional time with the FCC boss Tom Wheeler's new net neutrality proposal and have talked to a few lawyers and consumer advocates, I'm starting to think the agency's announcement was almost entirely political theater. All the FCC really said is that it wouldn't appeal the Verizon case, and would begin a meandering public conversation about how to vaguely protect the Internet under shaky Section 706 authority the FCC knows it doesn't have. Layered on top were empty promises about improving competition and some empty threats about reclassifying ISPs as common carriers if they don't behave (which is supposed to be a threat, but every ISP lobbyist on K Street knows they won't do this if they weren't willing to do it already).In short, the FCC vaguely promised to maybe think about some stuff after a glacial, year long conversation. Cue the absolute, unbridled, partisan hyperbole shitstorm:
"Ranking Republicans called the FCC's efforts to revive net-neutrality rules "a solution in search of a problem," and plan to fight any new rules. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to block what she calls the "socialistic" proposal. "Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement."You apparently don't understand that the FCC's proposal won't actually do anything, but you do know it's certainly socialist and freedom killing? The sad part is that issues like a healthy, functioning Internet with competitive balance really shouldn't be partisan at all. It's in the interest or everyone that networks work well and that honest, healthy competition improves service and drives down costs, while limiting the bad behavior of large network gatekeepers.
Well ok, not everyone. If you actually want to understand whether a policy will be good or bad for consumers, ignore all the think tanks and politicians and watch the ISP response. Specifically watch AT&T, which has the biggest lobbyist operations and the biggest mouth when truly consumer-friendly policy gets passed. AT&T supported the original rules because they had oodles of loopholes and didn't cover wireless (Verizon only sued in the hopes of killing off FCC authority entirely). Note how AT&T thinks all this socialist freedom killin' is just a splendid idea:
"AT&T, the second-largest wired broadband provider in the U.S., said it believes the FCC has the authority under Section 706 to preserve Internet openness...."AT&T has built its broadband business, both wired and wireless, on the principal of Internet openness," AT&T said in a statement. "That is what our customers rightly expect, and it is what our company will continue to deliver. That is also why we endorsed the FCC's original rule on Net neutrality, and is why we pledged to adhere to openness principles even after the recent court decision."Knowing the FCC pretty well after more than a decade of watching them, what I think you'll ultimately see at the end of this new "conversation" is a cross-industry set of self-regulatory voluntary guidelines "prohibiting" ISPs from doing the kinds of things they never intended to do anyway -- like blocking your access to entirely legal websites. There might be particular cases where the FCC pushes for greater transparency in peering debates (especially if the ongoing Netflix standoff doesn't improve), but nothing that will truly rattle any slats. The primary goal here is making sure incumbent ISPs maximize revenues and keep the campaign contributions coming. Consumer protection is just pillow talk. For both parties.
What you won't see in any way (and probably wouldn't be enforceable under 706 anyway) is hard rules governing the more subtle sort of things network neutrality folks should actually be worried about, such as predatory pricing and the use of broadband usage caps as a weapon (like AT&T's "sponsored data"). This, unfortunately for consumers, is considered "creative pricing innovation" by both the current FCC and industry alike, and the only ones who should be freaking out at the moment are the people who are going to foot the bill for all this supposed creativity.
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: fcc, net neutrality, section 706
Companies: at&t, verizon
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I think we know who Blackburn represents
Blackburn's top contributors in 2012:Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Association of Broadcasters
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are not completely wrong
A piecemeal approach to "Net Neutrality" will allow the FCC to meddle with the internet, and they may eventually meddle in ways we don't like.
Common carrier for the internet is the only way to go. Regulatory shenanigans prevented it in the past, but now it is long past due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are not completely wrong
For example, promising to bring wireless broadband to 99% of the population (when that was going to happen without the FCC's help) or insisting they're entirely dedicated to improving competition (yet they never ever talk about, or release data on, broadband price).
They're not going to madly start regulating the Internet. People worried about that should sleep much better than people worried about expensive broadband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dammit! She broke my Irony-O-Meter!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In unrelated news, IronMe, Meteyolo, and Triple-O have been bought by BigIron, leaving them to be the market leader in the field. Triple-O was the last of the competitors, so your choice has now been made very easy;
You can choose either BigIron NoGov(tm) or BigIron FactFree(tm), both of which should serve all of your needs!
In other unrelated news, BigIron has recently seen the need to make a small change in payment options, to better provide their services. The flat fee has been removed, and you can now choose between LowIrony for only 250$ a week, with an added fee of 10$ per irony detected, or the MaxIrony all-you-can-meter, which has a monthly fee of 2000$, but will cost you only 5$ per irony!
Additional fees for detecting Irony from organizations that have no direct affiliation with BigIron costs an additional 15$ per detected irony.
Pricing model subject to change.
Have a nice day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh damn, I just read the ToS, section 2140-Ak2,
"No claim you make will be paid".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad
The only outcome for the internet is to be reformed to be the same as telephone lines as that is all it really is.. a method to access data over the internet.If an isp cannot supply the bandwidth they have sold to customers they must be forced to upgrade there systems or lower their prices accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think we know who Blackburn represents
Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Association of Broadcasters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to fix it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's in the interest of everyone that networks work well and that honest, healthy competition improves service and drives down costs, while limiting the bad behavior of large network gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on...
Ok...here's the fun part...I sincerely believe that the FCC will reclassify ISP's as common carriers if they DO NOT behave at all...If I recall correctly, the last time they did this to an entire industry was because phone companies were charging hourly rates on long distance modem connections...and charging customers on their phone bills for using another company's lines...My parents also remember a time when the phone companies had an oligopoly similar to what the major ISP's have now...and they all split up into individual companies on the orders of the FTC...Maybe this is the same process the FCC has in mind...slow and sneaky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hold on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hold on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]