FCC's Wheeler Says That If These Lame Net Neutrality Rules Don't Work, He'll Implement The Real Rules Next Time
from the oh-really? dept
Following his weak attempt to diffuse concerns about his bogus "open internet" rules, FCC boss Tom Wheeler has decided to try again, by basically repeating what he said last week with slightly stronger language about how he won't let broadband providers violate net neutrality. Of course, as many people have explained, the problem is that the new rules clearly aren't strong enough, and leave open all sorts of ways to kill off basic neutrality online. Of course, the real problem is that the original 2010 "open internet" rules (which were really crafted by the telcos in the first place) didn't really protect net neutrality in the first place, and the new rules are basically an even weaker version of those rules. But, have no fear, claims Wheeler, if these rules don't work, he promises he'll actually pull out the big gun, Title II, and reclassify broadband players as telco services rather than information services, allowing the FCC to put them under common carrier rules....all regulatory options remain on the table. If the proposal before us now turns out to be insufficient or if we observe anyone taking advantage of the rule, I won’t hesitate to use Title II. However, unlike with Title II, we can use the court’s roadmap to implement Open Internet regulation now rather than endure additional years of litigation and delay.There is some truth in what he's saying. Basically, the appeals court ruling that rejected the previous rules did lay out a roadmap for rules that would be deemed more acceptable under the current classification, and Wheeler's plans appear to be to do exactly what the court suggested. And, to some extent he's right that this is the fastest way to get some kind of rules in place. But considering that they're even more watered down than the original, with the new "required" language leaving enough loopholes to make them meaningless, it almost seems like why bother. The best we could hope for is that Wheeler is actually trying to use the Ed Felten-like concept of "the best form of net neutrality" being one where there aren't any actual rules, but a constant threat of rules being enforced if the broadband providers stray too far.
But there's a problem there... in that the broadband providers have already started going too far, and they seem to keep pushing the boundaries further and further each time, without the FCC doing anything, (and in ways that don't directly impact those "open internet" rules). Also, while Wheeler is right that going the Title II route would create a legal (and political) shitstorm leading to many years of litigation and delay, the same may be true of his new rules. After all, he's only putting them forth after a four-year legal battle over the old rules.
But the biggest issue is that the FCC still doesn't seem to realize how the broadband providers have been increasingly chipping away at net neutrality anyway, without any pushback at all. As DSL Reports details, the FCC seems to think that all network neutrality violations are big and obvious, when the reality is quite different:
...the problem is that these days -- net neutrality violations are significantly more clever, and usually come dressed up as market innovation or security or network integrity efforts. Historically, if the FCC can't simply and cleanly prove without a shadow of a doubt that an ISP is acting anti-competitively, the agency simply doesn't bother doing much of anything (see Verizon Wireless's anti-competitive behavior on any number of issues or AT&T's ability to block legitimate video services as prime examples).Promising to pull out the Title II gun is talking big for a government agency that has been big on talk, but has little history of action. And thus, it's a threat that doesn't seem to have much weight.
What's considered "commercially unreasonable" is also going to be open to immense ambiguous interpretation. Wheeler for example seems perfectly ok with the increasingly ugly interconnection and peering fights arising between Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Netflix, and has stated these won't be included in the rules. He also seems similarly tone deaf to the potential pitfalls facing wireless courtesy of concepts like AT&T's Sponsored Data, which critics charge will result in deep-pocketed companies (like ESPN) getting a huge leg up on smaller companies that can't afford AT&T's toll to be listed as "cap free" content.
Wheeler's comments to date strongly suggest his threshold for what's going to be considered anti-competitive behavior will be stratospherically-high, and as is the case now -- carriers will still be able to get away with anti-competitive behavior provided they're relatively clever about it.
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, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
ISPs should be reclassified. Not as a telco, and not as a utility, but as a data transmission service, which is completely new and can be regulated how the FCC deems fit.
Because there's no difference in data when it's all digital.
Oh, and this means we can stop paying up to 3x for the same service from those ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
because they have done such a great job regulating things in the past?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously, the USA's greatest regulator in history, Theodore Roosevelt, would be outraged if he saw what was going on with the cable industry today.
Pity there aren't many politicians/officials like him these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
yup - dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Classifying them as a utility makes more sense. Much of the regulation for how to handle a utility is already written. And like the old utilities of electric and water companies, it's very expensive, time consuming, and difficult to set up your own competing ISP. That's why there's been a severe lack of competition among the ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's call a spade a spade. ISPs fill the role of public utilities; let's legally recognize (and regulate) them as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I totally will next time if the dog licking it doesn't clean it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Later
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Dunno
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's face it, Wheeler is first and foremost a lobbyist, so I would assume sucking up to anyone who'll fill his pockets post-FCC is going to be his biggest concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheeeeeler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
man has been told what to do here and it sure as hell aint to help the people/customers!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
'Next time' is referring to a time after he has left the FCC for his retirement position on the board of a telco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Title II (?)
According to Wikipedia Title I is "Telecommunication Services", not Title II as referenced in the article.
Title II is defined as "Broadcast Services", which sounds a lot like the bundling of channel packages we see on cable tv. Bundling of website packages from isp's is not the direction I would like to see the internet move toward.
The distinction of Title I or Title II has huge implications -- I'm pretty sure we want Title I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not going to happen
The established telcos will never allow ISPs to be given the rights of common carriers. They will $$$lobby $$$hard.
Because of that ISPs will never be common carriers. Hence the FCC will never regulate them.
I used the word never on purpose. It upset my ex-wife. It upsets me. It should upset you. It's still fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not going to happen
No, it's a prediction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cogentco.com/en/news/press-releases/631-cogent-offers-to-pay-capital-costs-incur red-by-major-telephone-and-cable-companies-necessary-to-ensure-adequate-capacity
So the violations of the FCC's new rules, or lack thereof, are already occurring before Wheeler can even write up the new FCC net neutrality 'rules'.
Chairman Tom Wheeler, is a former lobbyist for the wireless and internet broadband companies. His current actions strongly suggest he never left that lobbying position.
How can we expect a lobbyist to not turn a deaf ear to complaints about net neutrality violations? I don't trust his pinky swear promises asking us to 'trust him now' and 'maybe I'll do something positive in the future'. Their nothing but empty promises from a lobbyist as he swings around in the revolving door or corruption.
We're screwed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He needs to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]