Neutrality Opponents Hope To Use Bickering Congress To Thwart FCC Neutrality Rules
from the dysfunction-junction dept
When ISPs responded to President Obama's belated support of Title II based neutrality rules, one of the key refrains was that the FCC was a bunch of "unelected representatives" and we really should rely on a bickering, divided Congress to solve net neutrality for us. AT&T, for example, proclaimed it would sue over FCC Title II rules and that protecting consumers is a decision "more properly made by the Congress." Comcast similarly agreed, insisting that such a "radical reversal of consistent contrary precedent should be taken up by the Congress." Obviously it's not Democracy these companies are interested in as much as it is the knowledge they have the majority of Congress comfortably tucked away in their back pockets.And indeed, right on schedule, campaign cash hungry politicians are stumbling over themselves to please AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- and are looking for any and every Congressional option to prevent the FCC from imposing real neutrality rules. Senator John Thune is among several lawmakers looking for a "legislative fix" to hamstring the FCC. Rep. Bob Goodlatte is similarly looking to craft rules that hinder the FCC's ability to act. Other politicians are looking to curtail the FCC's already dwindling funding.
As we've long noted, the fact that neutrality is now seen as a partisan issue is ridiculous, as all neutrality supporters are looking for is are rules that protect consumers and keep the Internet healthy, something that benefits everyone. Still, the GOP specifically has been pushing for the last year to rewrite The Communications Act (mostly to the benefit of the AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and MPAA's of the world), and that effort is now going to be used to fight a very vocal proxy war against the FCC and Title II neutrality rules:
"House Republicans have spent more than a year reviewing possible changes to the Communications Act, which was last updated in the mid-1990s, and the new Senate GOP majority is expected to begin a similar process in 2015. Already, there are signs the party is eager to transform the debate into a proxy war over net neutrality.Of course what Thune means when he says "modernized" is a new Communications Act that strips away the lion's share of dwindling regulatory authority and lets the incumbent ISPs run amok in the uncompetitive broadband playground previous ISP-lobbyist-written laws helped create. The same folks who insist they're only looking out for the health of the market are the same individuals willfully oblivious to the lack of health in the uncompetitive broadband market, or the fact that letting lumbering duopolists literally write telecom law might not be the healthiest option when it comes to giving innovators or healthy markets a leg up.
"Each time it has tried to regulate the Internet, the FCC has been overruled by the courts because existing telecommunications laws were written decades ago for a completely different era," the Thune spokeswoman said. “The most straightforward approach would be for Congress to update and modernize those laws to take into account technological transformations while not discouraging the private-sector investment and innovation that is critical for consumers and our nation’s modern economy."
For a moment there it looked like neutrality supporters had all of the momentum in getting tougher rules passed, resulting in a SOPA-esque groundswell of support for Title II protections. While Wheeler's certainly justified in taking time to get the rules right -- his delays are opening the window to a million and one legislative, political and public relations efforts to neuter his agency before his rules (whether that's hybrid or pure Title II) even get their grand unveiling. The next FCC meeting isn't until January 29, 2015, and it's possible that Wheeler's proposal may not see the light of day until March.
Until then, we'll get to enjoy a shitshow where the big ISPs pay friends in Congress to push draft legislative "fixes" written by ISP lobbyists under the pretense they're engaged in a noble battle against the menace of government over-reach. In reality for many neutrality opponents in Congress it's simply about protecting the duopoly stranglehold on uncompetitive markets, and the ability to use that stranglehold to develop new and creative ways to raise rates and thwart competitors. Of course Presidential veto and partisan bickering mean none of these efforts are likely to get very far, and this may just be an instance where the inability of Congress to actually accomplish anything of worth may wind up helping consumers.
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: communications act, congress, fcc, john thune, net neutrality, open internet, telecommunications act
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So.... business as usual then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't even try to pretend anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legislative gridlock is a design feature of the system, not a bug. It has unfortunate consequences in some cases, but it is meant to block anything from being done where agreement (and preferably consensus) cannot be reached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
yes legislative gridlock is a benefit... that most fail to recognize, but you will find there is a lot less of it than you think.
when it comes to removing freedom and giving their business donors the good stuff you will find that both parties are the same. The repukes have fooled the conservatives into thinking that this is a good thing, while the demtards fool their liberals by saying one thing yet doing what the repukes had the brass to say in the beginning, while putting lipstick on a pig har har.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working as designed?
At which point he adopts a sad, 'Well, I tried' face, and moves into working directly for the ISP's, like his predecessor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Working as designed?
You will find a lot of politicians that finally "get it" after having a nice sit down and discussing thing with the "lobbyists" and finally understanding it all.
This behavior and all of those pork spending bills are literally tools to get "opposition" to vote for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so very long ago...
Still, South Dakota has been very 'company friendly' more recently, for better or worse. Hopefully, though, he can be convinced that this is one of those 'for worse' cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we can rename the Communications Act to Comcast Act while we are at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Satisfaction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
useful idiots
One has to wonder why we've suffered without regulation for this long! Oh, the depravity of unregulated internet!
Do you people hear yourselves?
It's one thing to make your argument and debate; quite another to deny there's any reasonable opposition at all.
Ultimately, as with so many other regulations, the benevolent regulators and their infinite wisdom will only end up serving the biggest corporations. Barriers to entry are raised and innovation is stifled as newcomers get shutdown for failure to ask permission before introducing new technologies or new services. This is why opposition from ISPs is lukewarm, at best. You are their useful idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: useful idiots
when was the last time Congress actually passed a law with the people in mind, even legalization of marijuana is $$$ motivated, and convenient to those with greed, and power to enact bought, paid and written laws.
your country is now an international joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: useful idiots
Are you saying that isn't how it is now, but Title II reclassification will make it that way? Not sure what your point is other than you hate the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: useful idiots
You mean like how it's been 'working itself out' for the past good number of years, as the ISP's grow bigger and bigger, and put the screws to their customers more and more to squeeze out every last cent, sure in the knowledge that for the vast majority of their 'customers', they have no choice but to take it, because there is no other option?
One has to wonder why we've suffered without regulation for this long! Oh, the depravity of unregulated internet!
Okay, so you don't want regulation? Alright, deal, Title II is off the table, the ISP's no longer have to worry about it, or any other regulations.
Of course, in exchange, there will be a few additional things that will be removed.
For example, no more tax breaks or subsidies for them. No more special treatment when installing their lines. No more use of public spectrum. Every law written by, or for, the major ISP's will be stricken from the books(something that I imagine will be a cause of great joy to those towns/cities/ISP's that were previously barred from offering service in an area).
No government interference, means no government assistance, they don't want to deal with any strings, then they don't get to enjoy what those strings were attached to.
Sound like a good deal to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: useful idiots
Ah, so corporations would finally receive "people" status!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This isn't about just anybody opposing NN, it's about ISPs. And they're certainly not doing it in good faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Truly, the ones in charge of the major ISP's get up every morning with one thought, and one thought alone in their minds, 'How can I boost customer satisfaction and improve service to my customers, while offering them the cheapest possible rates?'.
Why, if a customer ever received anything but perfectly stellar service from them, they will quickly spring into action, and move heaven and earth to make things right for their customers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then they laugh and laugh and laugh, while lovingly stroking their cash safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]