Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise To Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'
from the nice-knowin'-ya dept
We've already noted how large ISPs are licking their chops on reports that the incoming Trump-led FCC plans to not only gut net neutrality, but to defang and defund the FCC also. Most of Trump's telecom advisors have direct ties to telecom; one, former Sprint lobbyist Mark Jamison, doesn't think telecom monopolies are real. Verizon lawyer turned current FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is rumored to be the most likely candidate for future FCC boss, and just last week proclaimed that net neutrality's days are numbered under Trump.Just in case the nation's incumbent ISPs didn't get the message that "happy days are here again" for Comcast, AT&T and friends, Pai and fellow FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly penned a letter this week to the telecom industry's five largest lobbying groups, proudly proclaiming that the new FCC will attempt to put net neutrality on the chopping block "as soon as possible":
"[W]e will seek to revisit [the disclosure] requirements, and the Title II Net Neutrality proceeding more broadly, as soon as possible," they wrote, referring to the order that imposed net neutrality rules and reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Pai and O'Rielly noted that they "dissented from the Commission's February 2015 Net Neutrality decision, including the Order's imposition of unnecessary and unjustified burdens on providers."Of course if you've actually paid attention you'll recall that net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support among consumers, and companies like Comcast have let slip that neutrality -- and the shift to Title II -- really have had little actual impact on their businesses despite ample hand-wringing among sector giants. And of course the rollback of Title II won't just impact net neutrality, it would hamstring the FCC as broadband consumer watchdog entirely, demolishing efforts like the FCC's recently passed privacy rules that simply require ISPs are transparent about data collection and provide working opt-out tools.
Pai and O'Rielly will have a 2-1 Republican majority on the FCC after the departure of Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler on January 20. Pai previously said that the Title II net neutrality order's "days are numbered" under Trump, while O'Rielly said he intends to "undo harmful policies" such as the Title II reclassification."
This disconnect between what consumers want and what ISPs want will prove tricky for Pai and friends, who'll face major bureaucratic difficulties and a significant activist backlash in trying to roll back the rules. Doing so will require a lengthy, new comment period, during which the media and activists would only highlight how Pai and O'Rielly are undermining the very innovation they often pay empty lip service to.
As such, you can expect some impressive theatrics in the new year. This will likely come in the form of a Communications Act rewrite or another bill that professes to adore net neutrality, but actively works to undermine the entire concept via the law. Much like the eleventh hour faux-neutrality bill pushed last year by Senator John Thune and Representative Fred Upton, this legislation will almost certainly contain ample, intentional loopholes, will only ban the most egregious violations (like outright banning websites, which no ISPs would do), and will act to formally make non-net neutrality the law of the land.
It will then attempt to declare the matter settled, ignoring the lack of competition that makes such violations possible in the first place. This kind of net neutrality trojan horse is something Wheeler warned about last week when he announced his January 20 resignation as current boss of the agency:
"Wheeler mostly declined to speak about the Trump administration's potential policies but said he hopes that net neutrality rules that forbid blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization will survive. One possibility is for Congress to eliminate Wheeler's net neutrality rules and impose a new, weaker version. "I hope that if there is legislation, that it is net neutrality in more than name," and "not some kind of false labeling where net neutrality rules are actually gutted under the name of being net neutrality," Wheeler said."Whatever form this new proposal takes you can be certain it will feature breathless adoration of consumers, innovation, and broadband competition -- while actively undermining all three.
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: ajit pai, fcc, mike o'rielly, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cause they have been doing just a bang up job so far amiright? The FCC was originally designed to be a paid whore for the industry. Ever since 'The Dingo' tried to do something about it we all got a front row seat learning who really owns the FCC.
This problem is not going away because the solutions that are being proposed are just as bad or worse than the destruction of the FCC. The new rules sucked, the FCC was still weak, and the FTC did not give a shit. The industry ran over and wined to Congress and the FCC was blocked. The citizens bitch an moan, but still keep their congress critters for the most part and instead fawn and flop over who the next president will be like a bunch of obtuse and clueless political sycophants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You come to every comments section and bitch about how the FCC needs to be destroyed, but that you want a proper regulatory body in its place. I really don't understand how you are crazy enough to think that fixing the FCC is the less preferable alternative to tearing down and recreating a regulatory agency...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulators are Divine
What is ignored is that this Net-Neutrality is a major new expansion of Federal government power & control over the internet -- which is exactly opposite to the claimed purposes of Net-Neutrality (an open internet with free expression, content and innovation).
The FCC now established that only "legal content" is permissible on U.S. fixed and mobile internet; "illegal" content will necessarily be prohibited and punished. Guess who now can decide what is legal & illegal content on the internet --- a few unelected and unaccountable FCC chair-warmers.
Tremendous police powers of cultural & political censorship and internet economic control have now been handed to FCC employees. That is not an 'open-internet' recipe, as so many people believe Net-Neutrality will deliver.
If you completely trust the Federal government and love how the FCC has greatly benefited citizens over the past century... then all is well with Net-Neutrality.
But if you think otherwise... perhaps Net-Neutrality has a few serious flaws that must be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulators are Divine
The exact wording of the Net-Neutrality legal documents does.
The FCC clearly states that "legal content" is now the only standard for permissible internet content. FCC tomorrow could declare all streaming-music on the internet as non-legal content, or same with R-rated movies, or Scientology teachings... the possibilities are endless with that kind of regulatory power.
You see no problem at all with that now because you are unfamiliar with the sordid history of FCC.
Power corrupts. Think 10 or 20 years down the road and what creative politicians could do with this open-ended power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
So, to reply, your uninformed opinion on the law carries no weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
while others are talking about wtf the term actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
- The public power monopoly that provides us all our electricity
- The municipal water utilities that provide us clean water
- The national weather service that provides us regular forecasts
- The national aeronautics and space administration that launches satellites into space that perform all manner of useful functions
- The US department of agriculture that provides us safe food
- The food and drug administration that ensures we don't kill ourselves with our pills
- The national institute of standards and technology, the US naval observatory, and the US congress that help ensure all our clocks run accurately
- The national highway traffic safety administration that makes sure all our cars do not come from Honest Jon's Dealership
- The local, state, and federal departments of transportation that maintain our roadways
- The environmental protection agency that ensures our gasoline is of proper quality
- The federal reserve bank that issues legal tender
- The fire marshal's inspections and the local and state building codes that make sure our houses remain standing
- The local police departments that ensure our houses are not mysteriously empty when we return to them
I mean, the only other explanation is that some political group has been pushing propaganda that all forms of government are bad and inherently corrupt, except for the forms they provide. And you'd have to be a real sucker to fall for something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
In case you didn't know it has been deregulated and I highly suggest if you can, go choose another power provider. They will be more than happy to lock you into an "introductory rate" which happens to be a bit higher than the ole public power monopoly you were paying, then after the introductory period expires watch your bill increase 300%, and when asked why, the electric provider will cite "market fluctuations" but when called out on that no market had fluctuated 300 FUKING PERCENT... ahem, excuse me. That no market had changed to account for a 300% increase in the electric charge, they will then cite their representatives saying they said you were paying a varying rate. As if all utilities don't have a varying rate.
Long story long, and 3 reports to the FTC later the charges were reduced to a fair market rate and I was never so happy to go back to the public power monopoly that provides energy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
Cool story though. People these days have forgotten that government regulation is mandatory for a lot of a country's basic functions. When you deregulate things... well, you already know from experience what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
I'm not trying to pile on, because I am also a "less government / regulation is probably better" kind of person, but The umbrella that Title II put over the ISP's was in an already heavily regulated area and did far less to expand the regulations than it did to simply add clarity to them. In addition, the ISP's themselves had already been (and continued to) treat their services under Title II when it was beneficial to them but pretend it did not apply when it was inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
Not even a minor one. Funny how no real world examples are given, you are just supposed to believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
Bullshit.
Try again, without the strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Regulators are Divine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
It is a means whereby the ISP is stopped from from deciding what services and content you can get to over the connection that they give you. It has very little to directly do with provision of the connection, as without net neutrality, every provider of a connection could decide which services and content you can use, and divide up the Internet in such a fashion that you need a service from all of them to experience the complete Internet.
Also, and zero rating is the start, an ISP can create bundles of Internet services and content, and charge you for every bundle, and you can be sure that they will put the popular services in different bundles, so that they can sell you more bundles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
Also - spell checker is your friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regulators are Divine
Says the guy who just wrote "legalize" when he meant "legalese".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We live in a Plutocracy. It is quite easy to get something passed. Just pay the right people a lot of money and you can get your law passed. And if that isn't enough, just find someone able to put in more votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Congress has shifted from being a group of elected lawmakers to being a group of elected gatekeepers... the lawmakers are mostly* now private lobbyists.
*Every once in a while, we get someone in the House who actually wants to make their mark on the country and write something themselves, but this is rare, as their resources are extremely limited these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When I clicked your link this is what populated:
http://www.https.com//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto
Can has HTML PLZ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O'Reilly's term expires November 4, 2018.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Net Neutrality
I do not seem to be getting enough spam robocalls. As a concerned citizen I want to urge you to take measures to improve this situation.
Please help me FCC, you're my only hope.
Sincerely,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Telecom monopolies may not be real...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Telecom monopolies may not be real...
what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Telecom monopolies may not be real...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Telecom monopolies may not be real...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]