Senator Thune Begins Pushing A 'Net Neutrality' Bill That's Likely To Kill Net Neutrality
from the with-friends-like-these dept
While Trump, the GOP and new FCC boss Ajit Pai really want to kill net neutrality protections for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, it likely won't happen at the FCC. As it stands, rolling back the rules via the same FCC process that birthed them would require showing the courts that things have dramatically changed since the FCC's major court win last year. Such a process would also involve another lengthy public comment period, during which the record-setting four million public comments filed during the rule creation could appear diminutive.
So if you're an ISP lobbyist looking to kill net neutrality rules, how do you accomplish this without causing a massive public shitstorm? Why you table ghost write (corrected, thanks commenters) a bill that pretends to save and protect net neutrality, while wording it to do the exact opposite, of course!
It's widely believed that the GOP intends to table a net neutrality bill sometime this year, either as a standalone bill or part of a Communications Act rewrite (with a heavy emphasis on killing the FCC's consumer-protection authority). The man likely to lead that effort is Senator John Thune, who last week took to the op-ed pages of Ars Technica to begin making his public case for such a proposal. Thune begins his sales pitch with, unfortunately, a lie:
"I am quite confident that the online experience for the overwhelming majority of users has not really changed for better or worse because of the new regulations. The Internet’s future, however, is uncertain because of ideological bureaucrats at the FCC who adopted a misguided regulatory approach that has chilled investment and offers no protections against excessive bureaucratic interference in the years ahead.
...These regulations are already having a negative impact on Internet infrastructure. While not a problem in places like Silicon Valley or New York City, 34 million Americans today lack access to broadband services at home, and there is evidence that the FCC’s onerous regulations have chilled the capital investments that are needed to deploy broadband throughout the country."
As we just got done saying, the claim that net neutrality "chilled investment" simply isn't true, no matter how many times large ISPs (and the politicians that love them) claim otherwise. Data showing growing CAPEX and earnings are all public, so it's not really particularly debatable (The Consumerist just got done doing a fantastic job once again debunking this canard). After starting with a repeatedly-debunked lie, Thune proceeds to his real goal, selling people on the idea of a new net neutrality law built by Congress:
"While the FCC’s 2015 rules may soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, the last few months have shown us all that political winds can and often do shift suddenly. The only way to truly provide certainty for open Internet protections is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. Rather than heavy-handed and open-ended regulations that stifle the Internet, we need a statute offering clear and enduring rules that balance innovation and investment for all parts of the Internet ecosystem."
So yes... in a perfect world, Congress would simply pass a net neutrality bill and enshrine the concept into law, avoiding the partisan pattycake that plagues the FCC with every administrative shift. But this world not being ideal, and one where companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have incredible power over lawmakers, the chance of Congress passing useful net neutrality protections is virtually non-existent. Thune, as a major recipient of telecom industry cash, of course knows this. But Thune dismisses this reality to insist he's nobly prepared to spearhead a legislative effort to save neutrality once and for all:
"The certainty of bipartisan law transcends administrations. Over the past few months, many of my Democrat colleagues have grown to appreciate this more. Regardless of what happens at the FCC with the 2015 rules, I again stand ready to work on legislation protecting the open Internet that sets forth clear digital rules of the road for both the Internet community and government regulators."
You shouldn't buy it. Thune previously tried to kill the FCC's tougher rules with a similar proposal last year -- one that professed to "enshrine net neutrality into law," but which was so intentionally saddled with loopholes as to be useless. In fact such proposals are worse than useless in that they pre-empt the existing, more effective rules, cover only some net neutrality violations (outright blocking of entire websites, something no ISP intends or wants to do anyway), while ignoring the myriad of fronts where the real neutrality fights are happening now (zero rating, interconnection, usage caps and overage fees).
The plan is to introduce a new net neutrality law that kills net neutrality while professing to save it. When lawmakers point out that the bill does more harm than good, they'll likely be derided for refusing to "compromise." Granted with the ACA and other Congressional kerfuffles currently taking priority, this bill may take some time before large ISP lobbyists and lawmakers can finally table such legislation. But those of you that care about net neutrality need to understand one thing: net neutrality's death will come disguised as a 2017 bill pretending to save it. Likely with Thune leading the parade.
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, congress, fcc, john thune, net neutrality
Reader Comments
The First Word
“I think this is the biggest part of the problem right here. Senator Thune is conflating "the Internet" with "Internet service providers." Given their long history of abusive behavior, yes, we absolutely do want to "stifle" them as much as possible, for the good of the (actual) Internet!
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Table
US English - to table something means to take it off the table so it will not be acted on.
Please use disambiguated words so your article makes sense both on the meaningful side of the pond, and the other one. (Choose your side and this sentence still works).
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Table
Under most circumstances the ambiguity is not enough to cause that much confusion, but unfortunately sometimes the reader will have to put forth some effort to interpret based on the context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Table
Not quite right. It CAN be ambiguous, but is damn sure is not by definition.
Politicians & Lawyers just write laws that way to sucker people into thinking they did something good for you while actually not.
Kinda like the whole history of the FCC. They helped create this problem but you sycophant keep running to the FCC like they are the blessed God of net neutrality or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Table
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Table
And terms of art, by definition, are specific and clearly defined.
We are talking about a bill in the US Senate. In the US Senate, to table means to remove from consideration, which is the opposite meaning of Karl's usage in TFA. Karl's usage isn't just ambiguous; in this context it's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Table
Thanks Ed... without you I would have never known the difference.
Seriously?
Now I am off to get British car sites to stop calling the hood a bonnet.
And for the love of G why oh why do you call french fries chips? Let's stop that k? K. The only chip that matters is a Merikan greasy potato chip. And the silicone kind, but you cant eat them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Table
What you Americans call "chips" we call "crisps," because they're, like, crispy.
I particularly like the cheese and onion variety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Table
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Table
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Table
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Table
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this is the biggest part of the problem right here. Senator Thune is conflating "the Internet" with "Internet service providers." Given their long history of abusive behavior, yes, we absolutely do want to "stifle" them as much as possible, for the good of the (actual) Internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget the last word....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't forget the last word....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't forget the last word....
Low-orbit routers, mesh networks, transmit internet via ground water...something is eventually going to gain traction.
The telco-monopolies will, at some point, end up raising prices to the point that something else will be profitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't forget the last word....
Satellite technology suffers from both frequency congestion, and latency issues, which is why the telecoms industry has gone with undersea cables and fibrin links, which probably cost more that satellites to install and maintain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't forget the last word....
Today.
And actually, not really even today. I used to work at a place that had a laser-optical connection between two offices about 1/4 mile apart. There was an array on the top of each building and the connection was as fast as having run a fiber cable.
Oddly, the decision had been made to go this route because the local cable provider would not run fiber between the two locations without a charge that was almost twice what the laser system cost.
That's the kind of thing likely to kill the telco monopolies. Another "fringe" technology will come along but we prohibitively expensive, but the price of the technology will drop while they continue to raise their prices and eventually it will be cheaper and easier to switch to something new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't forget the last word....
Also, linking two building for internal traffic is not the same as linking you and your neighbors to the Internet, where you need access to the backbone infrastructure, where that much higher data density of a fibre bundle becomes very useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know, if I were the big Internet companies I'd be adding another zero to my lobbying gun against this shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For an interesting insight into the realities of Congress, watch the movie "Charlie Wilson's War."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's the problem - it's been bad enough to confuse people on tech forums who can debate openly. Now, imagine how skewed the view of a congressman is going to be when all he has is the views of industry lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.aclu.org/
https://www.eff.org/
https://www.freepress.net/
also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/
also write to your House Representative and senators
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information /senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state
and the FCC
https://www.fcc.gov/about/contact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From what I've read, phone calls are a lot more effective than letters.
A search for guide to calling representative will produce some useful tips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The comments on original article are great
Sad our "Democracy" is so openly corrupt. If enough voter & Press attention gets focused on this (prior to voting) it could get killed (about the only thing that causes legislators to legislate in the interest of the average American these days).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The comments on original article are great
If the press does report on the facts of the NN debate, it will be decried by our current leaders as "Fake News!"
Sad. Terrible ratings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NN: "Fraud and extortion are bad, mmkay?"
ISPs and those they pay: "Nuh-uh."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pick a bundle - surf with ease.
http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]