New Verizon Video Blatantly Lies About What's Happening To Net Neutrality
from the up-is-down,-left-is-right,-and-you're-a-walrus dept
Lies and hyperbole are certainly no strangers to either side of the net neutrality debate, but as the FCC moves to kill net neutrality -- net neutrality opponents have taken things to an entirely new level. FCC boss Ajit Pai's speech last week unveiling the move was utterly packed with claims that had already been painstakingly debunked over the last decade (read: lies), from the absurd claim that gutting consumer protections would somehow help consumers in the Comcast era, to the similarly untrue claim that net neutrality killed broadband investment.
Of course ISPs followed Pai's speech with a bunch of their own misleading statements. Most of them tried to claim that nothing is actually going on and even if it were -- consumers shouldn't worry because large duopolists can always be trusted to remain on their best behavior in light of no oversight. Comcast, for example, was quick to post a missive to its website trying to claim that net neutrality somehow gets better -- by killing net neutrality. Just look at the banner used by the ISP:
Yes, consumers, prepare to "enjoy" the amazing benefits of gutting nearly all oversight of one of the least competitive, least-liked, and most anti-competitive companies in the history of American industry. You're welcome!
But Verizon upped the ante and deserves some kind of award for publishing this abomination of a video to the internet:
In it, a bespectacled faux-journalist named Jeremy asks Verizon General Counsel Craig Silliman about net neutrality. The "interview" is only under way for a few seconds before Silliman drops a major lie:
"The FCC is not talking about killing the net neutrality rules and in fact not we, or any other ISP are asking them to kill the open internet rules. All they're doing is looking to put the open internet rules in an enforceable way on a different legal footing."
To be clear: this is the same company that has been trying to kill net neutrality (in any form) for more than a decade, trying to claim that a former lawyer (FCC boss Ajit Pai) isn't trying to accomplish that goal (hint: he is). And while Pai may be pushing a line of nonsense about how gutting oversight of mono/duopolies like Comcast and Verizon is somehow a major step forward, anybody that actually believes that hasn't been paying attention. Rolling back Title II obliterates the FCC's authority over broadband providers, shoveling a tiny-thread of remaining oversight to an FTC authority ISPs have already shown they can tap dance around.
Verizon, you'll recall, has historically been so opposed to even the weakest net neutrality rules, it sued to overturn the original, flimsy 2010 rules it helped write (rules, it should be noted, even Comcast and AT&T were ok with). But Silliman crafts an entirely other reality out of whole cloth, insisting that unspecified "advocacy groups" are somehow lying to the American public, leaving it to a Verizon lawyer to provide the public with THE TRUTH (TM):
"You gotta understand there's a lot of advocacy groups out there that fund raise on this issue. So how do you fund raise? You stir people up with outrageous claims. Fortunately we live in a time where people have discovered it doesn't matter what's true, you just say things to rile up the base. It's not sexy to say they're changing the legal foundation for this, it's only sexy if they say they're killing the open internet. It's not true."
Silliman then trots out an analogy that, like most net neutrality analogies, is comprised predominately of nonsense:
"Imagine in your town someone says 'I'm really concerned homeowners may prohibit people from walking up their front walks, so the mailman can't deliver mail, girl scouts can't sell cookies,' it will be chaos, right? So the mayor says I'm gonna pass a rule: I'm gonna pass a rule that no one can prohibit people from walking up their front walk. But to pass this rule, I need you Jeremy and all home-owners to give me complete authority over your property. Well, how are you going to feel about that?"
But I'm not ok giving that authority, and the Mayor may even say 'Don't worry, I won't use that authority.' But you're not comfortable giving them that, right? So, that's where we are with Title II and net neutrality."
That argument makes no coherent sense. Net neutrality is about a lot of things. It's about keeping Verizon from using usage caps to harm streaming competitors (which Verizon is already doing). It's about keeping ISPs from using their power to unfairly drive up costs for transit or content providers (they've already done that, too). Verizon and Ajit Pai's "solution" to these problems is to make it virtually impossible to hold companies like Verizon accountable should they use a lack of competition in broadband to harm competitors and consumer choice in this fashion.
Mayors and god-damned sidewalks have nothing to do with it. And what Silliman really doesn't want you to understand is that it's Verizon's fault we're here in the first place.
In 2010, the FCC passed some feeble net neutrality rules. Despite helping write them (to ensure they didn't cover wireless), Verizon sued to overturn them anyway, and won. As a result, the courts told the FCC that it needed to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II if it wanted to have the authority to enforce them, which is what the FCC did. Again, that's something you can thank Verizon for specifically. And while Verizon whines about over-reach, even the 2015 rules weren't very tough by international net neutrality standards, avoiding hard line bans on zero rating and broadband rate regulation.
The large ISPs spearheading this new assault on privacy and net neutrality protections are no stranger to using lies and hyperbole to justify eroded oversight of the uncompetitive broadband industry, but this video clearly ratchets things up to another level. Companies like Verizon are clearly feeling emboldened in the Trump post-truth era by the press' struggles to handle a tsunami of falsehoods. They also clearly hope their bare-knuckled attempt to crush meaningful consumer protections can somehow be twisted, contorted and massaged until it's perceived as a net gain for the public.
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, craig silliman, fcc, net neutrality, open internet
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Silly Man
Silly man. Tricks are for kids?
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're not lying. They're just not telling the truth.
To them, net neutrality is that the government will remain neutral with how they manage their networks. Including spying on customers. Selling customers' data. Lying. Throttling traffic. Over billing. Favoring certain protocols. Bogus made up fees. Favoring certain internet destinations that pay them under the table. Taxes on bogus fees. Harvesting customers' vital organs. Injecting ads into customer traffic. Not letting you cancel your service ever. Fees for processing taxes. Lying. Installing "management" and "optimization" spyware onto customer computers. Preventing a competitive market from emerging. Lying. Oh, and did I mention lying? Etc
ISPs like it when the government remains neutral and doesn't interfere with how they abuse their customers. Government remaining neutral to abuses is what they call net neutrality.
How do you think ISPs got to be one of the most hated businesses? Why do you think the US has the most expensive internet service? Why do you think the US ranks way down the list of countries with fastest internet speeds?
Did I mention that ISPs tell you lies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not lying. They're just not telling the truth.
Yes, they see the infrastructure as private property, and they intend to do whatever they want with it. You can see this mindset in his poor sidewalk analogy. The Mayor is the FCC, the mailman is Netflix, and the homeowner is the ISP. The people/customers/constitutes are... well... uhhh... I guess maybe they're the groceries in the ISP homeowner's fridge?
To have consumers embodied in any human role in that analogy, the ISP needs to be a guy who owns the concrete sidewalk on someone else's land. Of course that makes it entirely reasonable for the homeowners (customers) to ask the mayor(FCC) to prevent Sidewalk dude from denying people entrance to their homes. It also makes it painfully obvious why installing 10 different sidewalks in your front yard isn't a viable solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They're not lying. They're just not telling the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like what Verizon is doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fast lanes
Now what may be wrong about the following two statements:
a) this will help us get rid of traffic jams
b) this will incentivize the companies to build roads broad enough that traffic on the regular lanes will be smooth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fast lanes
Sorry, I have to ask to clarify - was that a serious question, or was the joke how obvious the answers would be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fast lanes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fast lanes
ISPs have this option even with full net neutrality. And they USE that option, selling people higher speed connections for more money. There's plenty of incentive to build a faster pipe.
No net neutrality, using your metaphor, means the road construction companies can partner with Lexus and Volvo and limit the fast lane to only those vehicles. Everyone else gets gravel and potholes. The incentive is to provide slower speed to the majority, to push them to those car brands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exceptionals ONLY
The left lanes, 1st and sometimes 2nd, are electronically controlled and use of them W/out buying a special active transponder will cost you $200-400 when machines 'read' a scofflaw's plate every few thousand feet.
Originally built and sold to Californians for ecology and to increase ride sharing, (electric and Hybrids were kicked off for a while) the State Legislators have changed them into restricted viaducts for the well-to-do. Two to fourteen persons of unknown legal nationality used-to be a permitted exception originally.
These 'Diamond' lanes remain almost completely unused most of the day on our most crowded freeway sections now.
P.S. crossing the Golden Gate bridge is not legal without an internet device or an active local transponder, GFYS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They already deliver you tube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That claim is not absurb, when the aim is help the customers pay their ISP's more for less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Misattributed to Voltaire
This was of course before the age of YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete nonsense
How the hell does a mailman walking up a driveway have any relevance in this debate? I am struggling to find even a modicum of relevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Complete nonsense
Analogy 1 (the folksy one): The sidewalk is the internet infrastructure/ISP, the mailman is data, the mayor is regulators, and the home is you, the user. The FCC is trying to take over your whole property, when all they care about is the sidewalk! But this doesn't make sense, because the government isn't trying to confiscate anything from the public, it's just trying to ensure the sidewalk is clear, which is the opposite of the point they're making.
Analogy 2 (their real interests): The sidewalk is... some portion of the ISP that is seen as relevant to net neutrality. The home is the entirety of the ISP's business, including marketing, pricing, etc, etc. The mayor is still regulators, and the mailman is whatever portion of the data is related to net neutrality. Now the government is trying to control the whole company and confiscate their property! But, now the public doesn't exist in the analogy at all, and the sidewalk doesn't connect to anything.
I guess the hope is that you feel the emotional reaction to mixing the two analogies without worrying about it making sense: suddenly the government is infringing on property rights and your home is being taken away from you! Scary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Comcast customers will enjoy strong net neutrality protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
two points
And that's exactly why he can say whatever he wants. Or how Trump got president and Ajit Pai got the FCC.
2. His analogy would be slightly more accurate saying you'there renting your home and your landlord decides to charge UPS $100 to deliver something for you, and not FedEx. Or charge you $100 a month for unlimited FedEx deliveries, while only allowing 3 UPS deliveries a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The crazy things liars say
I'm guessing they have the video embedded in a page, and don't have to worry about the politicians and investors they're selling this crap to being smart enough to know how to click through to the actual YouTube page and see the reality of it. Security through obscurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For everyone..
YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT..
For every penny paid to City and county and STATE politicians to restrict your ABILITY to have competition..
YOU PAY.
For every COMPANY that is OUT of their CIRCLE of servers, that HAS to ADD a server or pay for going THRU their service..
YOU PAY..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For everyone..
You must use a different lyrics site. Mine didn't have For Everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just false, but insulting...
Look at the monkey puppet on a string and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks...
I find it hilarious that if you go to the Comcast link above there are "0" comments and a friendly offer to "be the first to comment"...
Yeah.
I'd love to be the first to comment on that...
But having had far lesser comments removed elsewhere, than what that drivel is brewing in me, I find it hard to believe it would remain posted for more then a nanosecond.
And (so far) 60 "Likes" which either means that at least 60 senile individuals have internet access and somehow found Comcast's page, or Comcast only was able to find 60 soulless employees to click "Like", the rest having more integrity then that.
It's not just a flat out lie, it's completely and deeply insulting to sling bullshit like this at people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 likes
and
549 dislikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy
*sigh* another useful idiot who doesn't know what net neutrality is. How is is it this possible for people who are this passionate about something to think it means the reverse of what it actually does?
It even undermines your plug attempt. I mean, if you don't know the basics of the subject you're whining about, why should anyone believe your claims about the site you're shilling for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beyond depressing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]