Ted Cruz Doubles Down On Being Wrong: Pushes Yet Another Net Neutrality Killing Bill
from the freedom* dept
Eager to ignore the broad, bipartisan support net neutrality enjoys, nine GOP Senators this week introduced legislation that would kill the FCC's net neutrality rules. Senator Mike Lee's "Restoring Internet Freedom Act" would prohibit the FCC from classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act and "from imposing certain regulations on providers of such service." In other words, it's a parallel attempt to kill net neutrality in Congress while FCC boss Ajit Pai tries to kill the rules via FCC process.
Lee didn't release the text of the bill, but it's expected to look very similar to a 2016 bill he introduced during the 114th Congress with the same 8 co-sponsors. Lee tries to argue in a statement over at his website that his bill is necessary to keep "bureaucrats" away from "engineering the internet's infrastructure":
But now this engine of growth is threatened by the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Open Internet Order, which would put federal bureaucrats in charge of engineering the Internet’s infrastructure. That is why I am introducing the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would nullify Open Internet Order and prohibit the FCC from issuing a similar rule in the future.
You'll likely be shocked to learn that the only "freedoms" being restored here belong to companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. Said companies have spent the better part of a decade and millions of dollars on a quest for zero oversight of one of the least competitive sectors in American industry.
Should the rules die, AT&T will once again have the freedom to block you from using certain services unless you subscribe to a more expensive broadband tier. Comcast can use its unnecessary usage caps and overage fees to make competing services more expensive for its customers to use. Companies like Verizon can get back to intentionally letting peering points congest to make content and transit companies pay them more money than ever for the honor of reaching Verizon subscribers.
Somehow, Lee thinks that gutting the already too-modest rules preventing this kind of behavior will somehow increase "permissionless innovation." That makes zero coherent sense.
These abuses aren't theoretical. They've either already happened or are happening now. And FCC boss Ajit Pai's ingenious "solution" is to eliminate modest and widely supported rules and replace them with "voluntary" guidelines companies like Comcast will ignore. The idea that net neutrality is simply an issue of government "overreach" plays well to knee-jerk partisans that aren't informed on the subject, but it doesn't become any less false with repetition. In reality, the FCC has spent fifteen years turning a blind eye to the problem of limited competition, and the 2015 rules, if anything, didn't go far enough.
A few years ago, when Tom Wheeler began bucking 15 years of bipartisan FCC precedent by actually doing his job, you'll recall that Senator Ted Cruz was widely ridiculed for his claim that net neutrality was "Obamacare for the internet." Despite even Republican engineers informing him this narrative couldn't be more inaccurate, Cruz (a bill co-sponsor) took the opportunity this week to double down. According to Cruz, he was being incredibly and intentionally misleading to "raise awareness":
"My comments (equating net neutrality to "Obamacare") were intended to raise awareness of this unprecedented government power grab, which the Obama administration and its friends at the FCC were attempting to quietly accomplish. I am proud to work with my friend Mike Lee on the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, a bill that rolls back former President Obama's power grab, protects open internet principles, and recognizes the transformative effect that the internet has had on our lives, generating billions of dollars of new economic activity and millions of jobs, largely free of government’s heavy hand. We must preserve a free and open internet, and give stability to the companies and users operating within the internet ecosystem."
Yes, let's "preserve a free and open internet" by letting giant broadband monopolies cap, throttle, restrict and otherwise hamstring the endless startups, entrepreneurs, content companies and consumers that use the internet everyday. You'll notice that folks like Cruz are quick to heap praise on the miracle of the modern internet, but are comically incapable of admitting the threat that limited competition is posing to said miracle. Obviously, if you admit there's a problem, then you might just have to do something about it. And deep-pocketed campaign contributors Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon sure as hell don't want that.
As Mike just got done pointing out, net neutrality opponents have a gameplan you need to understand. Step one is for Ajit Pai to play bad cop and threaten net neutrality via FCC rollback. Step two is for Congress to come to the rescue with a "compromise" bill (actually written by Comcast and friends, of course) that promises to "solve" net neutrality once and for all -- but is packed with so many loopholes, caveats and contingencies to be worse than no rules at all. If this bill doesn't do the trick, giant ISPs will ensure there's a flood of similar proposals waiting in the wings.
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, mike lee, net neutrality, ted cruz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politician Doubles Down on Being Wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are no saints in congress but the GOP is about as far removed from the common man as I am from an ant. And so, yet again, here we are only with net neutrality and ISP's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, I do completely agree with you hate for the GOP to allow companies to use these idiots as patsies to drum up damaging business practices and sell them around for more than they are worth.
"There are no saints in congress but the GOP is about as far removed from the common man as I am from an ant."
See, this is also problematic, the GOP is not close to alone in this regard. The D's & R's are both entirely removed from the common man. Both parties so trash to such a degree that acting like one is somehow better than the other is pretty telling about folks.
Choosing between the two parties is like choosing your method of suicide.
Do you want to die in a vat of acid or would you prefer a nuclear reactor chamber instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When internet privacy was up for a vote only Republicans voted to sell the public out
It's Republicans who want to gut as many rules stopping corporate abuse of the environment and the public as possible.
You didn't have Obama appointing people to agencies they want torn down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well I am sorry that you are too stupid to realize that D's are able to sucker you so much.
Tell you what man, I love you, I will take care of you, now give me your bank account because I am going to put a whole lotta money into it after I steal it from from rich folks.
This has been the Democrat con for decades, promising the poor and uneducated plebs, that they will solve their problems by stealing from the rich and helping them out with "programs". Despite having democrats in charge plenty of times, minorities are still destitute and clueless.
"Damn playing you idiots like a fiddle is easy!"
~A Democrat & A Republican
George Washington warn us from the start what would happen if we stick to this party bullshit. People like you, without a damn clue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let me give you a direct hint. The Democrats lie to you, make you think they care about you, they write laws that "look" like they are what you want, but wind up being something else in actual result.
There is a whole group of people that do stuff like that for entertainment purposes. Grifters, most politicians are professional Grifters. All of them distract you with something shiny to divert your attention away from the real actions they are taking.
You should also go and read up on George Washington. Just supporting a political party is a problem of its own and George describes that problem well in his farewell address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm sorry that you're too stupid to realize that we're talking about net neutrality, a subject where there is quite clearly and inarguably a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You win the solid gold stupid prize. Enjoy!
I told you a long time ago during the Bamy administration, that this was going to happen. You didn't listen or believe me then, so why would you change your lame tune now?
Hey, look on the bright side, there will be another snake-oil salesman to say stuff you will like without actually doing anything meaningful coming along again. Just be patient and wait for them. I predict just like Obama helped Trump win, Trump will help his next replacement look even better than the last one too!
Dammit was George spot, the fuck, on. A 200+ year old prediction right before our very eyes and people are still clueless as fuck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What the fuck are you talking about, you gibbering gibbon?
Democrats favor net neutrality; Republicans oppose it. The reason net neutrality regulations passed a few years ago is that the President was a Democrat. The reason net neutrality regulations are being rolled back now is that the President is a Republican, and so are the majorities in Congress.
I agree with Washington's statement about political parties (and, like many people who graduated high school, I was well aware of before you started repeating it every five minutes because you think it makes you sound smart). I'm a registered independent. There are a lot of things the Democratic Party does that I absolutely despise. But everybody in the FCC or Congress who is trying to roll back net neutrality is a Republican. That is not my opinion. It is a fact.
And for the record, asshole, you didn't tell me shit "a long time ago during the Bamy administration" and I have not "changed my tune"; I've only been posting in this comments section since last summer. You can tell because I use my real name. I've got an excuse for not knowing if I'm talking to the same guy I was yesterday (is George Washington Guy the same guy as Every Nation Guy and All Regulations are Negative guy, or is this site infested with a bunch of different idiots spouting the same dumb-ass catchphrases day after day?); you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't get me started on Flint, fracking, and the AHCA debacles. Stealing from the rich! Stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This seems to be a popular meme recently on many sites I visit - Trump supporters, when faced with the reality of how horrible their choice actually is, claim that it doesn't matter because the other party would be equally horrible. It doesn't matter how easily disproven this claim is, as long as they can wave away any activity as being inevitable rather than the direct result of their horrible decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They really don't like reality much, do they?
It's happening over here now. Yesterday I had to school this English bloke who told me (with, I imagine, a completely straight face) that colonialism was a beneficial thing for the natives of the colonised countries... until I pointed out that as an Irish woman, I'm one of them and no it flippin' wasn't, so there.
I'm writing a blog post at the moment on morality in political discourse. You may think echo chambers are bad but each echo chamber/political tribe has its own morality; left-leaning (meaning, "Not frothing at the mouth with rage against non whites and poor people") morality tends to be about the public good while right-wing morality tends to be about the freedom to be a git at all times. Attitudes like his tend to catch my attention because I'm seeing it more and more these days. I don't like where our societies are going and hope there's a way to turn things back. I liked it better when we cared more about each other and when thinking that this is a great weakness was an a bad guy thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not being dishonest, you don't understand what happened.
1. I sign up for a credit card under specified terms. Agreed to by both parties.
2. Congress rewrites bankruptcy legislation that, in effect, changes the terms of the agreement.
In other words, I sign an agreement for a certain amount of money at a certain interest rate. There is a risk that I won't pay it back, file bankruptcy, hence the higher interest rate. All of that goes into the calculation and an agreement is signed.
Later, because they can, banks get congress to reform the bankruptcy laws so that it's harder to discharge the debt in bankruptcy. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game, something they've done a lot of in the credit card game, but also in others.
The problem is that the banks are the informed party. They knew the likelihood of you declaring bankruptcy and made an agreement based on that. Sure, maybe you knew your specific situation better than they did but they know the aggregate far better than you would, plus they know all of the laws and tricks. When they didn't get the results they wanted, or thought they could increase profits, they had congress change the game to their benefit.
Also, saying the two parties are the same is nonsensical. There are a lot of issues where they should be the same, assuming scientific evidence and facts play a part in the discussion, or the the reality on the ground dictates certain things, and there are plenty of issues where it sure looks like the lobbyists are paying both sides, but to say that they are the same is nonsensical. There are some profound differences in outcomes and approaches between the two. This very issue is one of those. Tax policy, health care are two others with profound consequences and differences between the two.
Certainly, I would like to see more variety and challenges to the duopoly, but they aren't the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So no, I do not absolve the business of any guilt, I just object to your absolving the consumer of it. When you sign and give yourself to a debtor... well there you have it.
The problem with the banks and government corruption, well that could be solved as well, but voters don't want to solve it. They just want to bend the corruption they see to their political desires. Because of this, a solution cannot be had. Remember that whole you cannot solve violence with violence stuff? Well you cannot solve corruption with corruption, and right now... that is exactly what the electorate has been doing. Attempting to send different kinds of corrupt politicians to Washington in hopes they get somewhere.
"Also, saying the two parties are the same is nonsensical."
That is not nonsensical in the least. Read this article.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-1984-073111-story.html
They really are the same. They both seek to remove your rights & liberties and enslave you. Just because they disagree on the methods to achieve their objectives does not mean they are so different. The two party system in America is essentially a pair of competing bullies. Each vilify the other in different ways. Each acts as though they are innocent and honest. Each continues to grow government and oppress the people with each new law. Neither works to restore liberty or integrity to this land.
"Certainly, I would like to see more variety and challenges to the duopoly, but they aren't the same."
And this is why it will never change. Until you understand the problem you will never learn how to effectively combat the problem!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Listen, dumbass, I posted a very specific scenario, an agreement is signed, but, the legislation effectively changed the terms of the deal because it made it harder to file bankruptcy in some cases. It was done to protect the banks, not the consumer. The option to file bankruptcy is very much a part of a credit calculation and it's part of the reason credit cards carry such high interest rates, they aren't secured.
Banks didn't like the outcome so they lobbied for changes and won Republicans hearts with the idea that "responsible people pay their bills". Responsible banks, well, they change the rules after the agreement was signed.
Hey, sometimes it goes the other way, and this is always an inherent risk in these sorts of agreements, so you could technically argue that this was always a possibility, but it is changing an agreement after the fact albeit in perhaps too an abstract way for a lot of people to pick up on it.
I recognize it's a very subtle point, obviously too subtle for an internet troll, but it is what happened.
And with that, this AC returns to the shadows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Listen, dumbass, I posted a very specific scenario, an agreement is signed, but, the legislation effectively changed the terms of the deal because it made it harder to file bankruptcy in some cases. It was done to protect the banks, not the consumer."
So "politicians" writing laws are to blame and not the businesses? Look, I am well aware of THAT problem, but apparently you are not as aware as you claim to be.
When you put yourself into the cross-hairs of corrupt business men willingly, then you cannot absolve yourself of blame.
"Banks didn't like the outcome so they lobbied for changes and won Republicans hearts with the idea that "responsible people pay their bills". Responsible banks, well, they change the rules after the agreement was signed."
Okay, sycophant, the TARP funds that Obama admin doled out were just exactly nothing amiright? O wait, I keep forgetting, it is okay if "MY" guy does corrupt stuff but not the "OTHER" guy. Are you getting the picture yet? You are, apparently, in tacit approval of this whole mess, just pissed that it came out differently than you wanted! You cannot fight corruption with corruption. You lose every time, get it through your head.
"I recognize it's a very subtle point, obviously too subtle for an internet troll, but it is what happened."
I get it, you lack the capacity to understand what I am telling you, therefore I am now a troll. It figures you would resort to name calling, but hey, I am all for that shit! Bring it on!
Remember student, life is the teacher, and you are currently failing the class. Enjoy, you can create any pseudo reality you think you can hide in, but it will not save you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you put yourself into the cross-hairs of corrupt business men willingly, then you cannot absolve yourself of blame.
Here endeth the lesson: consume and die quietly, peon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
net neutrality
Net Neutrality is in reality GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the net and the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
Without neutrality ISPs get to decide what kind of speech is or isn't acceptable on the digital landscape.
They also get to decide what kind of net reliant products and services get off the ground in a non neutral landscape
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
Look, if this were strictly about private companies and resources, you might have a case. It isn't. We're talking about companies that often have government-granted monopolies on service in the areas where they operate.
Even where there's no monopoly, houses are built with ONE phone line, ONE power connection ONE water connection and ONE gas line. So the city mandates that the "last mile" be shared with competitors.
No "Net Neutrality" on those other utilities means that they too could partner with other companies - so that only homes with the partner's brand of appliances or furnace or hot water tank gets proper service. Now that there's a data connection (via "smart meters") back to the utilities, you can bet that they want to do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
Almost all US ISP's have two businesses, delivered over the same connection, but using different technologies that belong under different rule sets; Cable TV, where they decide the content, and the Internet connectivity, where the customer should be able to decide where to go.
You would complain if your phone service controlled what business you could use it to contact, so why should you ISP be given that power?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
There's no government control of the internet with net neutrality. There's only ISP control without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: net neutrality
--You ever hear the term "natural monopoly"?--
yes I bet they have. did you also know that we don't have to allow that? Did you also know that the FCC created the blessing of that natural monopoly? So guess what, you are the one full of crap and the other guy has a better point than you.
Politicians created this problem, and you stupidly expect them to be able to solve it? Heck, how can you expect them to WANT to resolve it? They WANT it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
For your reference for me it is:
14 providers (offering a total of 67 packages)
78Mb Down / 34Mb Up
$50 per month (approx - converted from £)
Unlimited usage for anything
An I live in a fairly rural area of Northern England - tell me again how you've not got a problem over there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: net neutrality
2 providers over existing twisted pair (Sonic & ATT)
1 provider over existing CATV cable (comcrap)
2 fixed wireless (maybe, might be too far)
1 satellite provider (Hughes, with huge latency)
Only one of the TP providers and maybe one of the fixed-wireless providers will give me static IPs, which I need (and please don't argue with me about that). AFAICT none of them will install "business" service into a residence.
The basic problem with all the arguments against net neutrality are that they conflate content and carriage. Consider that after AT&T Divestiture in the 1980s (and wireline voice traffic is regulated), the *content* industry blossomed. What made it work is that the telcos were -required- to carry everyone's traffic (and they made money off that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality (also, common carriers)
Hint: think along the lines of UPS. UPS is actually not within its rights to:
as they are a common carrier at law. Why should your ISP be able to arbitrarily drop, delay (throttle), or differentially bill for (including zero rating) your packets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: net neutrality (also, common carriers)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
Net Neutrality is in reality GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the net and the content.
I hear this talking point all the time and it makes no sense to me, as someone who has actually read the open internet rules. Can you point out what in the rules means "government control of the net and content?"
Because, by my reading, it's actually the complete opposite. It's saying that neither the government nor the ISPs can control content on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
The Internet was created by the government, you fucking dope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
"I am never surprised at how fast people give up their freedoms."
Can you explain how rules that do nothing other than prevent companies from acting in anti-consumers ways is "people giving up their freedom".
"Net Neutrality is in reality GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the net and the content."
How does this braindead, anti-reality claim still get made? NN laws provide exactly zero control of either the internet or the content on it. They specifically restrict ISP behavior that would affect content delivery, but still not the actual net.
You sound just like an industry sockpuppet. I hope you are getting paid to parrot this nonsense because if you're not it means you're just profoundly ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: net neutrality
Explain why preventing ISPs from controlling traffic in order to boost their own businesses and prevent fair competition is government control.
It's not about the naming, it's the fact that you people are addressing a fictional version of what net neutrality is.
"I am never surprised at how fast people give up their freedom"
By opposing net neutrality, you're begging those freedoms to be handed to corporations, over whom you have less control than the government. I'm always surprised at how fast people like you are willing to give up control to anyone, so long as it's not the government you're so afraid of. You'll happily live as serfs, so long as you have no vote for your masters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: net neutrality
Believing such nonsense as youngtexas spouts is exactly how one puts oneself willingly into the cross-hairs of corrupt business men. Apparently it's not the liars' fault, it's ours for falling for the lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> Being Wrong
There's no need to be redundant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I've told people that voted Republican out of anger in the last election, you asked for it, now you're getting it. Don't complain because it's your own damned fault.
I'd call my own reps to voice protest over bills like this, but they're all GOP creatures and either toe the party line and alternatively anti-regulation or pro-protectionist (anti-consumer protection-*ahem* pro-deregulation-for-job-creation! & pro-corporate protection-*ahem* pro-job-creation!) or even more conservative and bigoted than the usual party line. No help there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the way Canada is defending net neutrality, it looks like Cruz escaped (giving up Canadian citizenship going into the 2016 election cycle) just in time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will be delayed, but I gotta say it
Net neutrality seems to be much more of a wild goose chase than anything. It's in an ISP's best interest to offer "all" of the internet without restriction (beyond bandwidth). It's also in their interest to differentiate themselves in the market place with "over the top" services.
No matter how many times people say it, the internet isn't suddenly going to get blocked, you aren't going to have to pay a monthly fee for Facebook, and you won't suddenly not be able to reach Techdirt unless Mike pays off the ISPs.
If that were to happen, it would (a) open the door for serious competition, and (b) lead to an insane public uprising that makes your whole SOPA deal look like a kiddie pool party.
So the real question is this: Should ISPs be allowed to offer selected over the top services? Should they be allowed to exempt these differentiating services from bandwidth charges?
For that matter, should an ISP be obligated under law to have enough peering to support every high bandwidth business model without extra charge to their customers?
It's not about neutrality. We never had that, and the internet is just fine and getting better every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This will be delayed, but I gotta say it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This will be delayed, but I gotta say it
In other words - unless you have proof that a member of TD staff is doing this, even your understandable complaint about your handle being used by others is full of lies and pathetic delusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]