FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public, Votes To Begin Dismantling Net Neutrality
from the ignoring-the-will-of-the-people dept
Surprising absolutely nobody, the FCC today voted 2-1 along strict party lines to begin dismantling net neutrality protections for consumers. The move comes despite the fact that the vast majority of non-bot comments filed with the FCC support keeping the rules intact. And while FCC boss Ajit Pai has breathlessly insisted he intended to listen to the concerns of all parties involved, there has been zero indication that this was a serious commitment as he begins dismantling all manner of broadband consumer protections, not just net neutrality.
As you might have expected, the FCC was quick to release a statement claiming that gutting the popular consumer protections would usher forth a magical age of connectivity, investment, and innovation:
"In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC proposes to return to the bipartisan framework that preserved a flourishing free and open Internet for almost 20 years. First, the Notice proposes to reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision to impose heavy-handed Title II utility-style government regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs) and return to the longstanding, successful light-touch framework under Title I of the Communications Act."
Except as we just got done noting, the FCC's net neutrality rules already were 'light touch." The rules were relatively basic, the FCC has consistently shown zero interest in rate regulations, the rules didn't really cover zero rating, and numerous ISP executives have candidly and clearly stated the rules didn't harm them in the slightest. As we've also noted, the plan to shift ISPs back to Title I and an over-extended FTC is a plan that ends with less accountability and oversight of some of the least competitive companies in American industry as they move to grow even larger via media megamergers.
Anybody that believes consumers, competitors or the health of the internet benefits from giving Comcast additional leeway to abuse the lack of last-mile broadband competition is either intentionally trying to mislead you, or simply hasn't been paying attention.
What happens next? Again, net neutrality isn't technically dead yet. There will be another vote later this year, followed by inevitable lawsuits -- which supporters have a good chance of winning. Today, with the formal introduction of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) the FCC should soon re-open the agency's comment system, allowing you to share your thoughts on the killing of net neutrality. And while you might be inclined to think that your thoughts on this policy decision don't matter, these comments will come in handy in the inevitable looming legal fight to come.
You see, when Pai is inevitably sued by competitors and consumer advocates, he'll need to convince the courts that things have changed dramatically enough since the FCC's appeals court victory last year to warrant such a severe reversal in agency policy (they haven't). And these public comments, which again show massive public support for the rules, only make that job that much harder for Pai to claim the move was in the public's best interest.
As a former Verizon lawyer Pai knows this, and is launching an NPRM attack on the rules in partial hope that things never get that far. We've noted how ISPs (and all the politicians, think tankers, policy wonks and "consultants" paid to love them) are pushing for a new Congressional law on net neutrality. The sales pitch for this law is that it will "put the net neutrality debate to rest" as a "compromise." The reality you're supposed to ignore is that AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter lawyers will be the ones writing it, ensuring that the loophole-packed legislative "solution" is likely worse than having no net neutrality rules at all.
The short version? The battle for a healthy, open internet is far from over. And there will, sooner or later, be notable repercussions for any regulator and politician that thought ignoring the public interest on this subject was a good idea.
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, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better start saving money for the inevitable Tiered Internet.
Do you think the telcos will go with Hulu or Netflix as the “preferred” Internet video provider?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Words matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut Pai some slack
Oh, sorry. That was the public, reading the comments, sorting the bot chaff from the wheat, and concluding that most people liked the rules. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
I warned you guys that this is what regulation does.
removes the public's seat at the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
Next he'll point at poverty and blame efforts to end poverty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
It's sad you did not see this coming, I saw this coming before even Trump got here, but everyone laughed at me when I warned them that this was coming. Well keep laughing, because that totally worked, right?
A fool and their liberty are soon parted, well shortly after their money! I hope you enjoy Ajit Pai, you asked for him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
It's the only reasonable interpretation of your "this is what regulation does" claim, considering that "this" refers to Pai's moves to deregulate.
Perhaps if you add some more insults, you'll be taken more seriously. (But don't count on it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
But the market is rigged in favour of telco monopolies who write the laws that favour them. Removing all laws pertaining to their operations won't result in a healthy internet ecosystem because the corporations effectively ARE the law and they're not going to work in our best interests.
The public isn't going to force them to compete, they need to be broken up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
Like it would've saved a lot of time and energy to just have what we had before regulations?
Yeah, you're such a visionary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
Check your facts before you spout your nonsense. Unlike most of the telecoms and related lobbyists/lobbyist-like entities, we still SUPPORT the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
there are still regulations for how can be a communications business, licenses, rules, spectrums...
Yea, still a LOT of fucking regulations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
Hey, that's not fair.
It implies that he has an alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
Something does not stop existing just because you refuse to accept it. Many others have offered alternatives, you just keep rejecting them.
But as they say... ignorance IS bliss!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
And once again, Anonymous Coward insists that there are "many" examples of people offering up alternatives, yet mysteriously forgets to include a single example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
What mystery? He only has hyperbole and insults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
Or rewrite history
DuckTales! Woo-oo!
Every day they're out there making
DuckTales! Woo-oo!
Tales of derring-do, bad and good
Luck tales! Woo-oo!
D-d-d-danger lurks behind you
There's a stranger out to find you
What to do? Just grab onto some
DuckTales! Woo-oo!
Every day they're out there making
DuckTales! Woo-oo!
Tales of derring-do, bad and good
Luck tales! Woo-oo!
Not ponytails or cottontails
No, DuckTales! Woo-oo!
In conclusion, DuckTales; woo-oo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
(...but, is there a hurricane tonight?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
When it comes to your comments, ignorance is this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,
If anything, regulation actually GIVES the public a seat which is why we have the FCC comment filing period in the first place. TO GIVE THE PUBLIC A PLACE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
But don't take my word for it, just look at the reports by ISPs stating that the 2015 Open Internet Order didn't harm investment or anything as it wasn't particularly onerous.
It was the definition of "light-touch" and I'd argue didn't go far enough to combat anti-competitive practices like data caps and zero rating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be nice to see voters in his district reminding him they submitted comments saying don't do this & he ignored them to put corporate profits over public good. We'll vote you out now, so arrange that cushy job lobbying for the cartels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless this is a case of Poe's Law in action. In which case, good job! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they won't. Just as I said over two years ago, I'll say it again here: Votes won't matter because the fight isn't in the correct arena.
While it was entertaining to see Title II pass, the only people upset by today's news are those who thought they had won.
Here's a tip: instead of running to the government, isn't it about time to grow up and take the fight directly to the ISPs?
Too bad it's a running joke now, the boycott.
Alas, it's like watching people fight against DRM while giving the very entities responsible for it concurrent record-breaking years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the hell are "concurrent years"? Are you including Martian years, alternate timelines, or do you subscribe to the theory that time is an illusion and everything is happening simultaneously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One, it's a flub, and what is meant was "consecutive".
Two, it's referring to the multiple such entities having had a record-breaking year in the same year.
Not sure which is more likely to have been meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason the ISPs are so bad is they have you over a barrel and there's nothing you can do about it other than complain to the FCC... or your Congress-Critter... both of whom now work for the big ISPs.
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The reason the ISPs are so bad is they have you over a barrel and there's nothing you can do about it other than complain to the FCC...
Bullshit.
You get people together and pick a day, say the day the FCC is set to make another vote, and declare this day that "If the FCC passes to dismantle Title II, we, the public, refuse to pay our ISP bills until the change is reverted."
To get this to work, everyone needs to follow up with it.
Businesses. People. The local Net Cafe. The Library.
E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E.
If ISPs are combining their resources to attack the public, fight fire with fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'll do it, just watch me!"
Which would be about as effective as a child telling it's parents "If you don't give me what I want I'll hold my breath until you do!".
Much like the parents in that example the ISP's are quite capable of dealing with a temporary blip in profits much easier than businesses can do without any transactions that involve the internet, people that use the internet to work are able to do without engaging in any work that isn't able to be done entirely offline and so on.
Boycotting the ISP's differs significantly from boycotting say a bus service in that unlike the ISP's someone boycotting a particular business or service in other fields has alternatives.
Refuse to use the public transit system? No a problem, you can walk, bike, set up ride-sharing, there are multiple ways you can still travel without using public transit. On the other hand, boycotting an ISP is, for many, boycotting the internet, and in a large number of cases there is no alternative. They either get their internet from the ISP you're telling them to boycott or they don't get internet.
As pointed out by JoeCool, that's the problem. Boycotting isn't going to work in this case because it's not simply a matter of doing without one thing, the internet has become so interwoven and necessary for so many things that a boycott would require doing without for all of that, and that's simply not not feasible for many, which the ISP's know.
There are other alternatives, increase competition being the chief one(which is why the current ISP's fight so hard to kill it before it can sprout), but 'boycott' simple isn't one of them, for a multitude of reasons.
(If you still want to claim that it's quite possible to do, then here's your chance to demonstrate the strength of your convictions. Do without the internet entirely for at least a week. Don't use it personally, don't do business with any shop or store that uses it, if your job requires an internet connection refuse to engage in any work that requires any online use... Do without it in every conceivable way for a week, and then come back and tell us how that worked out for you.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I'll do it, just watch me!"
1) Boycotting an ISP in many cases also means giving up cable TV. Dropping an Internet subscription while maintaining a cable subscription is the outcome that many ISPs want, and the reason Net Neutrality has become an issue is that people are dropping cable in favor of the Internet for their video entertainment.
2) The people and companies that would suffer most from an effective boycott are those small players that make the Internet such a useful and Interesting place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To get this to work, everyone needs to follow up with it.
Yes, everyone. For example, the hospitals whose monitoring systems and on-call emergency personnel operate over those networks. The pharmacy, which receives information on patient prescriptions over those networks. 911 Emergency services, which receive calls for help over those networks. The national poison control/suicide prevention/every other similar hotline which operate over those networks. The electrical utilities who use those networks to organize and distribute power generation resources. etc. etc.
To put it simply, cutting off the phone lines for one month would do far more damage to everyone else than to the cable companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A la Old-School Colbert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Triggers violence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you did not already feel strongly about.this or watch John Oliver, who would actually know to comment?
The FCC may very well be ignoring the raw majority of commentors, but that is in no way the same as the will of "the people". In as I say that, I dont believe the people have a will on this, because the vast majority is ignorant of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except that surveys -- even those funded by the cable industry -- consistently show that the majority of Americans favor net neutrality regulations.
61% polled -- again, in a poll funded by the industry -- favored net neutrality. Don't Know/No Opinion was 21%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They need to call it "Obamanet" then. In polls among Obamacare protestors, a fair number of participants polled quite favorable to the "Affordable Healthcare Act".
But then satire fails to keep up with reality: I already saw net neutrality "explained" as "think of it as Obamacare for the Internet", a rather astounding misuse of the word "think".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will of the people?
http://freebeacon.com/issues/net-neutrality-supporters-want-ban-drudge/
Not all people who "support" net neutrality even understand the implications. They don't want access to be neutral, they want the net to be neutral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will of the people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ISP's should hurt!
Kill every competitor they want, make laws, buy politicians and be dickheads... and they do it right in peoples faces... they are that powerful.
The only way to get things going in the right direction is to hurt them and with that hurt broadband investment, at least in the beginning. When the environment is suitable, competition will show up and it is then, and only then, that true innovation and progress will happen.
They have to bleed and hurt until they actually feel threatened before they actually start valuing what they have.
All this talk of sparing the "poor", "defenseless", multi-hundred-billion-in-profits-by-stomping-on-their-customers ISP's of any losses is not conducive to anything else than them becoming more powerful and worse for the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You see, when Pai is inevitably sued by competitors and consumer advocates, he'll need to convince the courts that things have changed dramatically enough since the FCC's appeals court victory last year to warrant such a severe reversal in agency policy
Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of any kind of limit on the ability of government agencies to reverse past decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this actually a thing? I've never heard of any kind of limit on the ability of government agencies to reverse past decisions.
Yes, it's very much a thing. The Administrative Procedures Act, which controls how government agencies make regulations says that you cannot make willy nilly changes:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706
Specifically, the FCC (and other agencies) have run into trouble in the past for changing regulations in a manner considered to be "arbitrary and capricious." So, for the FCC to change the rules here they have to show a clear, supportable reason that things have changed since the previous rules were put in place 2 years ago. That's... going to be difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC ignores the will of the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be silly, why would we ever listen to them?
The move comes despite the fact that the vast majority of non-bot comments filed with the FCC support keeping the rules intact. And while FCC boss Ajit Pai has breathlessly insisted he intended to listen to the concerns of all parties involved, there has been zero indication that this was a serious commitment as he begins dismantling all manner of broadband consumer protections, not just net neutrality.
Which might be true, in a technical sense. 'Listen to' doesn't mean 'care about' or 'consider the merits of' after all. I could 'listen to' some lunatic flat-earther or KKK member, but that doesn't mean I'm going to seriously pay attention to or even care what they say.
At this point I'd say it's pretty clear that Pai holds a near overwhelming contempt(or at the very least indifference) for what the public wants or thinks, so of course he's going to ignore anything that conflicts with what he has already decided on. He's scum, nothing more than a tool for those he's supposed to be keeping in check, and while there's no surprise there I just wish he was honest enough to own up to it.
"We decided not to bother with the public comment period because frankly I don't give a damn what any of you could possibly say. As such we're just going to take a few days to relax and then I'll graciously tell you what I've already decided on."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Say Killing Net Neutrality DOES Foster Industry Growth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Say Killing Net Neutrality DOES Foster Industry Growth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Say Killing Net Neutrality DOES Foster Industry Growth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a tech fight, use tech not words
That is how Uber upset the taxi cartels, and how AirBnb upset the Hotel industry.
Of course ISPs know this and are very frightened of it. That is why municipal broadband is so difficult to implement. Perhaps satellite internet is becoming a viable means of bypassing your ISP. Watch for laws banning unsightly dishes on rooftops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a tech fight, use tech not words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a tech fight, use tech not words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound shocked this would happen
FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public
Hm hum. And you sound so shocked and indignant about it. I'm not sure why. The Comcast's, AT&T's, and Verizon's are all "your pipes belong to us now" and want to be paid at least three times for the same service.
Once by the subscriber for consuming bandwidth they've already paid for. Twice by the other end of that connection. Thrice by government subsidy.
I had a co-worker from Estonia stay with me for a few months. She was shocked at how much we pay for crappy internet, and how many times over we pay for it.
News flash - monopoly's that are unregulated gouge the consumer. We all know this.
As I see it, the only solution is to stop paying the monopoly interest for three months. That is long enough to ensure they collapse by cutting off the blood supply to the cancer they have become.
[ 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 ]
Re:
No it wasn't. If you look back ten or fifteen years to when the debate started, it had pretty broad bipartisan support. I even knew free-market libertarians who are generally opposed to regulation who supported net neutrality (since they acknowledged, like all sane people, that there is no free-market competition among ISPs).
It became a partisan issue once Obama declared he supported it, because if Obama supported it, Republicans opposed it, regardless of their previous stance. (See also: Romneycare.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, when you said "net neutrality was born partisan", you actually meant "the FCC regulations on net neutrality were born partisan."
Which, fair enough, that's an accurate statement. It's just not the same one that you made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John, Owner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]