FCC Likely To Use Thanksgiving Holiday To Hide Its Unpopular Plan To Kill Net Neutrality
from the cranberry-sauce-and-regulatory-capture dept
Consumer groups believe that the FCC is planning to formally unveil its unpopular plan to gut net neutrality the day before Thanksgiving, apparently in the hopes of burying media backlash in the hustle and bustle of holiday preparation. At that time, the FCC is expected to not only unveil the core text of their Orwell-inspired "Restore Internet Freedom" proposal, but schedule a formal date for the inevitable, final vote to kill the rules.
While announcing bad news right before a holiday works in some instances, net neutrality has been such a hot-button topic for so long, the ploy isn't likely to soften criticism of Trump or the FCC in the slightest. These fairly modest consumer protections have broad, bipartisan support, since our collective disdain for uncompetitive giants like Comcast tends to bridge even the starkest partisan divide. Eliminating these rules is, by any measure, little more than a brazen gift to one of the least competitive and least popular industries in America, and anybody telling you otherwise is either financially conflicted or misinformed.
Consumer groups like Fight for the Future seem to believe they can garner enough support in Congress to try and thwart the FCC's looming vote:
Once the FCC announces a vote, it will become much, much harder to stop them from gutting the rules that prevent companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from charging us all extra fees to access sites like reddit, and controlling what we see and do online by throttling, blocking, and censoring websites, apps, games, and streaming services.
The good news is that we are hearing from people who are meeting with Congress that there are key lawmakers who are sympathetic to the cause, and considering stepping in to slow down the FCC. But they need to be getting a lot more phone calls from constituents in order to act.
While calling your lawmaker remains a good idea (for reasons we'll get to later), hoping that Congress will thwart the FCC's looming vote remains a long shot. A better chance at scuttling Ajit Pai's plan comes after that rule-killing vote is cast. Given the numerous procedural gaffes and dubious behavior by this FCC (making up bogus DDoS attacks, ignoring fraud and abuse of the FCC website in order to generate bogus support for the move), inevitable lawsuits may be able to convince a court that the FCC blatantly ignored the public interest and violated procedural norms while trying to give telecom duopolies a giant, sloppy kiss.
But fans of a healthy internet need to understand the telecom industry's plan to kill net neutrality remains a two-act play. The first act involves FCC boss Ajit Pai playing bad cop by blatantly ignoring the public and ramming through a 3-2 partisan party line vote. The second act will involve pushing ISP-loyal lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to support a new net neutrality law covertly written by AT&T, Verizon and Comcast lobbyists. Said law will be marketed as a "solution" to the fifteen year debate, but will be so filled with loopholes as to be effectively useless. It would, however, prevent the FCC from revisiting the issue down the road.
Expect the FCC's rule-killing vote to come sometime in December, with the lobbying push for a new, ISP-crafted net-neutrality legislative "solution" gaining steam immediately in the new year. You know, for freedom.
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, broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality, thanksgiving
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm guessing the intent and wording of said bill is the complete opposite of its title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't you love the freedom to be screwed over by giant corporations that pay Washington to take away those unnecessary 'consumer protections'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Gotta love how everything just degenerates into buzzwords and emotional appeals, it's what keeps the shit train moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's really clear just how much cowardice is on display here, for this to be pushed through the day before Thanksgiving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just pass something useful for once!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Usually laws are made for the people, the public good and protection of parties with low leverage otherwise. I think this is one of the first times a government has so blatantly used 1984-esque communication to help strenghten companies on account of the most basic principle of the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I doubt that. That is what they want you to think but those same laws are eventually twisted into instruments for bludgeoning the general population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great, so we need another massive outpouring of rage to... what? If one of the loudest demonstrations of discontent ever has had zero measurable effect what can we hope to achieve with a few phone calls?
How do we manage to keep electing assholes who clearly do not represent their constituents?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously?
Last race was between Trump and Hillary... why bother asking. We have these choices because most Americans are stupid and ignorant.
The more you expect government to save you, the more you deserve to be screwed by it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is wrong and you know it, however Devos is working hard to fix that.
Deserve - what a strange word to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like I said
Last race was between Trump and Hillary...
Standing PROOF! If you need any more than that? Lets just say you don't even understand the problem.
Deserve, is what you get, when you walk up to the gates of your enemy and ask them to defend and protect you. The price you pay for not doing what you should do for yourself... is what your deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, they need to be able to pick and choose which ISP they can use, not ask government to pick which ones get to offer service by installing them as monopolies.
Free-Market is the idea that consumers give their money to the businesses they like.
Regulation works against this, Monopoly works against this, and Capitalism works against this, however Capitalism is required for Free-Market and specific regulations are usually necessary to prevent Monopoly or any of its bastard siblings.
there are only 3 forms of control over the economy you can have.
Government - Regulatory Capture
Business - Monopoly
Citizen - Free Market
Unfortunately a Free Market requires that people not be lazy and stupid to work. Guess what we have here? Lazy and Stupid people! Therefore they ask for Regulations to created a monopoly through regulatory capture to save them from... a monopoly. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many Res:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many Res:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Many Res:
If you are referring to me, then I will admit that I do not understand how we keep coming to the conclusion that the free market is the answer to all our problems. Prior poster just admitted that leaving it to the businesses inevitably leads to monopolies; I am curious what he (you? I dunno which AC is which) thinks is the secret technique to let citizens control their free market in perpetuity without having to form a government and regulate it to prevent the natural tendency of business to centralize and monopolize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Many Res:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Many Res:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Many Res:
and eventually, as a result, kills itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Many Res:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Genius move, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only clearer picture is if Ajit Pai was on his knees in front of David Watson (CEO of Comcast), with his mouth open (I will let you fill in the blanks). If these guys are married, then at least two (most likely more, if not all of them), are cheating on their wives because the FCC and the Telecom companies are clearly in bed with each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Materially adverse changes?
It might be possible for every person in the world to break their phone and internet contracts without penalty soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All it takes is a simple vote. It's the same manner that Wheeler created the rules. So if your argument is that Pai should not have the power to roll the rules back, you have to accept that Wheeler didn't have the power to create them.
The truth is this is that this is an empty fight. Not matter what happens, the rules are likely to either be suspended or ignored and argued in court for the forseeable future. The way to resolve the issue is through congress. What you get from congress will be a compromise that you likely will not want.
The internet lasted 20 years as a commercial entity without any need for regulation. If there is a need for regulation, let those who write the laws create the framework, and the FCC can then color in between the lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is not our argument.
We aren't arguing that Pai doesn't have the *power* to roll back the rules. We are arguing that he doesn't have the *evidence* to support his position, the *justification* to roll back the rules, the *logical arguments* to support his position. The FCC (not Pai, incidentally, but THE FCC) has the power to roll back the rules, but they do still require a reason to do so; hence the constant references to the court battle that will inevitably take place after the rules are rolled back.
People who suggest that this is an "empty fight" not worth fighting are little more than closet supporters of this rollback trying to demoralize those of us still standing up for net neutrality. It's a pretty common tactic; we're not impressed, and we're not going to shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no need - as there is no particular evidence on the other side either. In fact, as would be standard on Techdirt, we look at the previous 20 years that the internet ran on without NN rules, and say "gee, that grew up fast!".
NN is essentially the "netflix" rule. Writing the rules to satisfy one big player isn't any better than rolling them back for another.
Ask your critters to get to work, that is of course if they aren't tied up writing DOA 702 amendments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are inverted as to net neutrality, because it destruction is an anti Netflix rule. The ISPs do not like the fact that Netflix, Hulu and even YoutTube are eating into their cable TV subscriptions.
Allowing the ISPs to decide what network traffic is allowed on their networks is like allowing the phone companies to decide what businesses you can ring on your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems appropriate actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Internet is different. It's seems to be a partisan playground where depending on who's in office, it gets the regulation flavor of the party at the time. Even during it's creation it was voted down by the two Republican members. Basically it was crammed down the Republican party's throat. Little surprise that now that they are in charge, they are destroying it.
It was born partisan by vote, and now it's going to die partisan by vote. Almost seems fitting in a sad kind of way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But they won't do that. The republicans don't know how to do anything but rip and tear. Snarl and ruin. Elect incompetent narcissists. Pai can go fuck off back to the lawyerdom he formerly hails from and let the non-rubberstamps do some actual FCC work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is incorrect as the monopoly occurs first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170419/06230937183/fcc-moves-to-make-life-easier-business -broadband-monopolies.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161121/07014336097/cables-broadband-m onopoly-is-becoming-stronger-than-ever.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix the FCC.
The "web" was recognized as a Title II common carrier on February 26, 2015 while facing me in federal litigation begun in the Western District Court of Arkansas.
I say "recognized" only because regardless of what Chairman Pai and his cohorts do with 17-108; Regardless of when this is done, this gives me standing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the FCC. The "web" was ALWAYS simply wire communications on a common carrier of interconnected wires when developed.
The FCC spent a great deal of time/$ and GOOG and MSFT spent around a million in legal fees alone.
GOOG offered 5 million to drop the case.
Free copies of the dockets and all legal filings are linked from the following website.
See http://fixthefcc.com
Almost a thousand pages.
There was NEVER a *"wholly unique new medium of worldwide human communications"* ...! NEVER
The "web" was always simply a new use of archaic medium(s) and merging these wire communications with radio.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153#59
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah blah blah blah blah
The time has come to stop fighting imaginary demons and refocus your efforts on real ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blah blah blah blah blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]