Here's Why Net Neutrality Still Matters One Year After Repeal
from the ill-communication dept
One year ago the FCC ignored a bipartisan majority of the public and killed popular net neutrality consumer protections at lobbyist behest. But contrary to conventional wisdom the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order didn't just kill "net neutrality": it neutered the FCC's authority over ISPs, ceding much of its remaining power to an FTC that lacks the authority or resources to really police bad behavior in telecom (the whole point). Those who continue to insist the repeal couldn't have been that bad because the internet didn't immediately explode only advertise their ignorance to the scope of what the telecom lobby actually accomplished.
Again, the telecom industry didn't just eliminate net neutrality rules (after allegedly trying to stuff the FCC website comment ballet box using fake and dead people), they eliminated most oversight of some of the most predatory, uncompetitive, and disliked companies in America. We effectively took the very ideas that helped create monopolies like Comcast, and doubled down. Should it be allowed to stand, the FCC's repeal leaves telecom giants (with two decades of anti-competitive behavior under their belts) free from both competition and meaningful regulatory accountability.
If you don't see the problem there, you probably haven't spent much time looking at your broadband bill, watching AT&T do business, or talking to Comcast customer support.
With a few exceptions (like AT&T using its usage caps to harm competitors like Netflix, or Centurylink blocking internet access to spam its own security products), most ISPs have tried to be on their best behavior in the year since. Why? They're worried about state laws that popped up to protect consumers in the wake of FCC apathy. They're also worried about the lawsuit by 23 AGs filed against the FCC, a ruling in which is expected any day now. Should the FCC lose, the FCC's 2015 rules could be fully restored. ISPs don't want to significantly change their business models at scale only to have the rules pop back up declaring them in violation.
As a result ISPs are just biding their time, waiting for the full green light to behave anti-competitively. They've spent some of that time getting their biggest sycophants in Congress to push bogus net neutrality laws framed as serious attempts at "bipartisan consensus" intended to "put the issue to bed." In reality these bills, literally written by industry, only serve one purpose: pre-empt tougher state or federal efforts to protect net neutrality. Such bills are filled with loopholes and the tech policy equivalent of a head fake.
In reality, this Congress has made it very clear it will never pass a net neutrality law with any real teeth.
Case in point: some lawmakers spent the repeal anniversary trying to get Mitch McConnell to floor a genuine, three-page bill (the Save the Internet Act) that would simply restore the FCC rules. But while that bill passed the House last April, it has little to no hope passing the telecom-campaign-cash-slathered Senate, where McConnell has declared the bill "dead on arrival." As such, the best hope for restoring the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules rests with the ongoing lawsuit.
Should the lawsuit fail, the onus lies with voters to 1) purge Congress of Luddites and telecom lackeys that have repeatedly made it clear that the public interest and Democratic process does not matter to them, and 2) push this new Congress to pass a real net neutrality law down the road.
Either way, this is a problem that's not going away for the telecom industry or anybody forced to do business with them. With US telcos refusing to upgrade or repair their aging DSL lines, cable giants like Comcast and Charter are securing bigger regional monopolies than ever across much of the United States (and no, 5G wireless isn't going to magically fix the problem). Emboldened by a lack of regulatory oversight and little real competition, they won't be able to help themselves, and will inevitably try to take full advantage in new and creatively stupid ways.
For example, it's not hard to envision some if the controversial "zero rating" shenanigans we've seen in the video space impacting innovative, emerging businesses like game streaming. ISPs are busy cooking up their own challengers to cloud gaming efforts like Google Stadia (which eliminates home hardware and devours bandwidth by moving all processing to the cloud). Given precedent, you can be fairly sure ISPs will ensure usage caps apply to competing services, but not their own products. They're already doing it with video, why wouldn't they elsewhere?
Those who have foolishly claimed net neutrality rules weren't important because the Earth didn't immediately stop rotating on its axis don't understand that this has always been a slow death by a thousand cuts scenario. First, ISPs get consumers used to monthly usage caps and overage fees that have no valid technical justification. Then, they begin using those caps to disadvantage their competitors (which again is already happening). From there, they get consumers used to being nickel-and-dimed by charging you more money to view HD video streams as intended, or to avoid having your games, music, or video throttled.
We're already well down the rabbit hole, and most of these "net neutrality doesn't matter" folks haven't even noticed (or worse, are foolishly cheering as they stumble and bumble their way down the slippery slope).
Anti-competitive shenanigans aside, the FCC's 2015 rules also required that ISPs be more transparent about what kind of connection you're buying. The repeal made it harder to determine whether services will be throttled or banned outright, because ISPs no longer face any real penalty for lying to you. And with the FCC's authority eroded and the FTC too busy to police telecom seriously, nobody will do much about other bad behavior in the sector, be it wireless carrier abuse of your location data, or the ISP tendency to sign customers up for scam services they never asked for.
While States may pick up some consumer protection slack, the FCC's repeal also attempts to strip states of that ability as well. The telecom lobby goal is no competition and no federal or state oversight. A perfect vacuum. See the problem yet?
While Facebook's issues are undeniable, the recent exclusive fixation on Facebook as the root of all evil in tech policy circles has been a huge gift to the telecom lobby. Telecom lobbyists have been pushing for the hyper regulation of companies they hope to compete with in the video ad space, hoping you don't notice they just convinced government to obliterate oversight of their own businesses, despite its natural monopoly problems and ad ambitions every bit as problematic as Facebook's.
Silicon Valley and telecom share many of the same problems, including the abysmal treatment of consumer privacy. But telecom is always going to be unique in that its customers are entirely captive. You might be able to fix this by simply pushing for policies that bring more competition to market, but history has repeatedly shown how that's difficult with a Congress slathered in campaign contributions from the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Spectrum.
Those "bored" by the net neutrality debate miss the broader implications. And those applauding the rules' demise are usually oblivious to not only what the rules did, but the fact they're actively cheering against their own best self interests. Net neutrality isn't something that just goes away with the passage or the elimination of rules, and violations are just another in a long line of symptoms of a broken telecom market we refuse to fix due to rampant corruption. No period in tech and telecom policy history has done a better job driving that point home.
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: broadband, competition, fcc, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why support forcing internet companies to do something when they are PRIVATE COMPANIES!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because being private companies doesn't make them immune to regulation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It does regarding speech, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are immune to government regulation on speech in the same way everyone is immune to government regulation of speech. Its kinda a big thing in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait till you find out about the other ones
Welcome to the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because they've lobbied for laws to ensure they hold monopolies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The same reason that we have laws forcing private citizens to not do certain things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: certain things
there's no limit on "certain things" by the government.
That is the problem.
All three branches of government routinely violate the supposed constitutional limits upon their authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: certain things
All three branches of government routinely violate the supposed constitutional limits upon their authority.
And your point is what? That the government should not have the right to make laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nice false equivalence you got there, kiddo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your "right"! All regulations are BAD! Like regulations on DELICIOUS, "delicous" Paint Chips!
Who is the "government" to Tell paint Companies that they cant put "lead" in their Paint Chips! Lead makes "paint" Chips taste BETTER. Unleaded "apint" chips are Barely worth "eating". LET THE MARKET DECIDE, SYCOPHANTS! You are all os Stupid! STUPID! Not "smart" like Me.
Every Nation eats the Paint chipd it Sedserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I keep hearing that governments can't tell platforms not to ban people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is correct. What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
100% irrelevant to Net Neutrality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's almost like industries can be regulated by the government! Whoa!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is interesting to watch as some attempt to ramp up their assault upon the platform(s) while ignoring the infrastructure.
The mantra of Break Up The Monopolies very conveniently overlooks one of the biggest offenders in that arena.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You want a lower-case D there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yawn
Another tired article whining about the government's inability to take action instead of rallying up everyone in the country to instead stop paying their bills so companies realize who's really in charge while the government goes "oh shit, we better step up" as the media frenzy will pick up the actions.
Pick August as a start month. Then, just start telling people to stop paying their bills.
Does anyone here honestly think AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast will continue their practices if everyone revolts?
Boycotts won't do a damn thing. People have to fight the company to change.
A public beat down, if you will.
It's overdue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and what have you done other than pressing a few keys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Presumably sitting around smugly pretending that he's not negatively affects by the things other people are complaining about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, if people don't cut themselves off from a vital utility, they're just being lazy. Nobody needs that stuff for anything other than entertainment.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right ... because those same companies won't simply just cut off the service for a lack of payment, thus denying people access to the internet, which increasingly is no longer optional for the daily tasks of the average US inhabitant.
Let's take a look at some things that have been replaced by the Internet, to the point where attempting to do them without internet access becomes that much more cumbersome:
Phone books.
Maps.
Scheduling appointments.
Bill pay.
Banking.
Interpersonal communication.
News.
General information retrieval.
Entertainment.
There are also people who require access to the internet for employment, and dropping access to the internet results in cutting off their source of income. "Stop paying the internet bill" is most definitely a valid option for them.
I understand what you are suggesting. Organized action on a wide scale to deny companies income based on their actions would certainly have an effect, but you have to organize it. It's not enough to say "people should just stop paying!" You have to go out and convince a bunch of people across the whole country to simultaneously drop the service, and to give a very clear (and moreover, unified) reason for doing so.
That would definitely send a clear and incontrovertible message. I look forward to you organizing this.
(As a side note, there's a certain irony in someone saying "people should just stop paying for internet" by posting a comment on the internet, showing that, one way or another, someone is paying for the internet access to let that person post that comment.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
EXACTLY THE POINT!
By shutting down critical services due to non-payment will quickly put these companies into the targets of many outraged persons.
If you truly believe the government would do nothing after the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE STOOD UP AGAINST THE BULLSHIT OF THESE COMPANIES, well, you just sit there and continue waiting for your white knight to come rescue you.
@AC:
and what have you done other than pressing a few keys?
Far more than you have or will ever. I guarantee it.
Come back to me when you can say you nearly got arrested for punching a fucking retarded senator who clearly doesn't give a shit about those who voted him into office.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
I've been telling you people for nearly 10 years your wasting your time with Net Neutrality.
If you really want it: THE ONLY WAY TO GET IT IS TO ATTACK THE COMPANIES PREVENTING YOU FROM HAVING IT.
Remember, the ONLY DAMN REASON the first "net neutrality" wave got people involved is because major companies like Facebook and Google DID "take away" their sites.
Attack the companies and stop waiting for government to do your fucking job, consumer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Come back to me when you can say you nearly got arrested for punching a fucking retarded senator"
So... your answer to a civil issue is to commit criminal assault? What's the matter - could you not organise people to join you in a legal way of addressing grievances? If you couldn't do that against a senator, why do you think others will be successful against a corporation.
"Remember, the ONLY DAMN REASON the first "net neutrality" wave got people involved is because major companies like Facebook and Google DID "take away" their sites."
Nobody's employment, ability to claim certain services, ability to resolve certain government or private billing issues, etc. depended on either of those services - and it was the companies themselves who decided the disruption, not the consumer. It's literally the reverse of the current situation.
Your problem is also that while you're technically correct, you severely underestimate how much leverage people actually have in this scenario. Ordinary citizens would be bankrupted or worse long before any of these companies notice the blip in their balance sheets. Even if you did manage to miraculously get millions of people to cut themselves off, the result will be people paying more to these companies anyway, in the form of extra fees for non-payment. The companies can swallow it because they know they're supplying a vital utility with little to no competition, so they can ride it out until people need them again, which they will.
It's a nice fantasy, but it would not work in this scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Just stop using the Internet," says guy on the Internet.
What a fresh take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Get yourself a cabin in the woods and write your manifesto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You first bro
I eagerly await the smoke signal of your victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good idea. Except... You go first.
Hey. Why aren't you going first? Where ARE you going? Stop running away from doing the difficult thing! Why are you still on the internet with your phone? I thought we were all quitting?! Boycotting! Refusing to pay the bill! Hello? LOL
Getting a bunch of people to do the same thing at the same time, it's like herding cats. It's like getting much of anyone to actually vote Libertarian even though lots of people SAY it sounds like a good idea. It ain't happin, bud. Cats gonna do what cats gonna do, and that usually involves moving toward what looks like more comfort and food. They won't do the difficult "right" thing unless you tie them together by the tails and drag them hissing and screaming. Most people make decisions based on comfort and pleasure for @$$es and stomachs, irregardless of the longterm social risks and damages. Even you. Even me.
Ugh. Call me when humans finally manage to evolve into an intelligent species, that is, if your ISP will allow you to connect to my ISP without paying additional fees by then. I'm guessing it'll be a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate animal farm
Telcos? Cable companies?
Comcast offers phone service. AT&T owns the former Time Warner.
The pigs are looking more and more like the farmers these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What matters is you got owned, Bode. Suck it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real Dick smell like stale lobbyist cum
You aren’t even a good fake bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real Dick smell like stale lobbyist cum
To be fair, neither was the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without exception, every argument made to date claiming NN regulation is a bad thing falls under one or more of the above categories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You forgot "definitely paid off", which is why it's being pushed to the ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]