FCC's Wheeler Says That If These Lame Net Neutrality Rules Don't Work, He'll Implement The Real Rules Next Time

from the oh-really? dept

Following his weak attempt to diffuse concerns about his bogus "open internet" rules, FCC boss Tom Wheeler has decided to try again, by basically repeating what he said last week with slightly stronger language about how he won't let broadband providers violate net neutrality. Of course, as many people have explained, the problem is that the new rules clearly aren't strong enough, and leave open all sorts of ways to kill off basic neutrality online. Of course, the real problem is that the original 2010 "open internet" rules (which were really crafted by the telcos in the first place) didn't really protect net neutrality in the first place, and the new rules are basically an even weaker version of those rules. But, have no fear, claims Wheeler, if these rules don't work, he promises he'll actually pull out the big gun, Title II, and reclassify broadband players as telco services rather than information services, allowing the FCC to put them under common carrier rules.

...all regulatory options remain on the table. If the proposal before us now turns out to be insufficient or if we observe anyone taking advantage of the rule, I won’t hesitate to use Title II. However, unlike with Title II, we can use the court’s roadmap to implement Open Internet regulation now rather than endure additional years of litigation and delay.

There is some truth in what he's saying. Basically, the appeals court ruling that rejected the previous rules did lay out a roadmap for rules that would be deemed more acceptable under the current classification, and Wheeler's plans appear to be to do exactly what the court suggested. And, to some extent he's right that this is the fastest way to get some kind of rules in place. But considering that they're even more watered down than the original, with the new "required" language leaving enough loopholes to make them meaningless, it almost seems like why bother. The best we could hope for is that Wheeler is actually trying to use the Ed Felten-like concept of "the best form of net neutrality" being one where there aren't any actual rules, but a constant threat of rules being enforced if the broadband providers stray too far.

But there's a problem there... in that the broadband providers have already started going too far, and they seem to keep pushing the boundaries further and further each time, without the FCC doing anything, (and in ways that don't directly impact those "open internet" rules). Also, while Wheeler is right that going the Title II route would create a legal (and political) shitstorm leading to many years of litigation and delay, the same may be true of his new rules. After all, he's only putting them forth after a four-year legal battle over the old rules.

But the biggest issue is that the FCC still doesn't seem to realize how the broadband providers have been increasingly chipping away at net neutrality anyway, without any pushback at all. As DSL Reports details, the FCC seems to think that all network neutrality violations are big and obvious, when the reality is quite different:

...the problem is that these days -- net neutrality violations are significantly more clever, and usually come dressed up as market innovation or security or network integrity efforts. Historically, if the FCC can't simply and cleanly prove without a shadow of a doubt that an ISP is acting anti-competitively, the agency simply doesn't bother doing much of anything (see Verizon Wireless's anti-competitive behavior on any number of issues or AT&T's ability to block legitimate video services as prime examples).

What's considered "commercially unreasonable" is also going to be open to immense ambiguous interpretation. Wheeler for example seems perfectly ok with the increasingly ugly interconnection and peering fights arising between Verizon, Comcast, AT&T and Netflix, and has stated these won't be included in the rules. He also seems similarly tone deaf to the potential pitfalls facing wireless courtesy of concepts like AT&T's Sponsored Data, which critics charge will result in deep-pocketed companies (like ESPN) getting a huge leg up on smaller companies that can't afford AT&T's toll to be listed as "cap free" content.

Wheeler's comments to date strongly suggest his threshold for what's going to be considered anti-competitive behavior will be stratospherically-high, and as is the case now -- carriers will still be able to get away with anti-competitive behavior provided they're relatively clever about it.

Promising to pull out the Title II gun is talking big for a government agency that has been big on talk, but has little history of action. And thus, it's a threat that doesn't seem to have much weight.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler

How The FCC Plans Neuter The Net, Even As The FCC Insists Everyone's Got It All Wrong

from the from-net-neutrality-to-a-neutered-net dept

So, we already wrote about why Tom Wheeler's "open internet" proposal is problematic, but Wheeler and the FCC are hitting back on everyone who's arguing that -- telling everyone to calm down, insisting that nothing has changed, and that they're actually trying to preserve the old "open internet" rules from 2010 that a court tossed out earlier this year.

The problem is that this is absolutely misleading -- and either the FCC doesn't realize this or it's not being honest. And, I'm not sure which one is more bizarre. Wheeler is, indeed, correct in saying that under the court ruling from earlier this year, in order to be able to do anything under Section 706 of the Telecom Act, they had to shift from talking about "unreasonable discrimination" (which they can't regulate under 706) to "commercially reasonable" activities (which they can regulate). So, in effect, Wheeler is trying to argue that by basically shifting the basis for the rules and substituting in the "commercially reasonable" standard as opposed to blocking "unreasonable discrimination" (which can be done under common carrier rules, but since the FCC reclassified broadband service as not being a telco service, that's not available), they're now back in proper legal territory under the law.

Perhaps Wheeler and his friends at the FCC think that this subtle shift in phrases to abide by the blueprint the court set out really does leave the existing rules in place. But, it's not that simple. As Stacy Higginbotham points out, even if the FCC doesn't want to destroy net neutrality, this subtle shift will do so anyway. To understand why, the best article to read is the one by Marvin Ammori, who has been fighting this fight for years. He argues that, unlike the CNET article above that says to "calm down," we should actually be even more worried. Because even if the FCC thinks it can stop net neutrality violations, companies are still going to get screwed. Basically, the FCC can only act after the fact, and then it's going to come down to a fight between a big telcos' lawyers... and a tiny startups' lawyers. Guess who wins?

The FCC will propose an incredibly vague and complicated multifactor test, one that takes into account the market conditions, technology, alternatives available to each side, competitive dynamics. This is the kind of stuff that requires very expensive expert witnesses in very expensive legal proceedings. There may be up to 16 factors listed, plus a catch-all for "other factors."

So, according to the FCC, when Verizon discriminates against a startup, we shouldn't be alarmed, because (while being discriminated against), this startup can hire a lot of expensive lawyers and expert witnesses and meet Verizon (a company worth more than $100 billion) at the FCC and litigate this issue out, with no certainty as to the rule. The startup will almost certainly lose either at the FCC or on appeal to a higher court, after bleeding money on lawyers.

He's not basing this on some theoretical crystal ball. It's already happened -- and it's obvious from the Court's ruling earlier this year:

Back in January, the D.C. Circuit struck down the FCC’s last attempt at net neutrality, saying that Section 706 does not permit the commission to stop nondiscrimination. It pointed to another legal decision, concerning data roaming, in which the FCC adopted a 16-factor test like the one I explained above. Based on an earlier case, the FCC can probably ban one or two specific practices, such as blocking certain websites or applications. That’s about it.

So here's the issue: the old rules were incredibly weak and nearly pointless in the first place. They didn't apply to wireless (nor, apparently, will the new rules) and they didn't really protect net neutrality. They were crafted, in part by the telcos, through a long-drawn out process, in which the former FCC boss tried to keep everyone happy and ended up pleasing no one. That's why we were a little perplexed at the outrage over those rules being thrown out earlier this year in the first place. Those rules were nothing great.

The problem is that this new proposal isn't just "those same old rules" as the FCC would like you to believe. Instead, they're the same old rules, made weaker at the critical juncture by the necessary legalese change to "commercially reasonable" and by the clear nature of what the court says the FCC is able to do under Section 706. And while some think the answer is to shift broadband back under Title II and put them under common carrier rules, that's almost certainly a political impossibility -- which is why Wheeler is trying to thread this needle.

As we've said for a decade now, the underlying problem is a lack of competition. These kinds of rules, including things like transparency into the crap that the telcos are pulling only matter if you have options. When you don't, then they can be transparent as to how they're screwing you over, and there's really just not much you can do. And that's kind of the situation we're in today. Wheeler claims this is no change and people are overreacting, but what they're realizing is that the existing rules in 2010 were kind of a joke anyway, and what little power they had to keep the internet open and non-discriminatory back then is now pretty much gone with this new wording. So, Wheeler may not want to be killing off the open internet, but the end result may be exactly that.

Filed Under: commercially reasonable, discrimination, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, tom wheeler

Weasel Language In Proposal For FCC's New 'Open Internet' Rules Actually Opens The Door To An End To Net Neutrality

from the fast-lane dept

Yesterday reports started leaking about how FCC boss Tom Wheeler was getting ready to release his proposal for "new" net neutrality rules, to be voted on in a few weeks. They've now been introduced -- and Wheeler insists that all the whining and hand-wringing from yesterday was wrong. Except that's not true.

These new proposed rules are a response to a court tossing out the FCC's 2010 rules for not actually falling under the FCC's mandate. We pointed out that if the FCC were serious (and it's not), it should be focusing on increasing competition (which it's not). Congress certainly isn't going to do anything. Like previous FCC bosses, Commissioner Tom Wheeler has made it pretty clear that he's too timid to do anything serious, and instead will seek to find some sort of weak middle ground. Because there seems to be a rule that, if you're to become FCC Commissioner, you can't take a solid stand, but instead have to take a weak middle ground position and pretend it's a strong stand.

But what's currently being suggested may actually be worse. Because this opens the door to killing off net neutrality while pretending it's supporting net neutrality. As Stacey Higginbotham points out, even if Tom Wheeler believes this proposal makes sense, it's pretty ridiculous to claim it's net neutrality or about protecting an open internet. Wheeler should step up and admit what he's doing: killing off net neutrality to create a system that lets the big broadband providers double charge -- and then explain why he thinks that's necessary. Pretending this is net neutrality is a joke. Here's the basic proposals:

1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
2. That no legal content may be blocked; and
3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

The key issue is that last one, in which the FCC claims it will still have the ability to stop "commercially unreasonable" activities by broadband providers, while refusing any attempt to explain what commercially unreasonable means. At the same time, it makes it pretty clear that "commercially reasonable" (again, undefined) rules will be allowed -- and it's likely this means allowing ISPs to create "fast lanes" by which they can charge more, so long as anyone with a lot of cash can also pay more.

This is not net neutrality. Yes, the 2nd rule means that no ISP will get away with the outright banning of access to websites, but no ISP was seriously considering that anyway. This bans a practice no one was going to do, meaning it doesn't ban anything. But by opening up "commercially reasonable" discrimination, it's allowing ISPs to create privileged "fast lanes" by which large internet players can "pay" to have preferred access to users. If you have a fast lane, by definition you also need a slow lane. So the (reasonable) fear here is that smaller entities, who can't pay for the fast lane, basically start out with degraded service compared to the big guys who can (and will) pay.

That means that services that don't pay up are throttled. By definition.

It's exactly what the big ISPs have wanted all along, which is a system to double charge big companies, who will now have to pay for both their own bandwidth and a portion of your bandwidth. If you think "hey, I already pay for my bandwidth," you're right. And now you'll likely have to pay much more, because the big companies who pay are going to pass the costs on to you. And, you'll have fewer interesting new services because the barriers to entry will be higher. So, the end result is the immensely profitable duopoly of internet service providers get more profitable and you pay more. Big internet companies pay off the broadband providers to stay fast, while startups and innovation are basically more difficult to create, because they're going to have to set aside a huge chunk of money to pay for some of the bandwidth that you're already paying for (and probably not getting anyway).

The Comcasts and AT&T's and Verizons of the world are going to parade up and down about how this will let them invest in better networks and provide better services, but there is absolutely no incentive here for them to actually do so. In fact, they have every incentive in the world to degrade service in the "slow lane" to make it less useful, driving more companies to need to pay for the fast lane.

These aren't rules for an open internet or for net neutrality. These are rules to kill that off.

"Commercially reasonable" are the weasel words here that effectively sell out the internet. The old rules were dreadful, and these rules are still just in proposal stages, but Wheeler's first foray into net neutrality is a joke. He's doing the same thing as his predecessor in refusing to stand up and say what he actually means, because he knows that what he's proposing is bad news.

Filed Under: broadband, commercially reasonable, commercially unreasonable, fast lane, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, slow lane, throttle, tom wheeler

Telecom Musical Chairs: Regulators And Lobbyists Swap Roles, Everyone Wins! (Except The Public)

from the musical-chairs-without-a-chair-being-taken-away dept

We've talked plenty about the big revolving door between government and big business lately, but there are still some moments that are purely insane that show just how broken the system is. On Wednesday, news broke that former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker has been named the new CEO of CTIA, the main lobbying organization for mobile phone operators. Baker is no stranger to questionable revolving door moves, seeing as just months after she voted to approve Comcast's merger with NBC Universal, she took a top lobbying job with Comcast. Funny how that works.

But, in this case, it's even more ridiculous because, as Jon Brodkin points out, the current head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, previously was CEO of CTIA as well. And prior to that he was CEO of NCTA (the cable industry's main lobbying group). And, to top it off, the current head of CTIA is none other than former FCC chair Michael Powell.

If you're keeping score at home, it looks like this:

• Michael Powell: FCC Chair -> NCTA boss
• Meredith Atwell Baker: FCC Commissioner -> Comcast -> CTIA boss
• Tom Wheeler: NCTA boss -> CTIA boss -> FCC Chair

They're playing a game of musical chairs where no chair is ever removed... and they all get fabulously wealthy scratching each others' backs. Even if everyone is being completely sincere in their positions (a big if, but let's assume it for now), the real problem here, again, is that the perception of rampant corruption is encouraged by this sort of thing, leading the public to seriously distrust the government. When the top two lobbying organizations on these issues are manned by former top officials and the current top FCC official used to run both those organizations, there's a pretty clear implication that it's the public interest that's going to get shafted.

Filed Under: fcc, lobbyists, meredith atwell baker, michael powell, musical chairs, revolving door, tom wheeler
Companies: ctia, ncta

FCC Is Sorry, But OpenInternet.gov Cannot Be Found

from the what-open-internet? dept

Update: Well, look at that. A few hours after this post went live, OpenInternet.gov magically got redirected to some actual content...

Want to know what the current FCC thinks of an open internet? The FCC used to run a website at OpenInternet.gov, in which it talked up the importance of an open internet. Here's what the page used to look like: In that blank blue spot, I believe there was this video of former FCC chair Julius Genachowski highlighting the importance of an open internet. Of course, as pointed out by Ryan Singel, if you visit OpenInternet.gov right now, it looks like this: Yes, that's right: the FCC is sorry, but OpenInternet.gov cannot be found. To be fair, it's not as if Genachowski ever really did that much to preserve an open internet, preferring to work out a bogus "deal" on open internet principles with Verizon and AT&T, with loopholes large enough to drive much of the internet through -- and which were put together so poorly that Verizon (yes, the same Verzion that helped create them in the first place) successfully sued to get the rules thrown out as the FCC going too far. Similarly, new FCC boss Tom Wheeler has a blog post insisting that he too is really committed to an open internet, but we've heard that song and dance before.

In the end, it's more symbolic than anything else. The fact that the FCC has basically shuttered OpenInternet.gov with no forwarding address just kind of highlights how seriously the FCC really seems to take these issues.

Filed Under: fcc, julius genachowski, net neutrality, open internet, openinternet.gov, tom wheeler

Learning From AT&T's Blistering Hubris On T-Mobile Deal, Comcast Tries A Dash Of Subtlety

from the BS-can-only-take-you-so-far dept

While the assumption was that AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile was shuttered simply because it eliminated a needed competitor from the market, one of the biggest, under-stated reasons was simply AT&T's immense, blistering hubris, forged by decades of being pampered by the government. AT&T didn't just push for the T-Mobile merger, they lied aggressively and at every possible opportunity about the deal's benefits, believing themselves to be impervious to repercussions. They lied in claiming the deal would create 100,000 jobs. They lied about needing to acquire T-Mobile or their network would implode from lack of spectrum. They lied in claiming that eliminating a competitor would somehow magically improve competition.

And they didn't just lie -- AT&T was loud about it. Via lobbyist, consultant, think tanker, and anyone else on the payroll, AT&T lied using every manner of lobbying trick in the book, from paying an army of third party groups to parrot merger support, to running an onslaught of constant full page advertisements repeating the same, easily-disproven lies ad nauseam. At the end of 2011, Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post penned what was essentially an obituary for the AT&T T-Mobile deal, with an overlooked paragraph that explained precisely why the deal became too much for regulators to swallow:

"The letters from third-party groups raised eyebrows at government agencies and on the Hill, where people began wondering why groups with no obvious ties to broadband were writing in. News reports emerged showing that many of the groups had financial ties to AT&T. Then there were the ads that staff members at the FCC said they couldn't avoid when they opened a newspaper, fired up their iPads or watched TV — all touting the merger's ability to put thousands of Americans to work. But who had ever heard of a big company merger creating rather than destroying jobs?"

The Post noted that instead of all this noise and fury helping to get approval, it actually caused regulators to take a closer look at claims where otherwise they wouldn't have. The sheer volume of nonsense coming from AT&T actually worked to amplify media and political pressure where it might not have existed otherwise. The end result was regulators actually doing their jobs and digging into the promises more deeply, only to find AT&T's arguments lacking:

"AT&T's blitzkrieg of ads, which claimed that the promised expansion of broadband would create 100,000 jobs, wasn't helping either. A deal's impact on jobs is not typically part of an evaluation by antitrust officials, but this time regulators thought AT&T's campaign had forced them to take a closer look. They found holes. For one, the company refused to divulge how many jobs it would eliminate in the merger."

Enter Comcast, who is busy trying to get regulators to approve their $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Renata Hesse, who was the lead FCC antitrust official during the AT&T T-Mobile deal, will be overseeing the Comcast review at the DOJ. While Comcast is using many of the very same strategies AT&T employed (like paying minority groups to parrot merger support, and throwing money at everyone and everything) they seem to have learned a few lessons from the AT&T T-Mobile deal, and have dialed back the volume on their nonsense just enough so that it vaguely-resembles subtlety:

"Industry lobbyists familiar with both deals say they observe Comcast approaching this merger in a much quieter, more subtle way than AT&T did. Many of Comcas's lobbyists are staying silent about the deal altogether, and not just around reporters. Even at social gatherings and business functions where it might seem obvious to mention the deal to lawmakers or administration officials as a way of smoothing the way forward, Comcast's lobbyists have, in many instances, made nary a peep about it, according to sources. "The way Comcast is approaching this is very interesting,” said a veteran telecom lobbyist. "Everybody's writing the easy story about how many lobbyists Comcast has, but the way they're lobbying this, they're being very inside baseball, very surgical."

That's not to say Comcast isn't paying a ton of other people to make stupid, loud arguments for them, but they're pretty clearly trying to tone down the rhetoric the public sees as having come from Comcast itself. Comcast's steering clear of unsubstantiated job claims, and seems intent on keeping any promises they do make vague (like arguing the deal is simply "pro consumer"). Will a tiny bit of subtlety let Comcast fly under the regulatory M&A skepticism meter? Maybe. Comcast has proven pretty good at getting regulators to push for meaningless merger conditions (though AT&T was pretty good at that too). I'm going to bet you see deal approval; not because the deal is necessarily good, but primarily because AT&T taught Comcast an important lesson on the limits of bullshit.

Filed Under: antitrust, fcc, lobbying, merger
Companies: at&t, comcast, t-mobile

Comcast Applauds Itself For Barely Adhering To NBC Merger Conditions, Most Of Which Comcast Created

from the regulatory-theatrics dept

As Comcast pushes for regulatory approval of its next major merger (the acquisition of Time Warner Cable), the company is pointing to its last major merger (the acquisition of NBC Universal) as an example of how tough regulators and meaningful merger conditions will keep the company honest as it grows ever larger. In an FCC filing (pdf) the cable giant pats itself on the back for over-delivering when it comes to meeting conditions placed upon the company after acquiring NBC. According to Comcast, it's "simply indisputable that we have honored – in fact, over-delivered – on our commitments."

The catch? Comcast created most of the NBC merger conditions itself, knowing full well it would meet them during the ordinary course of doing business. Still, in many cases even those conditions proved to be too much for the company.

Most of the NBC conditions involved promising modest broadband coverage goals by certain dates, goals the company was already on the cusp of completing (or in some cases had already completed) anyway. Other merger conditions, like offering $10, 1.5 Mbps broadband to families that qualify for the National School Lunch Program (you can't owe Comcast money -- which the poor usually do, and can't have existing Comcast broadband service), was something Comcast planned to offer much earlier but withheld to get the FCC to sign off on the deal. Comcast's "over delivery" on that condition resulted in protests on the streets of its home town of Philadelphia by people who claimed the option had too many restrictions and was intentionally designed to be difficult to sign up for (the company has since bumped the speed to 5 Mbps and extended the length of the offer indefinitely to help ease the Time Warner Cable deal).

Another vague condition prohibited Comcast from discriminating against channels that compete with its own content. Comcast struggled do that as well -- the FCC had to scold Comcast for holding Bloomberg news away from core news channels so it wouldn't hurt Comcast's CNBC (when singled out the company tried, unsuccessfully, to claim its First Amendment rights were being attacked). Another core "tough" condition Comcast cites as example of its over achievement was the promise to offer a 6 Mbps standalone broadband tier for $50 for a few years. From the filing:

"Requirement to provide BIAS on a standalone basis and to offer a new 6 Mbps down service at no more than $49.95 per month: Comcast continues to offer, on a standalone basis and at reasonable prices, any tiers of BIAS that it offers on a bundled or multi-product basis. Comcast also offers its “Performance Starter” tier, a 6 Mbps down standalone BIAS service, priced at $49.95 per month. Pursuant to the Broadband Consent Decree entered into with the Commission on June 27, 2012, Comcast will continue to offer Performance Starter at least through February 21, 2015."

Offering 6 Mbps for $50 is already pretty unimpressive on its face, but becomes even less impressive when you learn that the FCC had to fine Comcast $800 million (while extending the condition) because Comcast hid the option for consumers. Think about that: offering a paltry speed at a high price was too difficult to achieve, yet Comcast would like you to know it's an over achiever. After extending the condition, the FCC patted itself on the back for being so damn good at protecting consumers:

"The unprecedented merger condition extension, significant voluntary contribution, and robust compliance plan send a clear message to the American public and the communications industry that the FCC will vigorously enforce its merger conditions, to the ultimate benefit of consumers."

The message that FCC warning actually sent was that the government is historically only engaged in theater when it comes to most merger conditions. All too often, the "tough" conditions are either volunteered by the target company (because they're easy to meet or even already met), they're specifically designed to be meaningless (as we saw with AT&T's acquisition of BellSouth in 2006), they're conditions prohibiting the company from doing something it would never in a million years do (like block websites outright), or they are very selectively enforced. Like the FCC's dedication to broadband competition, the majority of merger conditions are simply a stage play put on for consumers and consumer advocates.

What does it say when you can't even meet merger conditions intended to be largely theatrical in nature? What does it say when you have trouble meeting merger conditions you yourself proposed? Clearly it says you're a fantastic, immensely-trustworthy overachiever.

This obviously raises the question of what conditions Comcast will urge regulators to impose on its acquisition of Time Warner Cable. Top Comcast lobbyist David Cohen appears to be pushing the promise that Comcast will spin off about three million of the acquired subscribers to form a new cable company. Comcast already expected to have to divest around three million of the acquired customers to another company like Charter (while keeping around 8 million), but spinning those three million users off into a new company would be more tax efficient. That new company wouldn't compete with Comcast, but you can expect that condition to be presented as Comcast being "forced" to improve market competition.

I'd expect the FCC to approve this merger, given deals have to be a unique, skull-rattling type of obviously awful and see unprecedented public outcry (read: AT&T T-Mobile) to prompt the FCC to action. Comcast doesn't directly compete with Time Warner Cable, and both the FCC and Comcast will paint legitimate worries about vertical integration, monopsony power, scale and content leverage as theoretical in nature. Such nuanced concerns are simply easier to take the bullshit bulldozer to in the media. As such, it's not clear what new, meaningless conditions Comcast and the FCC are currently cooking up to pretend to protect consumers from a larger, more powerful Comcast. Perhaps the company should be required to water the office plants? Strict oxygen inhalation and exhalation requirements? The options are limitless.

Filed Under: fcc, merger, regulation
Companies: comcast, nbc

Verizon Thinks 'The Most Important Concept Of Net Neutrality' Is Giving Verizon More Money

from the feel-healthy-yet? dept

It's pretty clear at this point that after nearly a decade of histrionics and hyperbole on all sides that the definition of net neutrality has been somewhat warped. That's in no small part thanks to the larger carriers like AT&T and Verizon, who have consistently done their best to argue that they need to be allowed to engage in "creative" and "innovative" new pricing (read predatory price gouging) or they simply won't invest in the networks of tomorrow. Between the recent peering debates and Verizon's defeat of FCC neutrality rules things are as murky as ever.

Verizon's defeat of the FCC's neutrality rules was a double-edged sword for the company. On the one hand, they killed the rules (which they helped craft with Google and AT&T, and as a result did little), but on the other end, their real goal was to kill FCC authority to regulate broadband for good. Instead, the court re-enforced that the FCC does in fact have some (albeit shaky) authority to regulate broadband providers and impose neutrality rules, they just have to argue their case differently. All in all, things are murky as hell on the net neutrality front, but apparently not for Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam:

"McAdam addressed the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's proposed net neutrality rules during a conference call about the company's acquisition of Vodafone's 45 percent stake in Verizon Wireless. The FCC's move this month to resurrect net neutrality rules should provide "clarity" for the broadband industry, said McAdam, whose company successfully challenged an old version of the regulations in court."

So McAdam apparently believes by throwing a stick in the spokes and killing the existing neutrality rules (which again, most ISPs liked because they did little to nothing, and didn't touch wireless), his company has brought "clarity." But what McAdam thinks is the most important thing for people to take away from the neutrality discussion is that paying Verizon increasingly more money is the truly important part:

"McAdam dismissed concerns that his company would selectively block or slow some Web content. "We make our money by carrying traffic," he said. "That's how we make dollars. So to view that we're going to be advantaging one over the other really is a lot of histrionics, I think, at this point." But McAdam suggested that broadband power users should pay extra. "It's only natural that the heavy users help contribute to the investment to keep the Web healthy," he said. "That is the most important concept of net neutrality."

That people already paying an arm and a leg for bandwidth never somehow pay their "fair share" has long been the cornerstone of the industry's effort to impose usage caps and overage on wireless and wired networks alike. In reality, it has never been about heavy users paying more, it has always been about all users paying more. And more. And more. One thing I believe Verizon can take comfort in is that while there's some uncertainty about what the new FCC rules will be, I think they'll largely be superficial in nature and will go to great lengths to avoid tramping Verizon's right to make the Internet "healthier" through abusive pricing practices.

Filed Under: bandwidth, broadband, fcc, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, google, verizon

Internet Goes Crazy Over Ordinary FCC Survey, Claims Agency Wants Draconian Control Over Newsrooms

from the perhaps-you-should-read-the-original-proposal? dept

Last week, when perusing the newswires, I kept seeing references to a most diabolical plan that was supposedly being crafted by the FCC. The agency, I was told by countless news outlets, was engaged in an insane attempt to effectively bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- awful rules justly killed off back in 1987 that tried to force fair media coverage. Under this new horrifying plan, the insufferably nosy government would, I was told, shortly thereafter begin telling reporters and newsrooms what they could and couldn't cover. Newsrooms that failed to play along with this effort, I was told by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai himself, would possibly lose their broadcast licenses, given that the voluntary survey was secretly not voluntary:

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions. Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years."

Madness! The massive stones on government! What a horrible example of government overreach! The outrage grew and grew, as additional news outlets piled on, noting this was a massive attack on the First Amendment. It also was a frontal assault on freedom that warrants the immediate demolition of the FCC entirely.

Knowing the FCC like I do after a decade of covering them, I thought that it seemed a little out of character for a timid, marginally-competent agency terrified of disrupting the status quo to suddenly take LSD and begin such a ham-fisted attack on common sense. As such, I did something crazy -- I read the actual study proposal. Apparently, this absolutely insane frontal assault on everything we hold dear in the god-damned universe was little more than a survey trying to ferret out how to best help disadvantaged, poor citizens (especially those for whom English may not be a first language) get the information they need. FCC Mignon Clyburn, who previously owned an African-American newspaper in South Carolina, has long held minority media ownership as a core policy focus.

It's a fairly routine and entirely voluntary field survey designed to gather data. Nothing more. There's not really any actual policy even attached to it. There was certainly nothing included that could drive any sane or reasonable individual to the conclusion that newsrooms would soon be under the iron fist of a new FCC-crafted information-control and propaganda gestapo. Many of the complaints against the "Critical Information Needs' (CIN) survey seemed focused specifically on how volatile and provocative the questions asked were, though I can't find any questions (page 25, pdf) that are even remotely controversial (perhaps I missed them or I'm not squinting my eyes or tilting me head just right).

You could try to argue the $900,000 survey was a waste of money, but then you'd have to admit the looming hearings about the survey as probably just as wasteful. You could also try to argue that such inquiries push beyond the FCC's technology-driven mandate (although you'd face counter argument that media ownership analysis is part of their job under the Communications Act). What you wouldn't be able to do with the slightest bit of factual support is suggest this was an FCC attempt to stifle free speech and newsroom freedom.

But people did, and the hysteria forced the FCC to issue a statement (pdf) saying that the survey was on hold until they could tone down the not-actually-inflammatory-at-all questions. The FCC noted that the survey was part of their Congressional requirement under section 257 of the Communications Act to study barriers to entry for small business owners and entrepreneurs (with an obvious focus on minority business owners). To try and placate the rioting, reading-challenged hordes, the FCC notes that any revamped study won't ask media owners or reporters what they think:

"To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters. Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America's newsrooms is false."

So in the end, the big "victory" is that a study trying to analyze minority media needs gets gutted and will be less useful. Hooray! Good job, team! Make no mistake, the furor really wasn't about the study itself, it was part of a long-standing concerted effort to gut any dwindling regulatory oversight the FCC has over the broadcast or broadband industries by demonizing the agency. The Fairness Doctrine is pretty routinely trotted out as a bogeyman on that front; former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell tried to argue that supporting net neutrality would also bring the long-ago dismantled policy back from the dead. That's not to say that there haven't been small attempts to bring the Fairness Doctrine back, but those efforts never go anywhere because almost everyone realizes it's a stupid idea. It's more useful as a political scarecrow than anything.

Those still worried shouldn't be; the FCC is so terribly afraid of upsetting industry and the status quo that they can't even admit fundamental realities (like the broadband industry isn't competitive and prices are high). They lack the intestinal fortitude to implement significant good policy of any meaningful measure, much less bad ideas of such head-rattling, impossible scale. If we can all agree that government dictating what newsrooms can cover is idiotic, perhaps we can all also agree that those same newsrooms should be hiring people who can actually read?

Filed Under: fairness doctrine, fcc, journalism, media

Rep. Blackburn Introduces Bill To Thwart Vile FCC Attempt To Do....Little To Nothing Of Substance On Net Neutrality

from the protectin'-freedom dept

As I recently noted, all the net neutrality opponents freaking out about the FCC's new neutrality promises really shouldn't be.

The announcement effectively boiled down to the agency saying "we might think about some stuff after a very long conversation that will potentially go nowhere." Yes, there are a few promises in there about pushing for greater competition and transparency, but the FCC has spent a decade making similar promises they've failed to follow through on. Still, that didn't stop Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee from declaring that the FCC's ambiguous non-announcement was the very worst sort of attack on Internet freedom -- a "socialistic" proposal that will have Americans re-living the "horrors" recently experienced during visits to Healthcare.gov.

Blackburn appears to have followed up her failure to understand how little the FCC will actually be doing (right alongside much of the press, apparently) with a bill aimed at thwarting the FCC's entirely non-existent assault on Internet freedom. H.R. 4070, or the "Internet Freedom Act," would protect us all from the FCC goin' crazy and regulatin' the hell outta them there Internets. From a statement on her new bill:

"Net Neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine of the Internet. Once the FCC has a foothold into managing how internet service providers run their networks they will essentially be deciding which content goes first, second, third, or not at all. It’s time for Congress to slam the FCC’s regulatory back-door shut, lock it, and return the keys to the free market. My legislation will put the brakes on net neutrality and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations."

Blackburn is simply throwing some chum in the partisan water to excite her base. Pretending the horribly ill-conceived Fairness Doctrine is making its menacing return (it died in 1987) is one that gets trotted out every few months or so for just that purpose. The amusing part is that Blackburn doesn't appear to have noticed that her campaign contributors AT&T and Comcast actually really like the FCC's new proposal. Why? Because they know the very most it's going to result in is a list of voluntary, non-binding measures "prohibiting" ISPs from doing things they never wanted to (like stone-cold outright blocking of entirely legal websites or services for no sane reason) while not prohibiting them from "creative" pricing (usage caps).

The FCC has spent much of the last 20 years deregulating the broadband cable, and phone industries and doing everything in their power to support things like usage caps and limited competition through total inaction. The broadband industry in turn has spent much of that time working endlessly to weaken the FCC's authority to regulate, just in case the agency wakes up one day and decides to do its job. This entirely-hallucinated idea that the agency is suddenly going to go mad, unshackle its trademark apathy on consumer issues, abuse non-existent authority, and start creating tough new regulations is all part of one elaborate stage play. The FCC's moves are theater, the political response is theater, and the quality of all the players is abysmal.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, internet freedom act, marsha blackburn, net neutrality, regulation
Companies: at&t, comcast