Telecom Sector Can't Stop Falsely Claiming That Net Neutrality Will Harm The Sick, Derail Smart Cars

from the just-can't-help-themslves dept

If you've paid attention to the net neutrality debate, you'll recall that large ISPs routinely threaten to hold back on network investment if governments pass rules protecting an open, healthy internet. They also routinely try to claim that the passage of such protections cause a massive slowdown in overall sector investment, something that simply isn't supported by actual facts (remember them?). Such rhetoric is fear mongering designed to scare regulators away from imposing "job killing regulations," even if those regulations make sense for a telecom market where limited competition fails to keep bad actors in check.

This hollow fear mongering has played a starring role as carriers worldwide begin to deploy faster fifth-generation wireless (5G) networks. You'll recall that both American and European telcos have routinely tried to claim that the deployment of these faster, more efficient wireless networks will be derailed by net neutrality.

Usually, this rhetoric is accompanied by claims that 5G will be the centerpiece of the smart cities of tomorrow, and that net neutrality rules will prevent ISPs from using these networks to provide prioritized connectivity for health and other related services. Ignored is the fact that this has never been a problem, since any well-crafted net neutrality rules carve out massive loopholes for all manner of essential services, especially on the medical front. Of course that doesn't stop ISPs from routinely claiming that net neutrality hurts sick people all the same.

With the Mobile World Congress trade show underway this week in Barcelona, all of this debunked rhetoric is being regurgitated like a bad hairball. Speaking at the trade show, Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm tried to inform attendees that Europe's net neutrality rules must be weakened lest they derail Europe's efforts to build 5G Networks:

"The principle of net neutrality is not to discriminate [against], throttle or degrade based on content but not all traffic is created equally and we don't believe this will work in the 5G future," he told reporters and analysts. "There will be a need for a regulatory regime that allows service providers to create services that are differentiated based on user experience."

But that's not the principle of net neutrality. The principle of net neutrality is to not discriminate against traffic for anti-competitive reasons. Guys like Ekholm certainly realize they're being disingenuous here, they just hope their audience doesn't. As is industry tradition, Ekholm then tried to suggest that with net neutrality in place, carriers won't be able to provide access to essential, prioritized medical services:

"In relation to the hot topic of net neutrality, Ekholm said that while Ericsson believes in non-discriminatory access to information and data, he added that "not all traffic is created equal". Once remote surgery is being performed over 5G, for instance, it should be given priority over other traffic, he said."

Again, this is something carriers in both the United States and Europe like to parrot repeatedly despite not being true. Europe's rules, like the ones we're about to discard in the States, provided ample leeway for such services. But the idea that "government regulation" will harm the sick is apparently too enticing of a siren song for those looking to demonize protection of a healthy and competitive internet.

Not to be outdone, FCC boss Ajit Pai also parroted industry claims in a speech that net neutrality is a threat to the smart cities of tomorrow (pdf):

"We believe that our decision will give the private sector greater incentives to invest in the 5G networks of the future and bring greater digital opportunity to the American people. And we also believe that our decision is critical for another reason as well. To realize the promise of 5G, we will need smart networks, not dumb pipes. Dumb pipes won’t deliver smart cities. Dumb pipes won’t enable millions of connected, self-driving cars to navigate the roads safely at the same time. In short, dumb pipes won’t give us the networks needed to enable the 5G applications of the future."

Again, any idea that "net neutrality hurts the sick" or stops innovation (smart car or otherwise) dead in its tracks is aggressively misleading. Net neutrality rules almost always carve out ample exceptions to legitimate services, often to a fault. The only thing net neutrality rules traditionally harm is the entrenched telecom monopoly's ability to abuse the lack of industry competition for further anti-competitive gain -- the only thing this debate has ever truly been about. Net neutrality is only a "regulatory burden" if you're doing something anti-competitive. Since entrenched telecom operators can't candidly acknowledge this in the quest for fatter revenues, we're subject to a rotating crop of flimsy straw men instead.

Filed Under: 5g, borje ekholm, innovation, net neutrality, smart cars, telemedicine, wireless

Sprint's CEO Thinks This Whole Killing Net Neutrality Thing Is Pretty Nifty

from the with-friends-like-these... dept

So when the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules were passed, we warned how the agency's failure to include zero rating (exempting an ISP's own content or the content of a deep-pocketed partner) was going to let ISPs creatively engage in anti-competitive behavior. And sure enough, companies like Verizon and AT&T began exempting their own content from usage caps, giving them a leg up in the market. Carriers like Sprint similarly began to fracture the internet experience, at one point charging users more money if they wanted to enjoy music, video and games without having their connection throttled.

T-Mobile pushed these creative barriers further with its Binge On offering, which exempted only the biggest and most popular video services from the company's usage caps. This automatically put thousands of smaller video providers, non-profits, educational institutions and startups at a notable market disadvantage, but by and large nobody outside of the EFF and academia gave much of a damn because a) ill-informed consumers are happy laboring under the illusion that they're getting something for free and b) the public (and by proxy media) was lazy and tired of debating net neutrality.

Just as the Wheeler FCC realized the error of their ways and began showing signs of cracking down on carriers that use usage caps and zero rating as an anti-competitive weapon, Trump won the election and Ajit Pai's FCC began dismantling the rules entirely. You know, for "freedom." As the U.S. moved further away from a truly open internet, regulators in other countries (like India) moved to prohibit ISPs from using usage caps or zero rating as an anti-competitive bludgeon against smaller operators, startups and non-profits.

With the rules now on the chopping block, and ISPs successfully gutting FCC and state oversight of ISPs, zero rating is going to be the least of our problems. We're back to now worrying about things like "paid prioritization," or the ability of ISPs to give their own video content (or the content of the deepest-pocketed companies) priority treatment on the network. And ISPs that were previously against such deals are now walking back their promises at an unsurprising pace.

Throughout all of this, carriers like Sprint repeatedly professed their breathless dedication to net neutrality while they continued to implement policies that made consumer connectivity less transparent, more expensive, and less open. And speaking at the Mobile World Congress this week, Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure made it clear that the company doesn't think this whole paid prioritization thing is that big of a problem, either:

"I don’t think there’s anything wrong for you to eventually charge a higher price for a faster access to your network,” Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure said during a keynote discussion here at the Mobile World Congress trade show. “You have this anyway. In the United States in many roads you drive, you have a faster road and you pay more. There’s nothing wrong with that. We’re still determining what is going to be the price for 5G and how we’re going to charge you, but the economics say, consumers are willing to pay more for a better service and are willing to pay less for a different type of service."

Except net neutrality rules have always carved out massive exemptions for prioritization (medical services, high-end VOIP service, etc.). It's only the anti-competitive paid prioritization deals the rules hamstrung. ISP executives know this, they just like to conflate the two to justify their quest to turn the internet into the modern equivalent of mid nineties walled gardens like AOL. Claure proceeded to imply that past net neutrality rules didn't let the company "manage its networks," which was never the case:

"We’re big believers in the open internet,” Claure said. “I believe there needs to be some light regulation, and it needs to be very light, in order for us to manage our networks."

Added Claure: “We need to manage our networks … That’s the most important thing to us."

Again though, the FCC's net neutrality rules never stopped Sprint from "managing its networks." In fact it took years of hashing out specifics in the rules to ensure that would never be a problem. Meanwhile, you don't get to proclaim you're "big believers in the open internet," while at the same time pushing for changes that could completely tilt the whole god-damned thing on its axis by letting giant companies (often a company's own subsidiaries) pay for lower latency, higher priority, and better service -- leaving startups, non-profits and educational institutions in the dust.

Just a few years ago we were concerned that loopholes in the 2015 rules would result in caps, overage fees and zero rating being used anti-competitively (and they were and are). Now, with the FCC's rules officially slated to expire in April, most of those problems are going to appear god damned quaint in comparison with the nonsense awaiting all of us just over the horizon.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, marcelo claure, net neutrality, wireless, zero rating
Companies: sprint

AT&T Continues Its Bullshit Sales Pitch For A Fake Net Neutrality Law

from the zero-credibility dept

While Verizon, Comcast and AT&T may have convinced the FCC to repeal net neutrality, they've still got a steep, uphill climb before they can be comfortable that the repeal is on solid footing, meaning we still have some time before they begin taking full anti-competitive advantage. The FCC's repeal still needs to survive a wall of legal challenges from consumer groups, Mozilla, and nearly half the states in the union. From there, ISPs need to ensure that a future FCC or Congress doesn't just pass new, tougher rules all over again.

That's why Verizon, Comcast and AT&T are all now pushing for a new "net neutrality law" in name only. While the same ISPs that gutted these popular consumer protections insist they're just interested in "putting this contentious issue to bed," the reality is they want a law that pre-empts any future federal or state attempts to protect consumers. As usual, they've managed to get industry marionettes like Martha Blackburn behind the legislative push. Since they've long since demolished any credibility on this subject, there's been little traction in these legislative efforts so far.

But with the power they wield over Congress, they remain dedicated to the cause all the same, and they know full well that many of these kinds of legislative efforts are won by brutal repetition. Enter AT&T, who this week penned yet another blog post insisting that they really love net neutrality just like you!:

"So, today is another “Day of Action” for net neutrality advocates across the United States. We are supporting today’s Day of Action just as we did last summer’s Day of Action. But also like last summer, we support real action – actual legislation from Congress that places the pillars of net neutrality into law and applies those pillars across the internet for the benefit of all consumers.

Except the "real action" AT&T wants is little more than a head fake. AT&T's definition of "real action" involves throwing campaign contributions at Congress in exchange for a Congressional "solution" it knows its lawyers will literally be writing. Said law will ban things ISPs never had any intention of doing (the outright blocking of websites), but include so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless. Again, the goal isn't passing real net neutrality protections -- it's to prevent real, comprehensive protections from being passed later.

A federal law would also pre-empt all of the numerous, state level measures currently winding through state legislatures across half of the States in the nation. Large ISPs convinced their BFF Ajit Pat to include pre-emption language attempting to ban states from protecting consumers in the wake of federal oversight apathy, but that effort rests on pretty shaky and relatively untested legal ground, and ISP lawyers know it.

And amusingly, while AT&T's version of "consumer protections" would be little more than a giant legislative middle finger aimed at consumers, AT&T's Bob Quinn acts as if trying to buy a hollow net neutrality law is some kind of altruistic act:

"We received criticism from a certain corner of this debate last year for our support of the Day of Action and I expect we will hear from those same folks again today. But no matter what some of the advocates argue, AT&T has supported enforceable net neutrality rules that do not crush investment incentives for over 10 years; there is nothing weak about them. The simple reality is that we won’t achieve those rules unless and until Congress acts. So, for today’s Day of Action, we reiterate our call for a Federal Consumer Bill of Rights that provides consumers with openness, transparency and privacy protections no matter where they go on the internet."

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a company (outside of Verizon and Comcast) that has less credibility on the subject of consumer welfare than AT&T. After all, this is the same company that in the last few years has been fined for ripping off the hearing impaired, helping drug dealers run a directory assistance scam, ripping off a program intended to help the poor, and for actively making their bills harder to understand to help scammers and crammers. AT&T's the company you go to if you want tips on protectionism, the NSA's favorite foods, and regional monopolies, not consumer protection.

Regardless, expect AT&T's push for a new law to continue gaining momentum in the new year as incumbent ISPs grow increasingly nervous about their legal chances in the looming court case. A case that's going to repeatedly highlight all of the shady nonsense that occurred as the FCC rushed to repeal popular consumer protections solely to benefit a handful of telecom monopolies like AT&T.

Filed Under: congress, fcc, laws, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

AT&T Fails In Bid To Kill FTC Authority Over Broadband Monopolies

from the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too dept

It can't be overstated that the broadband industry isn't just trying to kill net neutrality, it's trying to gut most meaningful federal and state oversight of entrenched telecom monopolies. While Ajit Pai dismantled consumer protections at the FCC, his "Restoring Internet Freedom" order also ironically attempts to ban states from holding ISPs accountable for privacy, net neutrality, or other anti-competitive behavior. With neither adult regulatory supervision or healthy organic competition in place to keep bad actors in line, the end result will likely be even worse behavior than the kind of Comcast shitshows we've grow used to.

But there's one part of this effort that just faced a notable setback.

Under Ajit Pai's (read: the broadband industry's) proposal, the FCC would take a step back from overseeing ISPs, ceding any remaining authority to the FTC. What Pai and his ISP friends didn't mention is that the FTC's authority over ISPs is severely limited, or that AT&T has spent the last four years in court trying to demolish what authority the FTC does have. That this would leave consumers almost entirely unprotected from monopoly behavior must have simply slipped Ajit Pai's mind during his endless sales pitches for his unpopular repeal.

AT&T's legal gambit began when the FTC sued AT&T back in 2014 for lying to customers about the company's throttling practices. You'll recall that AT&T had been waging a not-so-subtle war on unlimited data users as it tried to drive them to more expensive, metered plans. Amusingly, AT&T lawyers tried to argue in court that the company's "common carrier" status -- the same status it has fought viciously against on the net neutrality front -- exempted it from FTC authority almost entirely under Section 5 of the FTC Act. As we noted at the time, it was a very absurd and Schrodinger-esque tap dance.

At the time, the FTC issued a warning stating that should AT&T lawyers be successful, any company with a common carrier component (from Google to oil conglomerates) could tap dance around FTC oversight. Those without such components could simply buy or merge with a small company with a common carrier component to nab the same benefit. This, the FTC warned, would create a massive accountability and enforcement gap regarding corporate America:

"The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf. Many companies provide both common-carrier and non-common-carrier services—not just telephone companies like AT&T, but also cable companies like Comcast, technology companies like Google, and energy companies like ExxonMobil (which operate common carrier oil pipelines). Companies that are not common carriers today may gain that status by offering new services or through corporate acquisitions. For example, AOL and Yahoo, which are not common carriers, are (or soon will be) owned by Verizon. The panel’s ruling calls into question the FTC’s ability to protect consumers from unlawful practices by such companies in any of their lines of business."

Unfortunately for AT&T, things didn't work out that way. This week the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled (pdf) AT&T's dream scenario wouldn't be coming to fruition, and that the lawsuit against AT&T for lying to its customers would be moving forward:

"We affirm the district court’s denial of AT&T’s motion to dismiss. Looking to the FTC Act’s text, the meaning of “common carrier” according to the courts around the time the statute was passed in 1914, decades of judicial interpretation, the expertise of the FTC and Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), and legislative history, we conclude that the exemption is activity-based. The phrase “common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate commerce” thus provides immunity from FTC regulation only to the extent that a common carrier is engaging in common-carrier services.

While an important win for FTC authority, it's important to note that on the broadband front this only retains the status quo: that is, the FTC's existing, flimsy oversight of broadband ISPs. And that oversight doesn't extend very far. Unlike the FCC, the FTC can't create new guidelines when needed, and can only act against broadband ISPs after the fact -- if it can be clearly illustrated that an ISP engaged in "unfair or deceptive" behavior. In the telecom sector, where anti-competitive behavior is often hidden behind claims of network security, that's often difficult.

That said, FCC boss Ajit Pai was quick to issue a statement (pdf) declaring that this was a win for consumers (correct, sort of), and that the FCC would be working closely with the FTC to protect net neutrality better than before (not correct, and extremely unlikely):

"The Ninth Circuit’s decision is a significant win for American consumers. Among other things, it reaffirms that the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police Internet service providers after the Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect,” said FCC Chairman Pai. “In the months and years ahead, we look forward to working closely with the FTC to ensure the protection of a free and open Internet."

Again, the FTC's authority over ISPs is extremely limited, and with no actual net neutrality rules to enforce it's comical to think this will be the equivalent of keeping real net neutrality rules (and FCC authority) intact. The throttling lawsuit aside, the FTC pretty rarely actually takes action against ISPs for oceans of bad behavior despite ample opportunity (most notably on the false advertising front). That's in part because the FTC's already under-funded and under-manned, and is tasked with overseeing everything from washer and dryer manufacturers to accuracy in bleach labeling.

So while this ruling is important in terms of ensuring the FTC can police bad actors generally, for the broadband industry specifically it simply means what little authority it has over ISPs remains intact. The shorter version: while uncompetitive broadband monopolies have been successfully gutting most federal and state oversight of their regional monopolistic fiefdoms, their attempt to eliminate all oversight won't be occurring just yet.

Filed Under: authority, fcc, ftc, net neutrality, oversight, regulations
Companies: at&t

NRA Gives FCC Boss An Award For 'Courageously' Killing Net Neutrality, May Have Violated Ethics Rules

from the idiocy-supernova dept

The NRA last week thought it would be a good idea to give FCC boss Ajit Pai an award for killing net neutrality. More specifically, the NRA gave Pai the Charleton Heston Award for Courage at the CPAC conference for killing the popular consumer protections. The entire affair was a tone deafness supernova from beginning to end, with American Conservative Union (ACU) Executive Director Dan Schneider making it abundantly clear that he and other attendees have absolutely no coherent idea what net neutrality even is. Schneider went so far as to declare the unpopular agency boss the "most courageous, heroic person that I know":

"Pai "fought to preserve your free speech rights" as a member of the FCC's Republican minority during the Obama administration, Schneider said. Pai "fought and won against all odds, but the Obama administration had some curveballs and they implemented these regulations to take over the Internet." "As soon as President Trump came into office, President Trump asked Ajit Pai to liberate the Internet and give it back to you," Schneider added. "Ajit Pai is the most courageous, heroic person that I know."

Of course if you've been paying even a shred of attention, you should realize there's nothing courageous about ignoring the public, ignoring the experts, ignoring all objective data just to give a sloppy wet kiss to despised telecom monopolies like Comcast. Pai's repeal is widely derided as one of the worst tech policy decisions in the modern internet era, making the backlash against legislative shitshows like SOPA look like a cozy beach side picnic in comparison. And despite every effort by the telecom industry to frame net neutrality as a partisan issue, that is, and continues to be, bullshit.

While a petty and blatant attention-seeking move, the stunt may have given both the NRA and Pai a little more than they bargained for. As part of the award Pai was given an antique musket, a move former Office of Government Ethics boss Walter Shaub was quick to criticize as a violation of FCC ethics rules:

It's possible Pai can tap dance around this by claiming the musket (which the NRA said would be stored and displayed at their offices in Virginia) never formally entered Pai's legal ownership. Of course that doesn't make this effort any less idiotic and tone deaf. CPAC apparently doesn't realize that Millennials are starting to vote in greater numbers than ever before, and while CPAC leadership may have thought combining the NRA (while in the middle of a massive PR kerfuffle) with the attack on net neutrality was an "epic troll," all younger voters are going to see here is a giant neon sign blinking the words "incompetence" and "corruption" in endless repetition.

Pai wasn't alone in potentially violating ethics rules during CPAC. Under the Hatch Act, FCC Commissioners can't openly pitch for a specific political candidate, a rule Pai's fellow Commissioner Mike O'Rielly violated when he urged CPAC attendees to vote for Trump:

"O’Rielly, however, later found himself embroiled in his own controversy. His trouble started with a question about what the FCC could do to stop the constant “ping-pong” of issues, such as net neutrality, every time the party in power changes in the nation’s capital.

“I think what we can do is make sure as conservatives that we elect good people to both the House, Senate and make sure that President Trump gets reelected,” O’Rielly began.

The GOP commissioner’s plug for the president riled some ethics watchdogs. Under a set of rules known as the Hatch Act, government officials such as O’Rielly generally aren’t supposed to use their stations to advocate for election outcomes.

Remember, these are the same FCC staffers that had an epic hissy fit a few years back when they claimed the former White House "improperly" violated nonexistent ethics rules by openly advocating for tough net neutrality rules. They're now embroiled in numerous GAO inquiries, face a growing mountain of lawsuits, and now face an FCC Inspector General Inquiry for potentially being too cozy with the industries they're supposed to be holding accountable on behalf of the American Public. Keep digging that hole, gentlemen.

Filed Under: ajit pai, cpac, ethics, ethics rules, fcc, mike o'rielly, net neutrality, nra, walter shaub
Companies: nra

New Jersey The Latest State To Protect Net Neutrality By Executive Order

from the Not-so-Comcastic dept

The Trump FCC is currently in the process of trying to eliminate all meaningful oversight of some of the least competitive companies in America. Not only are broadband providers and the Trump administration trying to gut FTC and FCC oversight of companies like Comcast, they're also trying to ban states from protecting net neutrality or broadband consumer privacy at ISP lobbyist behest. This is all based on the belief that letting Comcast run amok somehow magically forges telecom Utopia. It's the kind of thinking that created Comcast and the market's problems in the first place.

And while the Trump FCC is trying to ban states from protecting consumers in the wake of federal apathy (you know, states rights and all that), the individual states don't appear to be listening. Numerous states are pushing new legislation that effectively codifies the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules on the state level, efforts that will be contested in the courts over the next few years. ISPs have been quick to complain about the threat of multiple, discordant and shitty state laws, ignoring the fact that they created this problem by lobbying to kill reasonable (and popular) federal protections.

Other states, like Montana and New York have gotten more creative, signing executive orders that ban ISPs from winning state contracts if they violate net neutrality. Montana Governor Steve Bullock went so far as to suggest that other states use his order as a template, something New Jersey appears to have taken him up on. The state this week issued its own executive order (pdf) protecting net neutrality, modifying the state procurement process to prohibit state contracts with ISPs that routinely engage in anti-competitive blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization.

In a press release, state leaders say the new rules will take effect in July:

"We may not agree with everything we see online, but that does not give us a justifiable reason to block the free, uninterrupted, and indiscriminate flow of information,” Governor Murphy said. “And, it certainly doesn’t give certain companies or individuals a right to pay their way to the front of the line. While New Jersey cannot unilaterally regulate net neutrality back into law or cement it as a state regulation, we can exercise our power as a consumer to make our preferences known."

Governor Murphy’s Executive Order will make New Jersey the third state –along with New York and Montana—to mandate that ISPs adhere to net neutrality rules or lose the ability to contract in state. The Executive Order will apply to all contracts between state entities and ISPs that are executed on or after July 1, 2018. The Attorney General’s Division of Consumer Affairs will work with the Division of Purchase and Property to carry out the Executive Order and monitor its enforcement.

One problem that could arise from these executive orders is the fact that ISPs can avoid violating the rules if they say they're simply engaging in "reasonable network management."

Defining what "reasonable" is has long been problematic in the net neutrality conversation, and ISP lobbyists have had a lot of luck weakening said definition after the fact to erode the importance of such protections. Hiding anti-competitive behavior behind "reasonable network management", artificial network congestion, or other faux technical justifications is a game ISPs have been playing for about as long as the net neutrality debate has existed, and since lawmakers often have no idea how any of this works it's often easy to mislead them.

Regulators and lawmakers also often like to talk tough on this subject, then avoid any meaningful enforcement down the road for fear of alienating deep-pocketed campaign contributors. So while it's great New Jersey, New York and Montana are doing something about federal regulatory capture, it's going to require an attentive press and public to ensure these state-level promises actually mean something.

The FCC has also stated it plans to take aim at these state executive orders as well state legislation, but it's going to be up to the courts to decide whether the agency's "pre-emption" efforts extend that far. The FCC has had its wrist slapped by the courts in the past for trying to stop states from passing protectionist state laws ("states rights" appears to have a ever-shifting meaning for many of these ISPs and politicians depending on what they're after).

The legal fight between the states and the FCC will be joining the countless looming billable hours as the FCC's unpopular decision gets bogged down in legal chaos for what's likely to be years to come. All so Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon can further abuse a lack of broadband competition for additional anti-competitive gain -- without the pesky threat of anybody actually doing anything about it.

Filed Under: ajit pai, executive order, fcc, net neutrality, new jersey, states rights