Hoping The Third Time's The Charm, ISPs Urge Supreme Court To Kill Net Neutrality

from the one-more-time-around dept

We've noted how large ISPs like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are covering all their bases in their endless quest to kill popular (some would say necessary) net neutrality protections. They've successfully lobbied FCC boss Ajit Pai to vote to kill the existing rules later this year, despite the massive public opposition to that plan. But they're also lobbying Congress to draft a new net neutrality law they publicly insist will solve everything, while privately hoping you're too stupid to realize will be entirely written by their lawyers and lobbyists -- ensuring it has so many loopholes as to be effectively useless.

In case those first two options don't work, large ISPs are also -- for the third time in as many years -- looking for the Supreme Court's help. ISPs lost their first attempt to overturn the Title II net neutrality order last year when the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia shot down their complaints (which included insisting that net neutrality rules violated their First Amendment rights). ISPs lost again earlier this year when the courts shot down their en banc appeal.

Hoping the third time's the charm, lobbyists for Comcast, AT&T and other ISPs have lobbied the Supreme Court to overturn the rules, hoping to kill net neutrality protections both today and for the foreseeable future. Like previous complaints, AT&T's petition to the court (pdf) trots out a parade of theoretical horribles, doubling down on numerous, previously debunked industry claims (like these modest net neutrality rules somehow utterly devastated sector investment, a claim repeatedly debunked by countless journalists and objective economists).

AT&T's petition is a greatest hits of its previous, false claims, including the claim that zero rating (imposing usage caps then letting a company's own content bypass those caps while still penalizing competitors) is somehow "pro consumer":

"It is clear, however, that such open-ended Title II regulation confers expansive authority on the FCC to regulate virtually anything a broadband ISP does and enables any individual or company to file a complaint alleging that any broadband innovation is in some sense “unfair” or “unreasonable.” Pet. App. 696a-700a (¶ 455). The FCC has said, for example, that it could forbid a broadband provider to “zero-rat[e]” certain content (i.e., exempt it from monthly data allowances) on the theory that doing so is “unfair” to other content providers, id. at 343a-49a (¶¶ 151-153), even though zero-rating is equivalent to bundled discounts and is thus strongly pro-consumer."

As we've noted here quite frequently, that's all bullshit. AT&T, like other ISPs, has abused the lack of competition in the broadband space by imposing arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps. From there, ISPs like Comcast and AT&T have exempted their own services from these caps while penalizing competitors. Even then, the FCC didn't explicitly ban this practice (as is the case in Chile, the Netherlands, India, Canada and elsewhere), instead stating they'd only act on a "case by case basis." The FCC was just preparing to declare some of this behavior anti-competitive when Ajit Pai and Donald Trump arrived on the scene.

The nation's mega ISPs all petitioned the Court to declare that the FCC exceeded its statutory authority by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier service. If the Supreme Court obliges, that would prevent any future FCC Commissioners from revisiting the issue, leaving the whole net neutrality issue up to a cash-compromised and utterly dysfunctional Congress to solve (good luck with that). Of course the Supreme Court may decide Pai's planned assault on the rules makes hearing the case duplicative, dashing ISP dreams of ISP lawyers hoping to kill even the faintest specter of meaningful net neutrality rules, permanently.

Since AT&T lawyers are also busy in court trying to undermine the FTC's oversight of broadband providers as well (or in fact any company with even a modest "common carrier" component), the goal here is pretty straight forward: gutting all meaningful government oversight of one of the least competitive industries in America. Should this multi-pronged, bullshit-laden effort prove successful, the laundry list of problems we've had with companies like Comcast are going to seem arguably quaint in a few years.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, supreme court
Companies: at&t

Comcast Whines That The Net Neutrality Debate It Keeps Rekindling Is A Lot Like 'Groundhog Day'

from the I-wish-I-could-stop-punching-myself dept

Large ISPs continue to try their best to pretend they adore net neutrality, and have nothing to do with their own perpetual efforts to crush FCC rules designed to keep the internet relatively open and competitive. Verizon recently released an utterly-comical video that blatantly lied about its role in killing the FCC's consumer protections. And companies like Comcast have penned blog post after blog post falsely claiming that the entire world somehow has it all wrong, and companies with a generation of documented anti-competitive behavior are really just misunderstood sweethearts being falsely maligned by fringe radicals.

You just know Comcast is telling the truth, since it has proudly, repeatedly declared as much in all caps and pretty colors:

:

Bullshit doesn't magically become reality with a change of font. Enter top Comcast lobbyist (the company apparently hates it when you call him that) David Cohen, who recently penned yet another blog post whining incessantly about how the fifteen-year net neutrality debate has become a lot like Groundhog Day, with the same players being forced to make the same arguments over and over again, ad infinitum:

"As the comment period comes to a close in the FCC’s latest review of Open Internet rules, consumers, ISPs, edge providers, and other stakeholders might feel like it is "Groundhog Day," with the same characters weighing in over and over on the same legal and policy issues that the FCC has considered again and again for a decade."

Ignored by Cohen is the fact we wouldn't all be stuck on this idiotic hamster wheel if Comcast and other major ISPs would simply accept the will of the public and stop trying to undermine the health of the god-damned internet. While it's at it, Comcast and its hired policy flacks could stop incessantly lying about how the relatively-basic rules were an apocalypse for industry investment. Comcast complaining about the repetitive, endless nature of the net neutrality debate is much like an arsonist whining about the high temperature in the house he or she is currently burning down.

Of course it doesn't take Cohen long to get to Comcast's real motivation for the post; the company's desire for a new, flimsier net neutrality law Cohen knows he and other industry lobbyists will be writing:

"It’s time to end this constant regulatory fluctuation and focus on protecting consumers and strengthening the American marketplace. As we’ve said before, and as both sides of the aisle have agreed, it’s time for Congress to enact bipartisan legislation that permanently establishes sensible and enforceable open Internet protections. However, until a permanent framework is in place, the FCC can and should ensure a durable backstop and maintain core open Internet protections through one or more of the options outlined in our comments and the comments of others."

We've noted repeatedly how large ISPs are pushing hard for a new net neutrality law they know either won't be passed (the debate remains notably toxic in Congress thanks to guys like Cohen) or will be so filled with lobbyist-crafted loopholes as to be entirely useless. The belief that this bickering, cash-soaked Congress is capable of passing tough consumer protections on this front is utterly laughable. In Cohen's world you're all too stupid to realize this, so Cohen proceeds glibly to again declare Comcast's unyielding dedication to "strong, legally enforceable rules":

"To be clear – as we have said time and time again – Comcast is committed to an open Internet. We support permanent, strong, legally enforceable net neutrality rules. We will continue to not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content, no matter what the FCC does. We stand ready to work with policymakers, legislators, and stakeholders to end this regulatory back-and-forth and craft an effective and enduring solution for consumers and the U.S. economy. Ping pong should be for players, not policy."

Clever! Except Comcast could stop this entire game of regulatory ping pong itself -- by simply putting down the paddle. The company lit a fire under the entire debate in 2008 when it repeatedly lied about throttling BitTorrent. It subsequently has abused the lack of competition via unnecessary usage caps and zero rating schemes aimed at hamstringing competitors. And it joined AT&T, Verizon and Charter in suing to overturn the FCC's 2015 rules, utterly terrified that somebody might actually stop the company from abusing its captive, historically disgusted customers.

So yeah, Comcast has a peculiar definition of "commitment" and "support" for tough net neutrality protections, since it has fought viciously against every implementation of this idea over the last fifteen years. And Cohen would like you to ignore that the simplest solution to Groundhog Day purgatory he's responsible for is right in front of his nose: leave the existing, popular rules the hell alone.

Filed Under: ajit pai, david cohen, fcc, groundhog day, net neutrality
Companies: comcast

Large ISP & Silicon Valley CEOs Were Too Afraid To Publicly Testify On Net Neutrality

from the own-your-words dept

While ISP lobbyists are pushing the government to kill net neutrality protections, they're also pushing hard for a new net neutrality law. Why? With our current historically-dysfunctional and cash-compromised Congress, large ISPs like AT&T and Comcast know that their lawyers and lobbyists will be the ones writing the law -- if it gets passed at all. The end result will be a law ISPs will profess "puts the debate to bed," but which contains so many loopholes as to be effectively meaningless when it comes to protecting consumers and competition.

As a cornerstone of this new push, lawmakers in July sent out invitations to CEOs of major tech companies and major ISPs for a September hearing to be held in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The meeting was, the invitation claimed, an opportunity for stakeholders (only apparently the wealthiest ones) to "rethink the current regulatory model and build new rules from the ground up" in Congress. Again, this is something ISPs have been lobbying for knowing it either won't happen, or if it does will be so loophole-filled as to be worse than useless.

Amusingly, however, none of the invited CEOs from telecoms or Silicon Valley's biggest, wealthiest companies were interested in testifying publicly at the hearing:

"Republican lawmakers had hoped to bring top executives from tech companies and internet providers to testify publicly in a bid to garner support for a deal to set permanent rules on the future of internet access after a more than decade-long fight. No company had publicly committed to testify and many firms were privately reluctant to testify."

The reason for this should be fairly obvious. Large ISPs are perfectly happy to lie about their assault on popular consumer protections in viciously-misleading videos or disengenuous blog posts penned by a rotating crop of lawyers and lobbyists. But no CEO wants to directly own their company's ugly, anti-consumer, anti-innovation, and anti-competitive positions personally in a public hearing, especially given the shady behavior at the FCC and the growing bipartisan public backlash to what Trump's FCC is doing.

Similarly, Google and Facebook don't want to highlight that they stopped supporting net neutrality in any meaningful fashion years ago, and in many parts of the world have repeatedly undermined the concept solely to corner developing nation ad revenues. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings doesn't want to have to explain why the company's support of net neutrality has waned proportionally to the company's growing power, and no major Silicon Valley CEO wants to own the fact their apathy on this subject has left small and mid-sized companies, startups and consumers alone and under-funded as they fight to keep the internet a relatively level playing field.

But worry not! Lawmakers like Greg Walden were quick to make it clear that instead of publicly and transparently owning their inconsistent to downright anti-consumer positions, these large companies will continue to haggle out the details of a new law behind closed doors:

"Zach Hunter, a spokesman for the committee’s chairman, U.S. Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, said the hearing was postponed because of talks over the future rules. “As negotiations progress on a permanent solution for net neutrality that ensures a free and open internet, the committee will postpone the original hearing in order to allow talks between stakeholders to continue,” he said."

So as the FCC works to kill the rules currently on the books, the nation's largest companies and cash-compromised lawmakers will be debating -- without your input -- how to replace these rules with the policy equivalent of wet cardboard. Throughout the fall you're going to see countless ISP-prompted editorials popping up (like this one and this one and this one and this one...) insisting such a law is the best -- or only -- path forward. Be sure to note how these calls ignore what the public wants -- and that the easiest path forward isn't another new law, but to simply leave the existing, popular net neutrality protections alone.

Filed Under: broadband, congress, net neutrality, testify

Apple Throws Its Support Behind Net Neutrality. Sort Of.

from the don't-pull-a-muscle dept

While large Silicon Valley companies like Google and Facebook are often credited for being "net neutrality supporters" in the media, their actual support of the concept is often incredibly flimsy. Though it's quick to claim otherwise, Google hasn't really supported net neutrality since around 2010 or so, progressively walking back its dedication as it pushed into the fixed and wireless broadband sectors. Similarly Facebook often says all the right things, but internationally has been repeatedly accused of trampling the open internet in its quest to dominate developing nation advertising markets.

We're also now seeing similar behavior from companies like Netflix, which aggressively supported net neutrality when the streaming company was a scrappy upstart, but has since walked back its support now that it's an international video juggernaut. While these companies still occasionally pay lip service to the concept of net neutrality via their joint policy organizations, these are often token gestures -- leaving consumers, consumer advocates and smaller companies and startups alone and under-funded in the quest to maintain something vaguely resembling an open and level internet playing field.

Apple has also paid little more than fleeting lip service to neutrality over the years -- and has been largely quiet as the Trump administration works to remove most meaningful oversight of the barely-competitive telecom sector. But last week the Cupertino giant took things a little further, filing comments with the FCC in support of protecting net neutrality. Sort of. Apple does make it clear that it doesn't think ISPs should indiscriminately block, throttle or otherwise hinder competitors' content:

"Broadband providers should not block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services. Far from new, this has been a foundational principle of the FCC’s approach to net neutrality for over a decade. Providers of online goods and services need assurance that they will be able to reliably reach their customers without interference from the underlying broadband provider.”

Granted, this isn't saying much of anything. Even most large ISPs like Comcast and AT&T have made it clear they have no intent of outright blocking or banning content given the potential PR backlash. And the net neutrality has long-since become more nuanced as incumbent ISPs have been forced to be more creative with the way they hamstring competitors (usage caps, zero rating, interconnection shenanigans).

It's also commedable that Apple makes it clear that lifting the current ban on paid prioritization could prove problematic for companies whose services compete with the likes of AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon:

"Lifting the current ban on paid prioritization arrangements could allow broadband providers to favor the transmission of one provider’s content or services (or the broadband provider’s own online content or services) over other online content, fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today — to the detriment of consumers, competition, and innovation."

Again, that's great -- especially since Verizon, AT&T, Charter and Comcast have a generation of documented experience creatively abusing the lack of competition in the broadband market to hamstring competitors.

It's here however that Apple's support wavers. We've noted repeatedly how large ISPs are pushing hard for a net neutrality law -- because they know they'll be the ones writing it, ensuring it's far weaker than the current protections currently on the books. That's why if you actually care about net neutrality, you need to realize that keeping the existing (though admittedly imperfect) rules on the books is the easiest and best path forward. But Apple never explicitly urges the FCC to keep Title II and FCC authority in place, instead insisting it's open to "alternative sources of legal authority" to help protect consumers from incumbent ISP shenanigans:

“Apple remains open to alternative sources of legal authority, but only if they provide for strong, enforceable, and legally sustainable protections, like those in place today. Simply put, the internet is too important to consumers and too essential to innovation to be left unprotected and uncertain.”

The problem is there is no "alternative source of legal authority." You'll recall Verizon successfully sued to overturn the FCC's flimsy 2010 net neutrality rules, a court informing the FCC that it couldn't protect net neutrality without first returning ISPs to their pre-2002 status as "common carriers" under the telecom act. So that's what the FCC did in 2015, a decision that has been subsequently held up by the courts. The only other "alternative source of legal authority" would be a new law by Congress, and if anybody believes the current Congress is genuinely interested in passing a tough, consumer-friendly net neutrality law free of large ISP-dictated loopholes -- you've been living in some other, saner dimension.

Again. it's great to see Apple support net neutrality here, especially since they've historically been so muted -- and make it clear they only support alternatives that result in "strong, enforceable and legally sustainable protections." But with large ISP lobbyists now aggressively ramping up their quest for a new, flimsy law (see ISP-driven editorials like this one and this one and this one and this one...) companies that actually support net neutrality need to make it clear to the public that the best -- and only -- real path forward at the moment is keeping the existing, extremely popular rules intact.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, title ii
Companies: apple

AT&T Blatantly Lies, Claims Most Consumers Want Net Neutrality Killed

from the broad-support-for-self-immolation dept

So we've noted time and time again how the vast majority of consumers support net neutrality, and the current rules on the books protecting it. Survey after survey (including several from the telecom industry itself) have found net neutrality has broad, bipartisan support. To try and undermine this reality, ISPs have spent more than a decade trying to frame the desire for a healthy, competitive internet -- free of entrenched gatekeeper control -- as a partisan debate. And they've largely been successful at it, sowing division and derailing discourse on a subject that, in reality, isn't all that controversial in the eyes of the Comcast-loathing public.

This was highlighted again this week, when a broadband industry-funded study found that 98.5% of the original comments filed with the FCC oppose the agency's plan to kill net neutrality. Of the original, unique comments filed with the FCC (people that took the time to write out their thoughts instead of just signing a form letter), 1.52 million said they opposed the FCC's plan, compared with the 23,000 individuals that think gutting consumer protections was a nifty idea. Again, there's no debate here: the public (which the FCC is supposed to represent) viciously opposes this plan to dismantle Title II, and by proxy, the net neutrality rules.

Large ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T have used every trick in the book to try and distort this reality, from publishing videos claiming that nobody's trying to kill net neutrality, to actively trying to con their own users into supporting gutting the essential protections. Shortly after this week's latest study was published, AT&T got right to work blatantly lying about what the study said, insisting that most of the "legitimate" comments filed with the FCC support killing net neutrality protections:

"While Title II proponents may claim that millions of consumers representing the large majority of commenters support Title II, in fact, most of these comments were not legitimate. And when only legitimate comments are considered, the large majority of commenters oppose Title II regulation of Internet access."

Again, that's a blatant lie, and the study AT&T helped fund actually found the exact opposite. But you'll notice a new AT&T tactic here: raising doubts about the integrity of the FCC commenting system to try and downplay genuine public opposition to the FCC's plan. As we've noted several times, someone has been filling the FCC comment system with fraudulent comments, using a bot to fill the proceeding alphabetically with bogus individuals (in some cases deceased). And the FCC has made it abundantly clear it has absolutely no interest in doing anything about it, though these fake comments are easy to single out.

Now it's entirely possible that someone is just trolling the entire proceeding, thought it would be fun to stuff the system with millions of fraudulent comments, and the FCC and large ISPs are simply taking advantage. But given recent history, and the shenanigans that have riddled this debate for years, the idea that this is a concerted, coordinated effort to downplay the will of the public can't be ruled out.

After all, this is an FCC that was willing to completely manufacture a DDoS attack just to try and downplay public anger, and is being sued for refusing to release details on its meetings with ISPs on this subject. And AT&T's recent history involves getting busted for ripping off taxpayers, tricking its customer base into opposing net neutrality, turning a blind eye to drug dealers running directory assistance scams on AT&T's own customers, and actively making bills more confusing to aid scrammers, so you can determine for yourself whether this type of strategy lies within AT&T's lobbying and policy wheelhouse.

Filed Under: comments, fcc, lies, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

98.5% Of Original Comments To The FCC Oppose Killing Net Neutrality

from the ignoring-the-will-of-the-people dept

Let's not mince words: the FCC's plan to gut net neutrality protections in light of severe public opposition is likely one of the more bare-knuckled acts of cronyism in modern technological and political history. That's because the rules have overwhelming, bipartisan support from the vast majority of consumers, most of whom realize the already imperfect rules are some of the only consumer protections standing between consumers and giant, uncompetitive companies like Comcast. Repealing the rules only serves one interest: that of one of the least liked, least-competitive industries in America.

That said, the broadband industry and the FCC keep trying to obfuscate this reality, and failing. The latest example: a new study funded by the industry itself took a closer look at the 21.8 million comments filed with the FCC so far on its plan to roll back the rules, and found, once again, the vast majority of the citizens the agency is supposed to represent oppose the FCC's plan. The full study was conducted by consulting firm Emprata and funded by Broadband for America, a lobbying front organization backed by Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter and most large wireless carriers.

As we've consistently reported, somebody has been backing an attempt to fill the FCC's comment proceeding with entirely bogus, bot-crafted support for the FCC's plan. There have even been bogus comments filed in support of killing net neutrality made in my name (which the FCC has said they'll do nothing about). The Emprata study found that even including this farmed detritus, the majority of the comments are in favor of retaining the rules. Including spam, bot-posts, and form letters (the latter being used by both sides), the study found 60% were opposed to the FCC's plan.

But when the firm only analyzed original comments coming from actual human beings, it found that 98.5% of original comments filed support keeping the rules intact. And while form letters are utilized by both sides of this asymmetrical debate to galvanize public action, the study also found very few original comments in support of Ajit Pai and friends' handout to the telecom sector:

"[T]here are considerably more "personalized" comments (appearing only once in the docket) against repeal (1.52 million) versus 23,000 for repeal. Presumably, these comments originated from individuals that took the time to type a personalized comment. Although these comments represent less than 10 percent of the total, this is a notable difference."

The overwhelming majority of comments for and against repealing Title II are form letters (pre-generated portions of text) that appear multiple times in the docket. The form letters likely originated from numerous sources organized by groups that were for or against the repeal of Title II. Form letters comprise upwards of 89.8 percent of comments against Title II repeal and upwards of 99.6 percent of the comments for Title II repeal.

Again, this supports numerous, previous studies indicating that net neutrality protections have broad, bipartisan support. Other cable industry funded studies have found the same thing. There's no debate here: the FCC is engaged in killing rules solely so it's easier for entrenched duopolists to abuse the lack of competition in the broadband space. And while ISPs and the FCC like to idiotically frame this as restoring freedom or other such nonsense, the public -- after years of abuse by this dysfunctional sector -- doesn't appear to be quite as stupid as the industry and its allies hoped.

Meanwhile, the study also zooms in more closely on the scope of the fraudulent comment problem the FCC seems intent on ignoring, claiming that bogus bots are submitting comments to the FCC both in support and opposition to rule repeal. In fact, 7.75 million comments appear to be completely bogus:

"More than 7.75 million comments... appear to have been generated by self-described 'temporary' and 'disposable' e-mail domains attributed to FakeMailGenerator.com and with nearly identical language. Virtually all of those comments oppose repealing Title II. Assuming that comments submitted from these e-mail domains are illegitimate, sentiment favors repeal of Title II (61 percent for, 38 percent against)."

Who's doing this isn't clear, and the FCC has refused to investigate. Someone that supports net neutrality could have crafted a bot to spam the system with comments opposing the FCC's plan. But it's also possible an industry-linked opponent to net neutrality is trying to pollute the entire comment system to invalidate the entire public forum. That's why former FCC staffers like Gigi Sohn are urging the FCC to do its own analysis of the comments instead of relying on data from the telecom industry:

"August 30th could very well mark the official beginning of the end for the Open Internet. With the closing of the public comment period for the FCC’s proceeding to repeal the 2015 Net Neutrality rules, the record is now full of tens of millions of comments, many of them demonstrably fake. Incredibly, it doesn't even matter if the facts are real or alternative because Chairman Pai intends to ignore them all so that he can eliminate the rules and protections for Internet users and innovators as quickly as possible - which also explains why he refuses to make public information that is critical to his FCC's decision making."

Any real FCC inquiry is unlikely to happen, and the FCC appears poised to use the bogus comments to justify ignoring public feedback entirely when it votes to finally kill the rules in the next few months. That's when the real fun begins, as all of the agency's efforts to downplay vicious public opposition to its plan (including apparently fabricating a DDoS attack) will be front and center in the inevitable lawsuits to come.

Filed Under: ajit pai, comments, fcc, net neutrality, nprm, public comment

Even Many ISP-Backed Allies Think Ajit Pai's Attack On Net Neutrality Is Too Extreme

from the overkill dept

With its quest to gut net neutrality, privacy and other consumer broadband protections, the FCC is rushing face first toward stripping meaningful oversight of some of the least-liked -- and least competitive -- companies in America. The FCC's plan, based on flimsy to no data and in stark contrast to the will of the public, involves gutting most FCC oversight of broadband providers, then shoveling any remaining authority to an FTC we've noted is ill-suited, under-funded, and legally ill-equipped for the job. That's a real problem for a sector that's actually getting less competitive than ever in many markets.

Giant ISPs and their armies of policy allies often try to frame the effort as a noble quest for deregulation, often insisting they're somehow "restoring internet freedom" in a bare-knuckled attempt to pander to partisan constituents. But by any sane measure the FCC's quest is little more than a massive gift to despised duopolies like Comcast -- at what might be the worst possible time for a severely dysfunctional industry. But there are signs that even many traditional big ISP allies think Ajit Pai's plan is absurdly extreme.

Hal Singer is an economist the telecom industry has often hired to manipulate data in order to make all manner of flimsy claims (from falsely stating net neutrality stifled network investment to falsely claiming net neutrality would dramatically raise taxes). But last week even Singer came forward to acknowledge that the FCC's plan to shovel net neutrality and other ISP oversight to the FTC won't fly. While Pai has repeatedly claimed that FTC authority and existing antitrust laws are enough to protect consumers from companies like Comcast, Singer disagrees:

"Singer lists several roadblocks to stopping discriminatory paid prioritization via antitrust. "Monopolists are generally free from legal constraints to choose their suppliers and engage in price discrimination under the antitrust laws," he wrote.

Antitrust laws are designed to protect competition, but "competition is not the only value that net neutrality aims to address: end-to-end neutrality or non-discrimination is a principle that many believe is worth protecting on its own," he wrote.

"Moreover, antitrust litigation imposes significant costs on private litigants, and it does not provide timely relief; if the net neutrality concern is a loss to edge innovation, a slow-paced antitrust court is not the right venue," he also wrote."

Of course there's also the fact that AT&T is currently engaged in a legal battle with the FTC over its network throttling that could hamstring the agency's authority over ISPs even further. If AT&T wins that court fight, the FTC has previously warned that it could open the door to all manner of companies dodging responsibility for unfair or deceptive business practices -- provided some small fraction of their business enjoys common carrier status. That could result in tiny acquisitions specifically designed to free any number of non-telecom companies from accountability, noted the FTC last year:

"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."

If you're the type of non-nuanced thinker that truly believes that all regulation is automatically evil without bothering to actually analyze the regulation, this whole idea probably sounds good to you. But telecom isn't a normal industry; it suffers from regulatory capture on both the state and federal level, which acts to prop up noncompetitive duopoly fiefdoms nationwide. Removing oversight of this sector without fixing any of the underlying corruption and dysfunction doesn't magically forge Utopia; it simply makes companies like Comcast less accountable than ever. And again, with broadband competition diminishing as many telcos refuse to upgrade their networks, that's a recipe for disaster.

Said disaster would likely result in greater calls than ever for tougher oversight and rules governing ISP behavior (aka monumental backlash during any post-Trump Presidency), which is likely why you're seeing Singer -- and even industry-backed groups like the ITIF -- calling for a more measured approach than Pai and friends are offering:

Of course this may have been Pai's plan all along; to offer an extreme frontal assault on net neutrality and FCC authority that would subsequently make any resulting "compromises" seem almost sane. But these end proposals would all likely be far weaker than the somewhat flimsy net neutrality protections we already enjoy. We've noted that's one of the reasons ISPs are pushing for a new Congressional law they claim would "settle the issue once and for all," hoping the public won't realize said law would be notably more tepid than the existing FCC protections -- since ISP lobbyists and lawyers would be the ones writing it.

Again, there's a far-simpler trajectory than the chaotic, disruptive and despised one proposed by Ajit Pai: leave FCC authority, and the popular. existing net neutrality rules, alone.

Filed Under: ajit pai, anti-trust, fcc, ftc, hal singer, net neutrality
Companies: itif