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

Politicians Freak Out Over New FCC Neutrality Moves, Not Realizing They Probably Won't Do Anything

from the I-have-absolutely-no-idea-what-I'm-upset-about dept

Now that I've had some additional time with the FCC boss Tom Wheeler's new net neutrality proposal and have talked to a few lawyers and consumer advocates, I'm starting to think the agency's announcement was almost entirely political theater. All the FCC really said is that it wouldn't appeal the Verizon case, and would begin a meandering public conversation about how to vaguely protect the Internet under shaky Section 706 authority the FCC knows it doesn't have. Layered on top were empty promises about improving competition and some empty threats about reclassifying ISPs as common carriers if they don't behave (which is supposed to be a threat, but every ISP lobbyist on K Street knows they won't do this if they weren't willing to do it already).

In short, the FCC vaguely promised to maybe think about some stuff after a glacial, year long conversation. Cue the absolute, unbridled, partisan hyperbole shitstorm:

"Ranking Republicans called the FCC's efforts to revive net-neutrality rules "a solution in search of a problem," and plan to fight any new rules. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to block what she calls the "socialistic" proposal. "Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement."

You apparently don't understand that the FCC's proposal won't actually do anything, but you do know it's certainly socialist and freedom killing? The sad part is that issues like a healthy, functioning Internet with competitive balance really shouldn't be partisan at all. It's in the interest or everyone that networks work well and that honest, healthy competition improves service and drives down costs, while limiting the bad behavior of large network gatekeepers.

Well ok, not everyone. If you actually want to understand whether a policy will be good or bad for consumers, ignore all the think tanks and politicians and watch the ISP response. Specifically watch AT&T, which has the biggest lobbyist operations and the biggest mouth when truly consumer-friendly policy gets passed. AT&T supported the original rules because they had oodles of loopholes and didn't cover wireless (Verizon only sued in the hopes of killing off FCC authority entirely). Note how AT&T thinks all this socialist freedom killin' is just a splendid idea:

"AT&T, the second-largest wired broadband provider in the U.S., said it believes the FCC has the authority under Section 706 to preserve Internet openness...."AT&T has built its broadband business, both wired and wireless, on the principal of Internet openness," AT&T said in a statement. "That is what our customers rightly expect, and it is what our company will continue to deliver. That is also why we endorsed the FCC's original rule on Net neutrality, and is why we pledged to adhere to openness principles even after the recent court decision."

Knowing the FCC pretty well after more than a decade of watching them, what I think you'll ultimately see at the end of this new "conversation" is a cross-industry set of self-regulatory voluntary guidelines "prohibiting" ISPs from doing the kinds of things they never intended to do anyway -- like blocking your access to entirely legal websites. There might be particular cases where the FCC pushes for greater transparency in peering debates (especially if the ongoing Netflix standoff doesn't improve), but nothing that will truly rattle any slats. The primary goal here is making sure incumbent ISPs maximize revenues and keep the campaign contributions coming. Consumer protection is just pillow talk. For both parties.

What you won't see in any way (and probably wouldn't be enforceable under 706 anyway) is hard rules governing the more subtle sort of things network neutrality folks should actually be worried about, such as predatory pricing and the use of broadband usage caps as a weapon (like AT&T's "sponsored data"). This, unfortunately for consumers, is considered "creative pricing innovation" by both the current FCC and industry alike, and the only ones who should be freaking out at the moment are the people who are going to foot the bill for all this supposed creativity.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, section 706
Companies: at&t, verizon