Rep. Latta Urges Congress To 'Preserve An Open & Free Internet' By Preventing The FCC From Doing So

from the your-ideas-are-intriguing-to-me-and-i-wish-to-subscribe-to-your-newsletter dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about Rep. Bob Latta -- whose campaigns have been bankrolled by basically every big broadband player -- introducing laughably misleading legislation designed to block the FCC from putting in place net neutrality rules. As we noted at the time, nearly every claim that Latta made in his announcement about the legislation was flat out false. Laughably so. The worst was just the fact that he argued that his bill -- which would directly block the FCC from putting in place rules that would keep the internet "open and free" is described as legislation that would "ensure the internet remains open and free." He's not just co-opting the language of the other side, he's making a mockery of it.

And, apparently, having been called out on spewing pure bullshit, he's not backing down. On Monday he sent out a "Dear Colleague" email to all other members of the House, asking them to co-sponsor his legislation (HR 4752), once again claiming that it was necessary to "preserve a free and open internet."

Dear Colleague:

Please join me in becoming a co-sponsor of H.R. 4752, a bill to limit the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over providers of broadband Internet access service.

As you know, the Internet has flourished under a light-touch regulatory framework that has long governed its operation and functionality. However, the FCC is considering reclassifying broadband from an information service to a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act and regulating it using laws based on the monopoly telephone era of the 1930s. This proposal would go against the FCC’s long-standing precedent on broadband classification and stall the growth and innovation we’ve seen over the past two decades. Reclassification would add unnecessary regulation on broadband providers and restrict their flexibility to innovate and stunt their ability to make robust investments.

H.R. 4752 would prevent the FCC from regulating broadband Internet access as a Title II service, which would ultimately benefit consumers by providing the certainty that Internet Service Providers need to continue investing in expansive broadband networks without fear of excessive regulation. Most importantly, it would uphold the very regulatory structure that has enabled the Internet to remain open and free.

Once again, almost everything stated here is wrong or misleading. First of all, cable was only classified under Title I as an information service as of 2002 and DSL as of 2005. Before that, DSL especially was recognized as being classified under Title II as a common carrier service and had its highest levels of investment prior to the FCC decision to go with Title I, rather than Title II. So arguing either that there is "long-standing precedent" or that the "past two decades" of internet growth and investment is due to Title I, rather than Title II, is flat out false. It's a lie. Congressional Reps shouldn't be allowed to get away with lying, even if they do so regularly.

Second, it's a flat out lie to claim that the current "regulatory structure" is what "has enable the Internet to remain open and free." Nothing of the sort is true. In fact, the big broadband players for years have been threatening to put up tollbooths and to break with the past concerning the open and free internet. AT&T's Ed Whitacre kicked it all off back in 2005 by saying he wanted big successful companies like Google to pay him extra to be able to reach his users. The only thing that has stopped that from happening has been the ongoing effort by the FCC to block any such attempt with a variety of net neutrality rules. And, yes, the courts have struck down the FCC's previous attempts, but to argue that the existing regulatory structure stopped the big broadband players from putting up tollbooths on the internet is clearly wrong.

Finally, there's nothing in his bill that would actually encourage an "open and free internet," nor does Rep. Latta (or his financial backers) actually want that. They want the reverse. They want a lack of barriers or rules from the FCC so they can break the open internet, allowing them to put up tollbooths that charge successful companies (like Netflix, Google and others) extra just to reach their end users, because they know they have terminating access monopolies, and as such can act as gatekeepers.

There are real debates to be had about the rules and the authorities that the FCC is looking at using. But that's not what Rep. Latta is doing. He's cynically trying to block the FCC from doing anything meaningful on protecting an open and free internet, while pretending that his solution (let the broadband guys do whatever the hell they want) will magically keep the internet free and open even as those very same broadband players have made it clear they would like nothing more than to end the open and free nature of the internet, so they can charge more and block out competition.

Filed Under: bob latta, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, title ii

FCC Commissioner Spearheads Flimsy Attempt To Shame And Discredit Netflix For Its Title II Support

from the faux-outrage dept

Given Netflix's rather vocal opposition to usage caps and support of Title II (pdf), the company is unsurprisingly public enemy number one for many major broadband and TV companies (and their various PR, lobbying and policy folk) at the moment. There's a pretty apparent attempt on some fronts to paint Netflix as the villain in the recent interconnection feuds, in which Netflix (and companies like Level 3 and Cogent) insist incumbent ISPs are intentionally letting interconnection points degrade to extract new fees from content and service companies.

This week, Netflix's supposed villainy was highlighted by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who penned a letter (pdf) to the company complaining that Netflix had abandoned its net neutrality principles and had been hypocritically encouraging the creation of Internet "fast lanes":

"Netflix has been one of the principal advocates for subjecting Internet service providers (ISPs) to public utility regulation under Title II of the Communications Act, arguing that this step is necessary to prevent the development of so-called "fast lanes" on the Internet. "The basic argument," you have said, “is that we're big believers in the free and open Internet." For this reason, I was surprised to learn of allegations that Netflix has been working to effectively secure "fast lanes" for its own content on ISPs' networks at the expense of its competitors.

What is Pai's evidence that the company is being a hypocrite on neutrality? Exhibit A appears to be Netflix's refusal to join a new coalition called the Streaming Video Alliance, whose founding members include two of the biggest players in the cable and broadband industry: Comcast and Charter Communications. One of the group's other founding members is Frost and Sullivan analyst Dan Rayburn, who has spent much of the last year telling anyone who'll listen that incumbent ISPs with thirty years of anti-competitive behavior are just misunderstood, and it's Netflix that's to blame for most of the modern era's Internet video problems.

That Netflix didn't feel the overwhelming need to join this coalition of BFFs isn't particularly surprising.

Pai's other example of Netflix's fast lane hypocrisy appears to be simply the fact that Netflix runs its own content delivery network, Netflix Open Connect. Open Connect is a free-to-join CDN that involves ISPs hosting Netflix caching hardware on their network, something that reduces Netflix's costs, but also reduces overall ISP traffic load, improving video delivery efficiency all around. To hear Pai tell it however, Netflix's CDN is a big, bad bogeyman:

"Some have suggested that Netflix has taken these actions because the company is currently installing its own proprietary caching appliances throughout ISPs' networks as part of its Open Connect program. If ISPs were to install open caching appliances throughout their networks, all video content providers—including Netflix—could compete on a level playing field. If, however, ISPs were to install Netflix's proprietary caching appliance instead, Netflix's videos would run the equivalent of a 100-yard dash while its competitors' videos would have to run a marathon."

You might recall that AT&T, Verizon and Comcast refused to participate in Netflix's CDN, instead forcing Netflix to pay them new interconnection fees to keep streaming performance from foundering. Meanwhile, Netflix makes the company's peering locations, guidelines, hardware design and the open source software components largely open to inspection, so while you can't go build Netflix CDN hardware yourself, we're not exactly talking about state secrets. It's also worth noting that small and mid-sized ISPs (usually with much better track records on consumer issues than their larger brethren and no TV revenues to protect) have wholeheartedly supported Netflix's efforts. Dane Jasper, CEO of Sonic.net, for example called Netflix's Open Connect "brilliant." George Mitsopoulos, COO of independent ISP Ikanos/DSLExtreme, also similarly notes that Open Connect is of great benefit to ISPs.

None of this is to say Netflix is a saint. Everyone is running blindly toward the Internet video cash trough, and all of them want everyone using their preferred solutions, with meaningful transparency an ongoing problem. To be sure, Netflix's ISP rankings system is also a bit of a ham-handed attempt to name and shame ISPs that don't use its CDN (Open Connect partners unsurprisingly seeing better positioning), and the company's initial decision to restrict higher-quality "Super HD" streams to just these partners was thankfully reversed. That said, at some point you have to ask yourself based on history and experience: which do you trust more on consumer issues: Comcast or Netflix?

You also have to wonder why an FCC Commissioner that has no problems with rampant media consolidation, net neutrality violations or the lack of broadband competition is just so very concerned about such a curiously specific issue. Of all the pressing consumer issues facing the telecom and TV market (usage caps, neutrality, lack of competition, sneaky fees, cramming, etc.) Pai's greatest concern is Netflix's free, entirely voluntary content delivery network? If one didn't know any better, one might get the impression that the legacy TV industry and its loyal politicians and pundits are putting on a political dog and pony show to punish Netflix for standing up to companies with thirty years of anti-competitive behavior under their belts.

Filed Under: ajit pai, content delivery networks, dan rayburn, favoritism, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, standards, streaming
Companies: charter communications, comcast, netflix

The EFF Takes The Contentious, Sometimes Bizarre Effort To Define Net Neutrality Global

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

While Tim Wu originally coined the term net neutrality in a 2003 paper, it was former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre's 2005 proclamation that he wasn't going to let the Googles of the world "ride his pipes for free" that truly ignited the net neutrality debate. AT&T made it clear that it was (and continues to be) eager to use its power as a gatekeeper in uncompetitive markets to impose arbitrary and unnecessary troll tolls on content and service companies.

Whitacre's entitlement attitude in turned spawned the misleading argument that service and content companies (that already pay for bandwidth and own much of their own infrastructure) somehow get a "free ride," and therefore should start paying phone companies their "fair share." Though wrong, the argument was infectious, and we soon had telcos worldwide crying that they too deserve an extra payment for doing absolutely nothing. In short, it was AT&T's flimsy justification for double dipping that took net neutrality global.

Building on this bedrock of nonsense we've been trying to properly define net neutrality ever since. That job has grown more difficult as attempts to impose these troll tolls have grown increasingly clever (fixed-line usage caps, AT&T's Sponsored Data and the Netflix interconnection feuds being just the latest), but at its heart net neutrality is not complicated: create rules that protect consumers from bad ISP behavior in the face of limited competition.

Despite a decade of efforts to educate the public (with no thanks to the mainstream news media, pollsters or politicians), a recent Pew survey (pdf) indicates that only 61% of the U.S. public knows what net neutrality is. Based on personal anecdotal experience (glassy eyed stares at dinner parties when discussing the subject), I'd wager that number is too high and many of the survey participants guessed or used multiple choice contextual clues.

As the battle to educate consumers on the benefit of net neutrality goes global, the EFF says it's joined forces with 34 groups in 19 countries to create a new global coalition on net neutrality aimed at solidifying the definition of net neutrality at the ground floor. They've started with this shared definition, translated into 11 languages:

"Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination."

Highlighting the problems inherent in trying to nail down specific neutrality language over the better part of a decade, the EFF of course then has to proceed to point out its definition isn't actually complete, and the group doesn't mean to prohibit reasonable network management:

"This definition doesn't imply that Internet providers can't use reasonable methods to manage their networks, for example to ensure that all applications from voice calls to downloads run smoothly, or to secure their networks from malicious uses like denial-of-service attacks. Neither does it mean they can't offer users different tiers of service at different price points, such as a residential-level service and a business-level service."

And that's historically where the conversation has gone off the rails. Whether you're concerned about government over-reach or you just want the most effective rules possible without loopholes, it's often impossible to come to a consensus on basic language when neutrality is involved (define equal? define discrimination? what's reasonable?). That confusion is compounded by a broadband industry that has a vested interest in keeping confusion and hyperbole set to 11, whether that's claiming that neutrality rules will keep the deaf from using helpful technology or that net neutrality will somehow harm the poor.

Meanwhile, carve out exceptions for "security" and "network integrity," and ISPs just used those definitions to mask anti-competitive behavior. For example fixed-line network caps are necessary because of congestion (when no congestion exists), or we can't launch a competing service or platform because it's an ambiguous security threat. It's a very deep well, and in the States a decade of bickering and misinformation started by old Ed Whitacre has resulted in a mountain of muddy, unproductive discourse that sometimes seems to make even less sense as we tunnel deeper into it.

It's at that point one begins to wonder if the term net neutrality itself hasn't outlived its usefulness, given that at the end of the day we're really talking about stopping ISPs in uncompetitive markets from engaging in bad behavior. Make sure countries have functional, competitive markets, and net neutrality itself becomes less of a worry. Once that fails, you're down the rabbit hole of hyperbole, and if the United States is any indication, there's simply no bottom.

Filed Under: broadband, definitions, net neutrality
Companies: eff