Congressional Opponents Of Net Neutrality Try To Shame FCC Boss For Standing Up To ISPs

from the nontransparent-puppeteering dept

Now that our shiny new net neutrality rules are on the sixty-day march toward formal approval, there's of course only two real ways neutrality opponents can overturn them: either a lawsuit or a 2016 party change. Since they're legislatively impotent on the matter for the time being, net neutrality opponents in Congress have decided the next best thing is to publicly shame FCC boss Tom Wheeler -- for literally weeks on end. As such, Wheeler faces at least five hearings over the next two weeks all with one goal: publicly punishing him for standing up to giant ISPs and supporting net neutrality.

The primary talking point being used against Wheeler is that he was "improperly" influenced by the White House. Because Wheeler came out in support of Title II after the White House's November support for the idea, the narrative goes, somehow there's dangerous chicanery afoot. Except as we've noted previously, the White House voicing desired policy trajectory doesn't violate any rules, and is standard operating procedure -- like when former President George W. Bush urged FCC boss Michael Powell to ease off media consolidation rules, or when Clinton urged former FCC chief Reed Hundt to ban hard liquor sales on television.

Still, this week's hearing and "fact finding mission" before the House Oversight Committee (again, the first of five over the next few weeks) focused almost entirely on transparency, and how the White House somehow bullied an independent agency into approving tougher net neutrality rules. In Wheeler's testimony (pdf), he again denies he was pressured, stating that he only came to embrace Title II after countless legal experts made it clear it was the most legally defensible platform for the rules to stand on:

"We heard from over 140 Members of Congress. We heard from the Administration, both in the form of President Obama’s very public statement of November 10 and in the form of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s formal submission. Here I would like to be clear. There were no secret instructions from the White House. I did not, as CEO of an independent agency, feel obligated to follow the President’s recommendation. But I did feel obligated to treat it with respect just as I have with the input I received – both pro and con - from 140 Senators and Representatives."

Of course, this doesn't help propagate the narrative that Obama is forcing the FCC to destroy the Internet because he's the devil and hates jobs. As such, Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz handed out a packet of e-mails (pdf) to hearing attendees he claimed indisputably prove undue White House influence on the FCC. Except if you bother to actually read them, they don't actually show anything of the sort. For example, one e-mail only shows a top AT&T lobbyist (who other included e-mails suggest to be Jim Cicconi, no stranger to undue influence of his own) vaguely claiming improper behavior just, well, because:



Another e-mail provided by House leaders features former Harry Reid staffer David Krone (formerly a Comcast lobbyist) urging the White House to back away from their Title II support:



In a third e-mail, Wheeler amusingly seems to suggest The White House coordinated with protesters to annoy the FCC boss in his driveway last November:



None of the e-mails come remotely close to showing Wheeler buckled to heavy White House pressure. In fact, the third e-mail actually appears to show Wheeler being resistant to White House influence (it's worth noting said protestors say they also protested at the White House and weren't "directed" by anyone). Few people expected much from Wheeler given his cable and wireless lobbying past, but if you read any of the better profiles of the FCC boss, you come away with the impression of an older man, no longer beholden to partisan whims or bullies, who actually makes decisions based on the evidence at hand. That's an increasingly rare trait anywhere, much less in Washington. As such, it's probably best to punish him for it.

Of course, when a few hearing attendees wanted to flip the conversation and highlight broadband industry influence on neutrality rules opposition, suddenly this desire for transparency wasn't quite so pronounced. Documents at the hearing, for example, highlighted how FCC Commissioner Mike O'Rielly had help from industry in editing an anti-neutrality editorial last year. But O'Rielly was quick to issue a statement saying he didn't need to document these discussions "because they were commenting on my personal views and advocacy, not lobbying or expressing views to the Commission in any capacity."

Again, none of this means much of anything since the rules have been passed. Still, the idea that Obama "forced" Wheeler to embrace Title II helps frame the ongoing narrative that this is an "Obamacare style takeover of the Internet", and not an unprecedented and incredibly rare capitulation to genuine, bipartisan public interest. Meanwhile, while a breathless love of transparency is the cornerstone of these hearings -- that adoration only apparently extends up to the point where it begins to show broadband industry influence over net neutrality opposition.

If you've got the stomach for it, you can watch the entire hearing below:

Filed Under: congress, house oversight committee, jason chaffetz, net neutrality, open internet, title ii, tom wheeler

Our Shiny New Net Neutrality Rules Won't Be Worth Squat If The FCC Isn't Willing To Act

from the we've-only-just-begun dept

While the FCC's new net neutrality rules are certainly a step in the right direction for consumers, it's aggressively premature to uncork the champagne. There are still ISP lawsuits waiting in the wings, not to mention the fact that a 2016 party shift (and subsequent FCC leadership change) could very quickly dismantle ten years of grassroots activism in the blink of an eye. And then there are the rules themselves and the FCC's dedication to them; as noted last week, it's difficult to know just how useful the new Title II-based rules are going to be until we see precisely what the FCC defines as actionable behavior.

For example, while the rules prohibit blocking, throttling, anti-competitive paid prioritization and require network management transparency -- there's a wide range of ISP behavior that will fall outside of the traditional definition of net neutrality, like Comcast refusing to authenticate HBO Go on Playstation 4 to protect its set top box empire, or carriers blocking Google Wallet for "security reasons" to (unsuccessfully) give their own mobile payment platforms a leg up. And while the FCC says it's going to use its new Title II authority to "keep an eye on" issues like interconnection, nobody actually knows what this means.

AT&T of course has been at the forefront of trying to test the FCC's boundaries for anti-competitive behavior for years, most recently with its Sponsored Data effort, which tries to pass off charging companies for cap-exemption as a great boon to consumers. AT&T's also been at the forefront of blocking access to services or throttling its grandfathered "unlimited" data plan users to shove them toward pricier metered options. So far, the FCC seems perfectly fine with Sponsored Data and T-Mobile's Music Freedom, even though both set incredibly bad precedents (albeit in notably different ways).

In fact, there's a myriad of anti-competitive behaviors carriers may still be able to engage in, provided they argue it's for the safety and the health of the network, or bury it under a cacophony of technical jargon. The term "reasonable network management" has long been a bane to the crafting of sensible net neutrality rules, given that carriers by their nature will always declare their network practices reasonable, even while they're happily abusing gatekeeper power to make an extra buck. The FCC's rules again trot out this definition in stating that network management is obviously fine if it's honestly about the health of the network:

"The record broadly supports maintaining an exception for reasonable network management. We agree that a network management exception to the no-blocking rule, the no-throttling rule, and the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard is necessary for broadband providers to optimize overall network performance and maintain a consistent quality experience for consumers while carrying a variety of traffic over their networks."

The FCC's rules take things one step further in clarifying that "reasonable network management" can't be used as an excuse to make an extra buck:

"For a practice to even be considered under this exception, a broadband Internet access service provider must first show that the practice is primarily motivated by a technical network management justification rather than other business justifications."

Yet as it stands, AT&T's pretty clearly using network management to make an extra buck. For years, the company has been throttling its grandfathered unlimited customers once they reach 5 GB, a practice intended to drive them to more expensive metered plans. And as Ars Technica notes, it's entirely unclear if the FCC's going to act. AT&T, meanwhile, has been circulating this presentation arguing its behavior is perfectly above board. By the time the rules solidify and the FCC does act (should it act), who knows how many unlimited AT&T customers will be left:

"Given the 60-day waiting period before rules go into effect, the time it will take the FCC to evaluate complaints, and uncertainty over how rules will apply, AT&T can keep throttling unlimited data without fear for a good while. By the time AT&T is forced to stop, if indeed that happens, many customers will have already given up their old unlimited data plans and switched to subscriptions that charge them extra every time they exceed their cap. That's what AT&T was after all along, and for now it's still getting what it wants."

Between that and the FCC's refusal to identify zero rated apps as a threat to net neutrality (the practice is outright banned in Chile, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia), you might start to wonder how serious the FCC is really going to be when it comes to policing the murkier (but just as important) edges of anti-competitive behavior. Is the FCC going to be a tough, flexible watchdog on the beat? Or is it going to be so afraid of the hand-wringing over "onerous regulations" -- and so eager to have the debate settled -- that it's intentionally apathetic to more subtle abuses?

And that's the rub: it's great to have rules that give the FCC the flexibility to act against anti-competitive behavior, but they're only useful if the FCC actually successfully uses them. There are more than a few worrying indications that ISPs will be able to engage in net neutrality violations under our new paradigm -- just as long as there's a layer of semi-believable, faux-technical pretense justifying it. Yes, probably gone are the days where carriers could simply block services they don't like, but we've entered a more dangerous, subtle era in the fight for net neutrality.

Moving forward, each time consumers believe their ISP is engaged in anti-competitive behavior that exists in these nebulous grey areas (alongside zero rated apps and interconnection), they'll need to file a complaint with the FCC -- a process the EFF notes benefits deep-pocketed ISPs. ISP lawyers will then go to great lengths to explain how everything they're doing is simply for the health and security of the network and great benefit to the consumer, and it will be up to the FCC and consumers to consistently see through this obfuscation and do the right thing. Similarly, with net neutrality abuses being intentionally more difficult to clearly define, we'll likely start seeing more Chicken Little complaints than ever before, only adding to the uncertainty.

In other words, if you thought the net neutrality debate just got remotely settled by the creation of new Title II rules, you're probably going to be gravely disappointed. While the rules are a good start, we've likely only just finished chapter seven of what promises to be an epic, forty-five chapter novel -- one that's going to require the undivided, persistent attention of those hoping to protect a healthy, open Internet.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, interconnection, net neutrality, open internet, zero rating
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

FCC Outlines Plan To Crush Awful State Protectionist Broadband Laws

from the it's-about-time dept

On the same day the FCC voted to approve new net neutrality rules, we noted that the agency took steps on an issue that might actually be more important: municipal broadband. While net neutrality rules are designed to protect consumers from a lack of last-mile competition, the agency's moves on municipal broadband are intended to actually strike at the issue of limited competition at the root. As we've noted a few times, ISPs (with ALEC's help) have passed laws in twenty states preventing those towns and cities from deciding their own infrastructure needs for themselves.

It's pure, unabashed protectionism: the bills do little more than protect regional duopolies from change while hamstringing local communities desperate for better service. Usually the laws are passed under the auspices of protecting taxpayers from themselves, ignoring that the bills' sole purpose is to protect duopoly revenues. Petitioned by muni-networks in Tennessee and North Carolina that have been blocked from expanding, the FCC plans to use its authority to preempt the protectionist portions of these awful laws.

In much the same way the municipal broadband issue was overlooked on vote day, so too was the actual plan when it was released alongside the agency's new net neutrality rules last week. The full Memorandum Opinion and Order (pdf) clarifies that the FCC intends to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preempt state laws that conflict with federal regulation of interstate commerce for the good of local communities. The agency lists five legal principles it claims give it the right to put these protectionist laws out to pasture:

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Internet access unquestionably involves interstate communications, and thus interstate commerce. Broadband subscribers pay for the right to go to any lawful destination on the Internet, wherever located.

Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the authority to regulate interstate communications. Indeed, section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), specifically gives the Commission jurisdiction over “interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio."

The Commission has previously exercised its authority to preempt state laws that conflict with federal regulation of interstate commerce, for example with respect to state regulation of VoIP, the deployment of wireless facilities, and its order prohibiting local franchising authorities from unreasonably refusing to grant competitive cable franchises. These preemption decisions all further competition.

Finally, section 706 of the 1996 Act directs the Commission to take action to remove barriers to broadband investment, deployment and competition. There is no question that provisions of the state laws in question do limit broadband deployment — they expressly prohibit Wilson and Chattanooga from providing broadband services to more people in more places, even places where there is no broadband currently available

Unsurprisingly, the broadband industry isn't particularly happy that the FCC has woken up from a decade-long coma on this issue and is finally addressing these ISP-constructed obstructions. Marsha Blackburn, flush with broadband industry campaign cash, has been busy fighting the FCC's push under the pretense that she's just ultra worried about states' rights (that protectionist law written by corporations crushes local rights en masse isn't, apparently, a worry). As such she's introduced a law (that has no chance of passing) aimed at gutting FCC authority.

ISPs have also threatened to sue, but given AT&T and Comcast's interests in getting their mergers approved -- and Verizon busy trying to kill the net neutrality rules -- they may find it a bridge too far to open up an entirely new legal fight. Then again, one of the benefits of duopoly power is the extra income necessary to help pay to keep things that way.

The best way for the broadband industry to stop towns and cities from getting into the broadband business? Provide better service. These towns and cities aren't getting into the business because it's fun or because they're mean and want to make Comcast's CEO cry. They're doing so because they've spent a decade in the firm grasp of utterly apathetic monopolies and duopolies, and they're refusing to take it anymore. And while there are certainly plenty of examples of federal overreach, in this instance the FCC finally helping them is a good thing.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, muni broadband, municipal broadband, rules

FCC Net Neutrality Rules Finally Released, Cue The ISP Lawsuits And Hyperbole

from the let-the-games-truly-begin dept

Given the hysterical reaction to the FCC's new net neutrality rules the last few weeks, it was easy to forget that nobody had actually read them yet. As noted previously, the lack of public documents wasn't some sort of elitist cabal, but a routine (if stupid) part of FCC procedure restricting the agency from publicizing new rules until they've been voted on and include all Commissioner commentary. Of course, ISPs and congressional allies breathlessly opposed to Title II hadn't read the rules either, preventing their lawyers from launching their expected legal assaults.

Today the lawsuit countdown can begin in earnest on the news that the FCC has formally released the toughest net neutrality rules seen in U.S. history (which notably isn't saying much). The rules themselves can be found here (pdf), and while it's some 400 pages, much of that is supplemental material and included Commissioner dissents. You can find all the Commissioners' statements here. Ajit Pai, who has waged a one man war against Title II (and Netflix) for months, offered up a sixty-seven page dissent (pdf) in which he called the rules an "unprecedented attempt to replace...freedom with government control."

While it will take telecom lawyers a few days to fully parse out the legal semantics, the rules on first glimpse do precisely what the agency said they'd do, focusing primarily on four areas of protection: making sure ISPs are transparent with network management; prohibiting outright blocking of websites (unless you're the MPAA, of course), prohibiting the throttling of websites and services, and prohibiting anti-competitive "paid prioritization" (no, contrary to repeated claims, this doesn't ban things like technology for disabled people).

While a dramatic improvement over the 2010 rules (they actually cover wireless networks, for example), it remains wholly unclear if the FCC is actually going to tackle the hot spot areas where the modern net neutrality fights are actually occurring.

Issues like usage caps, usage cap meters, zero rated apps and interconnection -- areas where most of the current neutrality debate is focused -- remain in a sort of nebulous grey area when it comes to how far the FCC's willing to go to protect consumers. While the order contains a general conduct rule the agency says can be used "to stop new and novel threats to the Internet," the rules also make it very clear the agency's taking a "wait and see" approach to many of these issues:

"While we have more than a decade’s worth of experience with last-mile practices, we lack a similar depth of background in the Internet traffic exchange context. Thus, we find that the best approach is to watch, learn, and act as required, but not intervene now, especially not with prescriptive rules. This Order—for the first time—provides authority to consider claims involving interconnection, a process that is sure to bring greater understanding to the Commission."

Despite all the hand-wringing about the rules somehow killing innovation angels and startups, carriers will likely need to engage in some particularly ham-fisted abuses to truly get the attention of the FCC, who'll be working overtime to counter the narrative that they're a blundering government agency drunkenly implementing "heavy handed regulation." It's in this muddy grey area that you can expect ISP creativity to flourish when it comes to anti-competitive behavior, and despite a lot of breathy analysis today -- we're simply not going to understand the rules' impact until we have concrete examples of what the FCC considers anti-competitive behavior.

In an accompanying statement (pdf), FCC boss Tom Wheeler again makes it clear the agency is forbearing from many of the heavier-handed utility-style aspects of Title II -- including mandatory universal service contributions, rate regulations, or a return to local loop unbundling (much to the chagrin of some consumer advocates). The FCC boss also tries to shoot down for the millionth time (for whatever good it will do) the idea that the rules will somehow crush sector innovation or investment:

"Let me be clear, the FCC will not impose “utility style” regulation. We forbear from sections of Title II that pose a meaningful threat to network investment, and over 700 provisions of the FCC’s rules. That means no rate regulation, no filing of tariffs, and no network unbundling. During the 22 years that wireless voice has been regulated under a light-touch Title II like we propose today, there has never been concern about the ability of wireless companies to price competitively, flexibly, or quickly, or their ability to achieve a return on their investment."

Upon release, the rules head to the Federal Register, and after being published in the next week or two, a 60-day countdown begins before the rules formally take effect. ISPs have thirty days to sue after publication in the Federal Register, so you can expect legal maneuvering (and ridiculous ISP rhetoric) to heat up quickly. As for which ISP will sue, AT&T and Comcast are waiting for regulatory approval of their respective mergers, and may not want to play starring roles in the next round of legal fisticuffs. That leaves Verizon, whose earlier lawsuit brought us to this point to begin with, as most likely to lead the legal charge.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, interconnection, lawsuits, net neutrality, open internet, rules

Cable Proudly Declares Smart Shoppers A 'Lower Quality' Of Customer They Have No Interest In

from the faux-fisticuffs dept

If you live in a broadband and TV market with anything even closely resembling competition, you've probably learned that the only way to get the best rates is to pit ISP retention departments against one another. Often only by seriously threatening to cancel can users force ISPs to bring out their best promotional offers, something you'll have to repeat every few years if you don't want to get socked with higher rates. The ideal consumer then, from the broadband and cable industry's perspective, is one that grumbles a little bit but can't be bothered to do a little extra legwork to secure better rates (read: the vast majority of users).

Of course pitting ISPs against one another assumes you even have the choice of more than one decent broadband provider, something that's certainly not a given. Even in markets we tend to think of as competitive, we're increasingly seeing non-price competition (what I affectionately refer to as "wink wink, nod nod" competition), wherein duopolies quietly work together to slowly edge prices upward -- because there's simply no repercussion for doing so. The New York City tri-state area, where Cablevision and Verizon FiOS engage in a customer tug-of-war, is a perfect example of this kind of not-really-competition.

While Verizon and Cablevision did compete intensely for a short while in New York, the two sides have in recent years declared what can only be called a competitive cease fire. Both have dramatically scaled back or stopped promotions entirely and raised rates whenever possible. In fact, a study last year noted that while all cable rates are increasing much higher than the rate of inflation, Cablevision customers see some of the highest rates in the nation.

Cablevision executives meanwhile have made their disdain for the smart consumer abundantly clear over the last few years, calling smart shoppers a "dead end" that the company has no interest in pursuing. Speaking at a recent investor conference, Cablevision vice chairman Gregg Seibert took this rhetoric one step further, declaring that customers that follow the best promo offer are a "low quality" subscriber that the company is happy to get rid of:

"We found out that we were pushing subscribers back and forth on a highly promoted basis," said Cablevision vice chairman Gregg Seibert, speaking Monday at the Deutsche Bank 2015 Media, Internet & Telecom Conference in Palm Beach, Fla. "I don't want to roll a truck to you every two years if you keep going back and forth to another provider … So we're getting rid of that lower quality, lower profitability base of subscriber."

Except "pushing subscribers back and forth" is what competition is. Fighting to offer a better value than the other guy is how competition works. That Cablevision and FiOS can just choose when they'd like to seriously compete illustrates perfectly how even in U.S. markets we consider to be more competitive, what we're usually witnessing is just coordinated competition theater. When consumers only have one or two real options for service, and both of those options quietly agree on an unwritten competitive cease fire, there's simply no longer any reason to even try. It's then a lovely layer of hubris to publicly express disdain for customers looking for something better.

Filed Under: broadband, budget minded customers, cable, competition, promotions
Companies: cablevision, verizon

Blackburn Bill Attempts To Gut New Net Neutrality Rules. You Know, For Freedom.

from the freedom-lovers-incorporated dept

During the last election cycle, Representative Marsha Blackburn received $15,000 from a Verizon PAC, $25,000 from an AT&T PAC, $20,000 from a Comcast PAC, and $20,000 from the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Surely that funding is only coincidentally related to Blackburn's recent decision to rush to the defense of awful state protectionist law written by the likes of AT&T and Comcast, preventing towns and cities from doing absolutely anything about their local lack of broadband competition.

That money surely is also only tangentially related to the fact that Blackburn has also just introduced the "Internet Freedom Act" (pdf), aimed at gutting the FCC's recently unveiled Title II-based net neutrality rules and prohibiting the agency from trying to make new ones. Whereas most of us thought net neutrality is about protecting consumers and smaller competitors from the incumbent ISP stranglehold over the last mile, Blackburn's website informs readers that net neutrality rules harm innovators, jobs, and err -- freedom:

"Once the federal government establishes 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," Blackburn said in an announcement yesterday. "My legislation will put the brakes on this FCC overreach and protect our innovators from these job-killing regulations."

And here I was thinking that the FCC was responding to unprecedented public support for some of the rules aimed at keeping AT&T, Comcast and Verizon on their best behavior. Blackburn makes sure to lean heavily on that thoroughly discredited report by the Progressive Policy Institute claiming consumers will all suffer from "billions" in new taxes, and again tosses out the well-worn trope about how Title II is bad because it originated in the 1930s (because old laws are always bad, get it?).

Again though, the fact that Blackburn has received $66,750 from AT&T, $59,650 from Verizon, $56,000 from the NCTA, and $36,000 from Comcast over the last decade surely has nothing to do with her suddenly scurrying on multiple fronts to protect those companies' stranglehold over the U.S. broadband market. For freedom.

Filed Under: congress, fcc, marsha blackburn, net neutrality, title ii

EU Digital Commissioner: Net Neutrality Is A 'Taliban-Like' Issue

from the won't-someone-think-of-the-cars? dept

Until recently, most people probably assumed that real net neutrality was more likely to come to Europe than to the US. But in one of those ironic little twists, not only has the FCC voted in favor of net neutrality, but attacks on the idea in Europe have suddenly multiplied, leaving the final outcome there in doubt. Worryingly, one of the strongest verbal assaults on net neutrality comes from the very EU Commissioner who is in charge of the relevant legislation, Günther Oettinger. Techdirt has reported a couple of times on the Digital Commissioner's rather clueless comments, but this time he has surpassed himself. Speaking at an event held by the German Ministry of Finance last week, here's what the he had to say on net neutrality, as reported by the Pirate Party's MEP, Julia Reda -- her post includes a video of Oettinger speaking (in German) and a transcript of his remarks (in English):

Net neutrality: Here we've got, particularly in Germany, Taliban-like developments. We have the Internet community, the Pirates on the move, it's all about enforcing perfect uniformity. They talk about "the evil industry". It’s not about the industry, it’s not about the CEO and his salary.

Oettinger then goes on to explain what he thinks net neutrality is about: telemedicine and car safety, apparently.

If you want to have real time road safety, our lives are at stake, this has to have absolute priority with regards to quality and capacity.

...

I think downloading YouTube can wait a few seconds. I think we can let the game at some times be less than perfect on the screen. But road safety (a commercial service!), health (a commercial service!) and a few others come to my mind: They should be able to deviate from net neutrality, this Taliban-like issue.

What's interesting here is that alongside the very old idea of telemedicine, Oettinger uses exactly the same new argument against net neutrality as Nokia's CEO last week. Since no one was talking about this kind of application before -- unsurprisingly, since it's a really stupid approach -- a cynic might almost think that they have both been fed the same talking point by someone.

Fortunately, Reda's position as Member of the European Parliament gives her the right to quiz the European Commission formally, and she is availing herself of this power to put the following rather pointed questions, which pick up on Oettinger's comments:

Can the Commission name specifically every single hospital in the European Union and their specific telemedicine products and applications which rely on real time broadband internet connections whose technical specifications rely on the absence of enforced net neutrality rules in the EU? Please list each and every hospital, product and application, please do not cluster products and applications.

Can the Commission name specifically every single intelligent transportation system such as a car-mounted impact warning system, car or transportation security device whose performance relies on real time internet access and whose technical specification relies on the absence of enforced net neutrality rules in the EU? Please list every manufacturer, product and application, please do not cluster products and applications.

I can't wait for the replies.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, eu commission, gunther oettinger, julia reda, net neutrality, paid prioritization, self-driving cars, taliban, telemedicine

Jeb Bush Is The Latest Politician To Demonstrate Absolutely No Understanding Of Net Neutrality

from the politicians-don't-understand-anything dept

Like many folks, I'm dreading the seeming inevitability of a Clinton-Bush presidential campaign next year involving Hillary Clinton against Jeb Bush. I'm 40-years-old and half of my life has involved a Clinton or a Bush in the Oval Office (and it's even worse if you count Vice Presidency). Both seem completely out of touch with the real issues of today. Instead, both are so surrounded by political cronies and yes-men that it's difficult to see either candidate as being willing to actually take on the real challenges facing the world today. Clinton is currently dealing with the fallout from her decision to expose her emails to spies while shielding them from the American public. And Jeb Bush is now spouting pure nonsense on net neutrality.

Bush's comments aren't surprising, because despite Democrats and Republicans alike both strongly supporting net neutrality and those who truly understand the details favoring these rules, in Washington DC, net neutrality is a partisan issue. The reason almost certainly has to do with campaign finance. Splitting an issue down partisan lines makes it an issue that politicians can raise money around. Things that everyone agrees on aren't useful for fundraising, and since politicians these days need to spend half their time fundraising, politics gets distorted pretty quickly.

But Bush's comments are particularly clueless, trotting out both debunked talking points and clear misstatements that appear to have been fed to him by the broadband players.

“The idea of regulating access to the Internet with a 1934 law is one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard,” he said. It was the first time Bush had weighed in on the subject since the FCC voted.

“Just think of the logic of using a 1934 law that was designed when we did have a monopoly for wireline service as the basis to regulate the most dynamic part of life in America,” Bush said. “It’s not going to be good for consumers. It’s certainly not going to be good for innovation.”

Except, you know, that's not true. The 1934 Telecommunications Act was rewritten in 1996 by Republicans, who set it up this way with a clear plan for broadband to be covered by Title II. As Tim Lee at Vox recently explained:

The awkward thing about this is that the rules were drafted by a Republican Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In that legislation, Congress created two legal categories for online services: a low-regulation category for online services (known unimaginatively as Title I) and a high-regulation category for companies that provide basic infrastructure (called Title II).

When telephone companies began offering broadband access using a then-new technology called Digital Subscriber Lines, it was widely accepted that Title II — the stricter regime designed for basic infrastructure — would apply. After all, telephone companies had been governed under Title II for decades before that. Title II rules had ensured that telephone companies didn't strangle the burgeoning market for dial-up ISPs, which provided internet access over telephone lines.

But Bush trots out the 1934 argument in a totally misleading way. And yes, in 1934 there was a monopoly for wireline service, but in 1996 when the Act was rewritten (again, by Republicans), there was actually a lot of competition in the ISP business thanks to line sharing. Yet, today, everyone knows that there's basically no competition. While not a monopoly, it's at the very least an oligopoly with very little choice for most consumers.

Furthermore, the rules are pretty clearly just basic rules to prevent anti-consumer behavior by the ISPs. How that's going to be "bad for consumers" is hard to fathom. And considering that many of the most innovative internet companies have come out strongly in favor of net neutrality, it's hard to see how it's going to be bad for innovation. You can't even argue that it's going to be bad for broadband companies either, since many independent broadband providers, like Sonic.net, have come out in favor of the rules. As we've noted in the past, it's only bad for broadband providers that want to treat customers badly.

So, does Jeb Bush really think he understands internet innovation better than all these internet companies that have pointed out how the new rule is helpful to innovation?

Is Jeb Bush giving a giant middle finger to internet innovation? That hardly seems like a good campaign move.

But, apparently, Bush not only is doing that, he's also going to totally misrepresent others to do so:

Bush said that Netflix and other backers of net neutrality are already regretting the scale the FCC’s action. “There is no support for this now,” Bush said. “The people who were concerned about this, the content providers like Netflix and others, have now disowned this.”

That's just hogwash. There's massive support for this, which Bush would have noticed if he actually paid attention to the internet, which celebrated when the rules were approved. Anti-net neutrality folks have seized upon an out-of-context statement from a Netflix exec claiming that it would have been preferable to find another route -- but that's not disowning the rules. We've been among those who have pointed out for months that reclassifying under Title II was simply the best of a bunch of not great solutions. Yes, it would have been better to have something even cleaner than reclassification, but that option was not on the table.

Restrained rules, based on Title II, are a perfectly reasonable solution to stopping broadband providers from implementing anti-consumer practices. The only "innovation" it may harm is the broadband guys innovating new ways to screw over consumers and successful internet companies. If Jeb Bush is looking for support from the most innovative sector on the planet, spewing lies and misrepresentations about key issues for the internet world seems like a piss poor way to go about it.

Filed Under: innovation, jeb bush, net neutrality, partisanship, republicans, telecommunications act

The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Net Neutrality Works

from the just-like-the-reporter,-the-tv-commentator-and-the-internet-commenter dept

Update: Please read our update on this story, The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works, explaining how one of the cartoonists parodied below has decided to send DMCA takedown notices.

Earlier this week, the A Good Cartoon tumblr first posted a bunch of ridiculous and misleading political cartoons about net neutrality that showed zero understanding of net neutrality. And then the person behind the site remade many of those cartoons, but replaced the words in them with "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works!" For reasons unknown, the original Tumblr post that had all of them has been taken down, but many of the images are still viewable via John Hodgman's blog, and they're worth checking out. Here are just a few with some additional commentary (because how can I not provide some commentary...) Right, so actually, the rules are designed to do the exact opposite of the image above. They're designed to make sure that the big broadband access players can't delay things and have to deliver your content faster. The idea that the FCC will be stepping between the content and people who want to see it is completely false. I don't even know what the original cartoonist was trying to say here, because it doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. The text in the original cartoon was "time's up, next!" which makes even less sense than the first cartoon. The whole point of the new rules is to prevent broadband providers from putting these types of controls on your internet usage. Sensing a pattern yet? All of these cartoons are pretending that the new rules insert the FCC between you and the internet. And all of them pretend that the FCC is going to do what the broadband providers themselves have said they want to do -- which these rules are designed to prevent. So, yes, the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works. At least this one doesn't go for the easy (but wrong) joke pretending that the FCC is now watching what you do online. Instead, it's claiming that there's no reason for the FCC to "fix" anything because it's "not broken." But that's only true if you ignore the attempts to break neutrality along with how the broadband providers purposely made your Netflix slow in order to get the company to pay its tolls. And, of course, it also means having to ignore what the broadband providers have been saying themselves for a decade now about how they want to double and triple charge internet services to reach end users. If you pretend all of that isn't true, then maybe the original cartoon makes sense. But, all of it is true, so the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works.

Filed Under: broadband, cartoonist, fcc, net neutrality, political cartoons