Charter Spectrum Claims The Death Of Net Neutrality Will Magically Provide Better, Faster Broadband

from the nobody-believes-you dept

Large ISPs like Comcast, Charter, Verizon and AT&T this week uniformly proclaimed that the death of net neutrality is going to be a really wonderful thing for American consumers. Charter Spectrum, for example, took to the company's policy blog to insist that the neutering of historically popular consumer protections on this front will somehow result in everybody getting better broadband. The ISP's argument, as it has throughout this entire little dog and pony show, focused on the repeatedly debunked claim that the FCC's pretty modest net neutrality rules demolished telecom industry investment:

"Without the regulatory overhang of these rules however, businesses like ours will have the certainty they need to make infrastructure investments over the long-term, helping more people get online and enabling even faster broadband. This includes bringing high speed broadband to more hard to serve areas, including rural communities."

Which is something you might be inclined to actually believe if Charter's own executives weren't on record publicly stating that the rules had absolutely no meaningful impact on Charter's bottom line:

"Title II, it didn't really hurt us; it hasn't hurt us," Charter CEO Tom Rutledge said at an investor event in December 2016, according to a report by advocacy group Free Press. Publicly traded companies like Charter are required to give investors accurate financial information, including a description of risk factors involved in investing in the company."

In fact, dozens of industry CEOs have publicly admitted to investors and media outlets that the whole "net neutrality hurt broadband investment" is completely baseless, something proven by anybody willing to spend five minutes with industry SEC filings and earnings reports. And while industry-hired economists tried to cherry pick very specific windows of investment to try and claim the exact opposite, the data here is pretty clear. In fact, an analysis by consumer groups (pdf) found that Charter's overall CAPEX actually went up in the wake of the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rule creation:

"Charter’s capital investments went up 15 percent after the FCC’s Open Internet vote (when we include the pre-merger investments made by Charter, Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks). And not only are Charter’s investments up, they’re 12 percent higher than the estimates Charter gave to investors prior to closing that merger.

This being post-truth America however, facts don't appear to carry quite the same weight as they used to, and it's abundantly clear that some of the least-liked companies in America are confident in their belief that repetition forges reality. Apparently, said companies hope that if they repeat this nonsense often enough, people won't notice the government sold them, and the health of the internet, down river without a second thought (and in some instances, that's pretty clearly working).

Granted Charter then gets to the real point of the company's blog post; to push for a new net neutrality law the company knows that in this political climate, they'll be the ones writing:

""Charter’s commitment to our customers is our top priority. We urge Congress to pass new legislation that preserves an open internet and ensures a regulatory framework made for the 21st century, so we can continue to improve and invest in our networks and provide more people access to a fast, reliable, and open internet."

We've noted how ISPs are worried about losing the looming court case over net neutrality, as well as the dozens of states that are now imposing state-level net neutrality protections. As such, the hope is that they can push forth a loophole-filled net neutrality law in name only; one with so many loopholes as to effectively be useless, but which will pre-empt any tougher state or federal rules (including the restoration of the FCC's 2015 rules). It's a gambit that's not really working, in large part because these companies have obliterated any last vestiges of public trust they may have had with this latest lobbying assault.

Filed Under: ajit pai, competition, fcc, investment, net neutrality
Companies: charter spectrum

Net Neutrality Rules Die Today, But The Backlash Is Just Getting Started

from the ill-communication dept

As you probably already knew, federal net neutrality rules finally die today after the FCC's unpopular repeal vote last December. And as you might expect, FCC boss Ajit Pai is making the rounds doing what he's done throughout this entire process: bullshitting the public about what his historically unpopular (and misleadingly-named) "Restoring Internet Freedom" order actually does. Over in a CNET editorial for example, Pai goes so far as to proclaim that gutting these extremely popular open internet protections will somehow make everything much, much, better:

"I support a free and open internet. The internet should be an open platform where you are free to go where you want, and say and do what you want, without having to ask anyone's permission. And under the Federal Communications Commission's Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which takes effect Monday, the internet will be just such an open platform. Our framework will protect consumers and promote better, faster internet access and more competition."

If you've spent any time reading Techdirt, we probably don't need to repeat why none of this is actually true. The entire piece is a "greatest hits" of Pai's misleading claims to date, including his insistence that the FTC will be better able to police ISP abuses (false), small ISPs were unfairly burdened by the rules (the FCC's own data disputes this), gutting net neutrality somehow will force ISPs to be more transparent (false), and that the repeal will result in faster and cheaper broadband service (complete nonsense).

Moving forward, the ISP lobbyist narrative du jour is going to shift to claims that because the internet didn't immediately grind to a halt after June 11, that the repeal must have been a wonderful idea. That was already something Pai and friends were claiming weeks ago despite the fact the rules hadn't even been repealed yet. And it's a claim you're going to see repeated ad nauseum over the weeks and months to come by the telecom industry's vast army of hired academics, think tankers, consultants, and other policy mouthpieces.

But despite the cocksure behavior by Pai and pals, the repeal remains on pretty shaky footing. ISPs know that, which is why they will likely try to be on their best behavior for the foreseeable future to avoid adding any fuel to the fire. After all, the repeal was based almost entirely on bogus data, was plagued with an endless array of scandals (from the FCC making up DDOS attacks to dead people's names being hijacked to support the repeal), and the overwhelming public opposition to it makes the SOPA/PIPA backlash look like a toddler tantrum.

As such, the looming lawsuits against the FCC have a fairly decent chance of success. Those suits will likely focus on the fact that under the Administrative Procedures Act, the FCC can't just arbitrarily reverse policy without highlighting that the market changed dramatically enough to warrant it (which is why you'll often see the FCC falsely claiming that net neutrality devastated sector investment). With any luck, this could result in a judge overturning the repeal for being "arbitrary and capricious" (never were those words more true than here).

Meanwhile on the state level, more than half the states in the union are now pursuing some flavor of their own net neutrality protections, whether that's via executive order (like in Montana), or new net neutrality state law (as in Oregon, Washington, and California). And while ISPs successfully lobbied the FCC to include language in the repeal "pre-empting" (read: banning) states from protecting consumers in this fashion, the FCC's legal authority to tell states what to do on this subject is resting on some pretty sketchy legal assumptions.

And while these federal and state legal battles play out, the political backlash to this giant middle finger tech policy already isn't likely to be subtle. Net neutrality has massive bipartisan support, and the lion's share of the public sees this decision as what it is: a giant middle finger to free speech, healthy competition, and american consumers and small businesses. Our collective disdain for Comcast frequently bridges partisan divides, and while broadband traditionally hasn't been an issue that sees much traction at the polls, it's hard to think there won't be some political price to pay for being on the wrong side of history here.

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast executives know they've pushed their luck with this repeal. That's why ISP lobbyists have been pushing a bogus, loophole filled net neutrality law. A law with one real purpose: to pre-empt tougher state or federal rules, or the restoration of the 2015 rules. But because playing kissy face with Comcast is likely to be politically toxic ahead of the looming midterms, support for this head fake has been unsurprisingly hard to come by. As such, passing new rules down the road remains a very real possibility, especially with a dramatic shake up in the House or Senate.

So while many are understandably frustrated today, the elimination of the FCC's 2015 rules shouldn't be seen the end of net neutrality, or the end of the road. It's more like another chapter in a story that has neither a beginning nor an end. Net neutrality isn't something that simply "ends" with the creation or elimination of government guidelines. Net neutrality violations are only a symptom of a lack of competition in broadband and decades of regulatory capture. Were we to finally wake up to this problem and stand up to these anti-competitive duopolists, we wouldn't need net neutrality rules in the first place.

Filed Under: ajit pai, backlash, fcc, net neutrality

What Ajit Pai Should Have Said About Killing Net Neutrality... And Why It Still Would Have Been Wrong

from the but-he-didn't,-which-says-it-all dept

As you've probably heard, today's the day that the fairly straightforward and non-onerous net neutrality rules put in place in place by Tom Wheeler back in 2015 are officially taken off the books. We've posted a ton about net neutrality and will post a lot more, but I've been thinking about a few things related to how all of this went down that seem worth discussing. As background reading, it might help to first read why I changed my mind about net neutrality -- from originally being against the FCC setting any rules to eventually being for a fairly limited set of rules. However, what really inspired this post was the podcast conversation I had with Barry Eisler back in December about the lost art of productive debate. One of the points that Barry made was that it's especially easy in these crazy social media-driven times to argue against someone by taking the absolute worst or most extreme version of their argument and then destroying that. As he notes, as a former practicing lawyer, it's the kind of thing he was trained to do. However, he suggested that the more intellectually honest way of holding a debate is to actually reframe the argument and present back to the person what their best argument appears to be, and then debate that.

That can be difficult to do -- but let's take a shot. Because the arguments that Pai and his supporters have given so far for wiping net neutrality off the books really don't make any sense.

The core of Pai's argument to date has been that the net neutrality rules that were put in place in 2015 created a massive regulatory burden on broadband access providers, leading them to decrease their investment. In a new interview he suggests that decreasing the regulatory burden on broadband access providers will have some sort of trickle down effect on everyone else: "I think ultimately it’s going to mean better, faster, cheaper Internet access and more competition."

But if that's actually the case, it seems that Pai should back up that statement with a further explanation. The broadband market is about infrastructure, and if you understand the economics of infrastructure there are a number of different factors at play. For example, it seems quite reasonable to point out that both the net neutrality rules and the lack of net neutrality rules create some winners and losers. And it would be reasonable to point out that the FCC shouldn't be the ones picking those winners and losers (though, that would be a tough sell, given the FCC's entire charter is basically to be doing that). An intellectually honest description of the net neutrality rules would note that there are multiple competing interests at play: the interests of broadband infrastructure players (big telcos/cablecos), the interests of upstart competitors (smaller ISPs), the interests of big services on the internet, the interests of small services on the internet, and the interests of the public. And you could (and perhaps should) look at the impact on each of those and note who is likely to benefit and who is not.

And then, if we were having an honest debate, Pai could note that he believes, strongly, that empowering the biggest broadband infrastructure players with leverage to create differentiated services on their network would provide benefits that outweigh the damage that might do to others. Pai sort of tries to make that argument with his statement about "better, faster, cheaper Internet access and more competition", but he fails to describe any real mechanism for that to actually happen -- other than suggesting that merely removing the regulations will magically lead to it. So, let's try to create the mechanism by which this might happen. You could say that... due to a lack of regulations, it will allow the big broadband providers more leeway to experiment with alternative business models and new technologies, which will create a faster and better internet, including different types of access and different levels of service for different users. And maybe you could then argue that this would also somehow allow for new entrants, because they could attack the market in disruptive ways.

Another argument Pai could have -- and perhaps should have -- made would be looking into questions about how the market for broadband works. Last year, in posting the free market case for net neutrality, we noted that there are cases where even the staunchest free market economists out there have recognized that government intervention can make some sense, mainly in getting uncompetitive markets unstuck. Pai could have tried to rebut the various assumptions in that piece as well. For example, he could argue that broadband is not, in fact, a natural monopoly, and present some evidence for why the market was increasingly competitive -- and even argue that knocking out net neutrality rules would enable brand new broadband infrastructure investment to occur by enabling brand new competitive forms of internet access.

If he said all of that, then we could be having an honest debate about getting rid of the net neutrality rules. So, now, let's point out why even if he said all of the above, he'd still be incorrect (this may be why he didn't say all of the above, because he understands these arguments don't hold up to much scrutiny, and it's much easier to stick with a voodoo trickle-down "broadband regulation bad!" form of argument -- but that's getting away from the intent of this post). So, first let's tackle the "get rid of regulation to help everyone" argument.

As we've discussed at length, the one argument that Pai has made strongly -- that broadband investment is down because of net neutrality -- is not even remotely close to true. Just looking at broadband companies and their Wall Street statements (in which they face serious penalties for lying), you find that there is no decline in broadband investment due to the net neutrality regulations, at all. So the idea that removing these "barriers" will somehow lead to an increase in investment doesn't make any sense.

Second, even going beyond the pure "less regulation means more investment" argument, if the market is not at all competitive (and it is not), then what incentive do the broadband players really have to invest and innovate here? As we've seen time and time again, the real incentive for innovation is greater competition. But we're actually seeing less and less competition in the broadband market, which means that broadband providers have greater and greater incentive to just protect their own monopolistic position and cheap out on customer service and innovation.

Third, if we look at the various players in the market, it's disturbing that Pai only seems to take into account the interests of the largest broadband providers. The smaller broadband providers have made it clear that net neutrality actually improves competition because, without it, the largest broadband providers are better positioned to cut the necessary deals with Netflix, Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook and others, while the smaller players won't be able to do so. That means that the bigger players will be able to contractually make smaller broadband companies provide a worse overall experience to their users, again further cementing the lack of competition. And while Pai claims that net neutrality harms smaller ISPs, the FCC's own data shows the opposite.

Fourth, so much of the argument that we have to focus on broadband infrastructure investment of the largest players is a broken windows fallacy. As I pointed out in a post last year, if broadband infrastructure investment is the only metric we're using here, the FCC's best plan would be to physically destroy the internet. After all, that would stimulate an awful lot of new investment. You just have to ignore all the costs it would create for everyone else.

And that's the part that's most disturbing here. Pai seems to be deliberately focusing only on the big broadband players and what this means for them -- without caring about what it means for everyone else. Having clear and simple net neutrality rules in place helps lots and lots of internet services, because it means they get to compete on a level playing field against the Googles, Facebooks, Amazons and Netflixes of the world. Those companies can pay to get preferential treatment. The startups cannot -- and Pai has yet to explain how this state of affairs helps those startups. Just saying, "well you'll have more internet," isn't an answer.

Indeed, a strong argument can be made that harming the ability of smaller companies on the network to compete, in favor of granting much greater discriminatory power to the large networks themselves, does much more harm to competition and a free market than having a set of very limited net neutrality rules in place that give all of the internet companies and entrepreneurs certainty that they can actually build their own businesses.

As for the argument that the market is more and more competitive -- that is clearly not at all true. Pai himself telegraphed this fact by trying to downgrade the definition of broadband to make the market look more competitive.

So, what are we left with? Pai's key argument appears to rest on the broken windows fallacy, by only focusing on broadband infrastructure investment and ignoring all of the investment a layer up on the network and how much that will be harmed by this move. He also is misrepresenting what is happening with infrastructure investment and the level of competition in the market.

In the end, we're left with no real argument at all for why we've just wiped out net neutrality, other than a blind faith that "regulation is bad." That may get some people excited, but hardly seems like a real exploration of the topic. And that's going to matter, because one of the key things that Pai is going to need to defend in court during the various challenges is what material change had happened that required this repeal. And simply falsely claiming that broadband infrastructure spending had dropped is hardly convincing.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broken windows, competition, fcc, investment, net neutrality, regulations

Senate Approves First Step In Uphill Effort To Restore Net Neutrality

from the try-and-try-again dept

Today the Senate voted 52 to 47 to reverse the FCC's attack on net neutrality, setting up a tougher showdown in the House.

As noted previously, net neutrality advocates managed to convince Congress to try and use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the FCC's misleadingly-named "Restoring Internet Freedom Order."

That order, approved by a 3-2 FCC vote last December, not only kills net neutrality (as of June 11), but eliminates much of the FCC's authority to police monopoly ISPs. Since many still don't seem to understand this, it's worth reiterating that the attack on net neutrality is just one part of a much broader plan to severely hamstring FTC, FCC, and state oversight of giant broadband monopolies that face little to no organic market competition.

Today's hearing before the Senate included all of the favorite hits culled from a decade of net neutrality debates, including ISP-loyal lawmakers like John Thune repeating the entirely false claim that net neutrality rules somehow devastated sector investment (SEC filings, earnings reports, and countless CEO statements disprove this). Claims that U.S. net neutrality rules were "heavy handed government regulation of the internet" were also frequently repeated (that's also not true, and the U.S. rules are arguably modest by international standards).

Net neutrality activists had been trying to secure additional Senate votes for months, something made arguably difficult by ISP lobbyist success at stupidly framing net neutrality as a partisan issue, despite widespread bipartisan support. But activists managed to get three key Republicans to join their ranks: Maine Senator Susan Collins, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Louisiana Senator John Kennedy. Kennedy's yes vote was a notable surprise, given he'd been supporting ISP efforts to pass a bogus net neutrality law with an eye toward pre-empting tougher state or federal rules.

But at the last moment he came along for the ride, his justification being notably amusing:

From here, the fight gets notably more difficult. The House also has to vote in favor of the CRA reversal, a tall order given the large number of breathleesly-loyal telecom industry House allies like Marsha Blackburn. And should it pass the House, it also needs to avoid a veto by President Trump. Activists hope to appeal to Trump's tendency to float wherever the populist winds may lead, but that's certainly still no sure thing, in part because there's zero evidence the President has any idea what net neutrality is.

That said, even if the effort fails, it should do a wonderful job clearly illustrating who you should avoid voting for in the midterms and thereafter -- especially if having a healthy, open and competitive internet is something that's important to you.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, congressional review act, cra, fcc, john kennedy, net neutrality, senate

Senate Will Vote Wednesday To Try And Save Net Neutrality

from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept

While U.S. net neutrality protections technically end on June 11, efforts to restore the rules continue. On Wednesday the Senate is now formally scheduled to hold a vote to try and use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reverse the FCC repeal. The CRA can reverse a regulatory action with a majority vote in the House and Senate; it's what the GOP and Trump administration used to kill popular broadband privacy rules before they could take effect last year.

In a Statement, Senator Ed Markey called the May 16 vote the "most important vote for the internet in the history of the Senate":

"By passing my CRA resolution to put net neutrality back on the books, we can send a clear message to American families that we support them, not the special interest agenda of President Trump and his broadband baron allies. May 16 will be the most important vote for the internet in the history of the Senate, and I call on my Republicans colleagues to join this movement and stand on the right side of digital history."

It's believed that net neutrality supporters should have the votes they need to get the CRA effort through the Senate. Getting time and the necessary votes in the House, where ISP influence is more pervasive, is likely to be a taller order. And even if the measure makes its way through the House, Trump still has the ability to veto it. Net neutrality supporters believe that if they get that far they may be able to pander to Trump's "populist" side given the immense public support for net neutrality.

While stranger things have happened, that seems like a tall order for a President who has routinely indicated he has absolutely no earthly idea what net neutrality even is. And when Trump does talk about it, he clings tightly to the misleading narratives that have been pushed for years in certain media echo chambers thanks to the help of ISP lobbyists:

Still, the CRA route does have the benefit of forcing net neutrality opponents to put their disdain for the internet and the will of the public down on paper ahead of the looming midterms. Given that 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats oppose the FCC's obnoxiously-named "restoring internet freedom" repeal, naming and shaming does serve a tactical purpose. After all, as we've routinely noted, there's absolutely nothing partisan about keeping the internet healthy, competitive, and free from arbitrary barriers anti-competitively erected by giant telecom monopolies.

That said, the best bet to reverse the FCC's attack on net neutrality rests with the courts. Or as Tim Wu, the man who coined the term net neutrality, recently put it:

"The problem for Mr. Pai is that government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason, such as a change in factual circumstances. A mere change in F.C.C. ideology isn’t enough. As the Supreme Court has said, a federal agency must “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.” Given that net neutrality rules have been a huge success by most measures, the justification for killing them would have to be very strong.

It isn’t. In fact, it’s very weak."

Numerous lawsuits should heat up over the next few months highlighting how the FCC ignored the public and engaged in all manner of dodgy behavior to rush the repeal through. Should that fail, the best recourse for angry consumers is voting out lawmakers that prioritize monopoly profits over the health of the internet, and the welfare of consumers, startups, and small businesses. And the looming CRA vote, even if it fails, should make it much easier to clearly target those lawmakers in the voting booth during the midterms and beyond.

Filed Under: broadband, congress, congressional review act, cra, fcc, net neutrality, senate, vote

FCC Boss Celebrates As Net Neutrality Gets An End Date: June 11

from the Comcastic dept

Nearly six months after the Trump FCC voted to kill net neutrality protections, we finally have an official date for the formal elimination of the rules. According to an FCC announcement, (pdf) the FCC's comically and misleadingly-named "Restoring Internet Freedom" order will formally take effect on June 11, eliminating rules that have the bipartisan support of a huge majority of Americans (not to mention many of the people that built the damn internet).

In a statement patting himself on the back for a job well done, FCC boss Ajit Pai simply doubles down on all of the routinely-debunked falsehoods his agency has used to justify the repeal up to this point, including the claim that killing consumer protections and pandering to Comcast somehow lowers prices and protects "free expression":

"On June 11, we will have a framework in place that encourages innovation and investment in our nation’s networks so that all Americans, no matter where they live, can have access to better, cheaper, and faster Internet access and the jobs, opportunities, and platform for free expression that it provides."

Of course if you've been following the net neutrality fight this claim is laughable. Giving telecom monopolies operating in a broken market unchecked authority to abuse a lack of competition will raise rates and stifle free expression in a myriad of ways. From bogus usage caps and zero rating to interconnection shenanigans (where ISPs use their power to drive up costs for transit and content competitors), these costs and unfair restrictions, sooner or later, will be dropped in the lap of consumers, startups and smaller competitors across the entire internet ecosystem.

Meanwhile, Pai also tries to double down on the claim that next-generation networks are only made possible by gutting oversight of some of the least-liked and least-competitive companies in America. He also tries to float the idea that "special interests" (not an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of Americans) are to blame for the massive backlash to his repeal:

"And we will embrace a modern, forward-looking approach that will help the United States lead the world in 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity. For months, many politicians and special interests have tried to mislead the American people about the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Now everyone will be able to see the truth for themselves."

Yes, yes we will.

Unfortunately, starting in late June, ISPs, the Pai FCC, and the industry's dollar-per-hollar consultants are going to try to argue that because the Earth didn't immediately shatter into a million pieces on June 12 it must mean that the net neutrality rules weren't important. But anybody expecting ISPs like Comcast to immediately begin behaving badly in the wake of the repeal doesn't understand how this is going to work.

While there's certain to be some providers that just can't help themselves, most large ISPs are going to try and be on their best behavior for a while, even after the rules are repealed.

Why? They're wisely concerned that the FCC may lose in court, thanks to all of the procedural missteps, half truths and flimsy data belched forth from Pai's office during the repeal. ISPs are also worried about the fact that more than half the states in the nation are now pursuing their own net neutrality rules (something they maybe should have considered before rushing to kill modest federal rules).

Of course there's also the looming threat of a future less cash-compromised Congress or FCC coming in and just re-instating the rules during future administrations. There's also an ongoing effort to reverse the FCC repeal via the Congressional Review Act.

This is why ISPs have been advocating (so far unsuccessfully) for a bogus net neutrality law in Congress.

Pushed by Marsha Blackburn in the House and John Kennedy in the Senate, these bills are being promoted as a "solution" to the longstanding net neutrality debate. But their real intention is far more nefarious: to pass a flimsy, loophole-ridden law designed specifically to pre-empt tougher federal or state laws (and block the FCC from restoring the 2015 rules should they lose in court). In short: they want to make a lack of net neutrality permanent via legislation that...pretends to protect net neutrality (AT&T, Verizon and Comcast lobbyists are nothing if not clever).

As ISP lobbyists nervously try to prevent a return to real net neutrality rules, ISPs will try to be on their best behavior for a while to try to suggest all of the concerns about the repeal were breathless hyperbole. But it's important to understand, killing net neutrality is just one part of a much broader plan that involves effectively gutting nearly all FTC and FCC oversight of the broken telecom sector. Should that come to pass (and they're having a hell of a lot of success at the moment), the end result is not going to be subtle.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, innovation 5g, investment, net neutrality

Facebook Quietly Backs Away From Its Net Neutrality Killing 'Free Basics' Program Overseas

from the the-AOLification-of-the-internet dept

While Facebook professes to be a net neutrality advocate here in the States, their silence as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T have dismantled the open internet has long proven otherwise.

And overseas, Facebook has routinely undermined net neutrality -- at times under the banner of altruism. Thinking it could corner the ad market in developing nations, Facebook has been pushing for years something known as "Free Basics" under its Internet.org initiative. Under Free Basics, Facebook delivers users a free, AOL-esque walled garden version of the internet featuring content from Facebook-approved partners. But the program quickly came under fire by content partners who didn't like Facebook being the curator of what gets viewed. Others criticized the program for at one point banning encrypted content.

Countries like India ultimately wound up banning Free Basics as a violation of net neutrality, viewing the program as little more than glorified collusion -- since a cornerstone of the project involved Facebook determining which services users will be able to access. Users in these nations, meanwhile, began conflating "the internet" with Facebook itself, which is what Facebook obviously wanted, but which presented a whole host of new problems.

As Facebook saw heated opposition from Indian net neutrality activists, its response to the PR kerfuffle was pretty terrible. While it was abundantly clear the program held cornering developing ad markets as its primary agenda, Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed that net neutrality supporters worried about Facebook's plans were simply extremists who were hurting the poor. And at one point, the company launched a campaign that attempted to trick Indian citizens into rooting against their own best interests on this subject by spamming the government in opposition to real net neutrality.

Opposition to Facebook's version of the future has since spread to additional countries, and reports indicate that Facebook is slowly walking away from its Free Basics in a number of developing nations:

"Myanmar is not the only place where Free Basics has quietly ended. The program has been abruptly called off in more than half a dozen nations and territories in the recent months, according to an analysis by The Outline. People in Bolivia, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Congo, Anguilla, El Salvador, and Saint Lucia have also lost access to Facebook’s free internet program. Additionally, Facebook was testing Free Basics service in Zimbabwe in mid-2016 in partnership with local telecom operator Telecel. The test program has yet to materialize into a wider roll-out."

The company continues to expand the program in some areas, but more and more frequently countries aren't appreciating that Facebook's effort to "help the poor" involves dramatically reshaping what the "internet" looks like, while putting Facebook in the unappreciated position of gatekeeper of acceptable internet content:

"The most concerning issue with Internet.org has been its unpreparedness to serve and protect the people it is helping come online for the first time. Nikhil Pahwa, a New Delhi-based activist who revolted against the Free Basics program in India, says part of the problem with Internet.org is that it is increasingly becoming a substitute for internet for people in countries such as Myanmar."

Effectively, Facebook’s Free Basics is shaping the internet experience of users — i.e., the services they can access, the services they cannot access,” Pahwa told The Outline, adding that this creates a filter bubble for users that influences their worldview. “You can see problems crop up in nations where Free Basics is operational and Facebook is dominant."

None of this is to say that Facebook's broader Internet.org initiative hasn't done some good work around the world. But as groups like Mozilla have long argued, if Facebook is so damn concerned about connecting poor people to the internet, it can always simply fund efforts to connect poor people to the actual internet.

Filed Under: free basics, net neutrality, walled gardens, zero rating
Companies: facebook

Marsha Blackburn Wants ISPs To Sell 'Fast Lanes' Like 'TSA Pre-Check'

from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept

You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger telecom sector crony than Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn. From her attacks on net neutrality and consumer privacy, to her support of SOPA and AT&T-written protectionist state laws hampering competition, it's effectively impossible to find a subject where Blackburn didn't take the side of regional broadband monopolies over consumers. It's a major reason that as Blackburn tries to jump from the House to the Senate (to nab Bob Corker's seat) she's found herself notably behind in the polls in a state Trump won by 26 points.

Last week, Blackburn took time out of her busy schedule to participate in a show pony Senate hearing pushed by entrenched telecom operators. Its purpose: to try and sell the public and lawmakers on the idea that killing net neutrality and allowing things like "paid prioritization" (letting one company buy a network advantage over another) will actually somehow be a good thing.

Despite their "victory" on the net neutrality repeal, large ISPs like AT&T and Comcast are worried. They're worried that the FCC's clumsy repeal will be overturned by the looming court battle, and they're worried about how more than half the states in the nation are now pursuing their own net neutrality rules. That's why they've been pushing (with Blackburn's help) for a fake net neutrality law. One that pretends to nobly "put the issue to bed," but contains so many loopholes as to be useless. Its real purpose: pre-empt tougher state rules, and prevent the FCC's 2015 rules from being re-instated in the chance of a court loss.

To sell this policy turd, ISPs and loyal foot soldiers like Blackburn have been trying to make anti-competitive behavior sound sexy. Like here, when Blackburn tries to claim that ISPs should emulate the TSA and its pre-check program as they explore the prioritization of content:

"Many of you sitting in this room right now paid a line-sitter to get priority access to this hearing. In fact, it is commonplace for the government itself to offer priority access to services. If you have ever used Priority Mail, you know this to be the case. And what about TSA Precheck? It just might have saved you time as you traveled here today. If you define paid prioritization as simply the act of paying to get your own content in front of the consumer faster, prioritized ads or sponsored content are the basis of many business models online, as many of our members pointed out at the Facebook hearing last week."

So one, no competent person would suggest the TSA's security theater efforts are worth emulation. Two, quality net neutrality rules always ban anti-competitive paid prioritization deals for good reason. If an ISP lets, say, Disney buy a speed and latency advantage, that puts companies, startups and non-profits that can't afford to pay that same toll at unfair disadvantage. Such deals might be a great money maker for AT&T and Comcast and good for companies that can afford them, but it remains a terrible idea for anybody that wants the internet to remain relatively open and competitive.

Not coincidentally, Blackburn's proposed net neutrality law (likely written by AT&T) bans all of the ham-fisted things ISPs never really had much interest in (the outright blocking of websites, for example), but turns the other cheek on a laundry list of other potentially problematic behaviors like like paid prioritization.

ISPs and their loyal lawmakers like Blackburn have tried repeatedly to insist bans on paid prioritization hamstring innovative services and things like medical care. But that's never been true: the FCC's 2015 rules didn't ban prioritization (VoIP, health services), just anti-competitive paid prioritization. Worried that their repeal won't hold, ISP lobbyists are back again trying to conflate the two concepts (prioritization versus unfair paid prioritization), while insisting that screwing up the open internet will somehow be efficient, fun and productive.

Filed Under: fast lanes, fcc, marsha blackburn, net neutrality, prioritization

Another Survey Shows Massive Bipartisan Opposition To Net Neutrality Repeal

from the will-of-the-people dept

ISPs like Comcast (and the politicians, think tankers and PR/policy consultants paid to love them) have been successful framing net neutrality as a partisan issue to sow dissent and stall policy progress and consensus. But the reality is that net neutrality and net neutrality protections continue to have overwhelming, bipartisan support. Survey after survey have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans support net neutrality, and for most people preventing natural monopolies from being bullies (at least until somebody has the courage to embrace policies that encourage broadband competition) is a no brainer.

This week another survey highlighted how opposition to Ajit Pai and the Trump FCC's net neutrality repeal is overwhelming. According to a new study out of the University of Maryland (pdf), 86% of the country opposes the FCC's decision to roll back net neutrality protections at ISP lobbyist behest. And again that opposition is bipartisan, with 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats opposing the FCC's obnoxiously-named "restoring internet freedom" repeal. While the sample size of 997 registered voters is arguably a little small, there's really nothing subtle about the findings:

It's worth noting that since the last survey, Republican opposition to the repeal has actually grown from 75% to 82% as more people realize the ISP-manufactured reasons for the repeal are based largely on fluff and nonsense. There's absolutely nothing "partisan" about trying to keep the internet relatively open, healthy and neutral. There's nothing partisan about protecting consumers from natural monopolies who've literally bought and written state laws keeping their broken, anti-competitive status quo intact.

While the survey found the traditional ISP arguments about net neutrality being "heavy handed" or "stifling innovation" work a little better on GOP voters, the public overall isn't really buying them:

Of course majority public opinion doesn't automatically make something right, but in this case we've noted time and time again that the logic and data supporting this repeal are little more than hot garbage pushed by companies terrified of open competition and truly level playing fields. It's difficult to tap dance around the fact that the attempted repeal of net neutrality is arguably the worst government tech policy decision in the history of the internet, making the SOPA backlash look like a toddler's hiccup in comparison.

And while ISP lobbyists believe they've "won" the battle by convincing Ajit Pai to ignore the will of the public, they'd be pretty foolish to think this giant policy middle finger aimed squarely at already angry consumers isn't going to result in mammoth and unforeseen political and policy blowback over the next decade. That's assuming the FCC repeal survives its looming court challenge, something that's no sure thing given all of the bizarre and unethical behavior Pai's agency engaged in as it tried to float this monumental turd of a policy proposal.

Filed Under: ajit pai, bipartisan, broadband, fcc, net neutrality