6 ms·

The real battle for net neutrality begins: The people v. FCC

52 points by CrankyBear 9y ago

shmerl 9y ago
> Congress isn't sitting idly by either. The bill, H.R.4585 - Save Net Neutrality Act of 2017, has already been proposed, and more will come. After the FCC announced its decision, Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman, a Republican, immediately announced, "This conversation belongs in #Congress." Watch out for those in the Congress pushing a law that would actually cement in place fake net neutrality, that doens't really prevent any monopolistic abuse. I suspect it was the plan of monopolists all along. They knew well, that blantant actions of FCC won't fly, but they hoped their corrupt influence on the Congress would allow them to pass a "law" that would let them run amok with anti-competitive and user fleecing behavior. Example of where it can be heading: https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/its-time-for-congress-to-act-and-permanently-preserve-the-open-internet https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate.... Read carefully what Comcast lobbyists are writing. They describe their own plan pretty well. Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it? Only because they hope that they'll manage to solidify something that doesn't do anything, while "putting the discussion to rest" (i.e. making fixing it much harder, than simply restoring previous FCC rules again).
- ikeboy 9y ago
  Comcast doesn't say that they want Congress to implement title ii regulation. You're mixing up 2 different things.
  - shmerl 9y ago
    I explained above what they are saying. They want two things: prevent strong net neutrality protections and prevent it practically permanently. For that they are now pushing for a fake law about it. Their logic is, that repealing a garbage law is usually much harder, than for FCC simply passing some new regulation. Look at how long DMCA-1201 persists, despite it being an obvious garbage.
    - ikeboy 9y ago
      You said "Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it?" You seem to be ignoring the obvious response, which is that they're fine with NN regulations as long as it doesn't come with the overhead of Title II.
      - shmerl 9y ago
        Point is, they are pretending they are pro-net neutrality, while in essence they are completely against it. It's their usual smokescreen tactic, to fool those who would fall for such weasel talk. Saying they are fine with NN regulation, but only when it's actually not doing anything to protect NN, is fallacy. So let's be clear - they are simply lying through their teeth.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        You keep on saying some version of this but aren't giving any reason to actually believe this. What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules?
        shmerl 9y ago
        > What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules? They should stop lying and admit they are simply against net neutrality to begin with. But I don't expect them to, naturally, since they are professional lairs. Anyway, my point was that the public should be aware about this sneaky attack on net neutrality, veiled as "support" for it.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        You aren't answering the question. You've given zero reason to think they're lying except asserting it over and over.
- michaelfgolden 9y ago
  This. The long game for monopoly isps has been to get this in front of a favorable congress since the title II rule was enacted. Would be hard to imagine a more favorable congress than the current one, which in anticipating a wave in 2018, are all on the hunt for wingnut welfare.
pmoriarty 9y ago
The courts are also packed with ideological appointees. I don't have much faith that they'd consider the issue impartially or with the benefit of the consumer in mind. You have to remember that they're the ones that let the DMCA and endless copyright extensions stand, along with giving us other anti-consumer/pro-corporate decisions like Citizens United. It's a wonder that the US has any consumer protections at all, and those that are there are steadily being dismantled under the "pro-business" mantra, or whatever other fig leaf can be dug up.
martin1975 9y ago
In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump has no idea of the kind of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election. NN is, at least in my view, an entirely non-partisan, cross cutting concern/issue that concerns -everyone-, regardless of their views held on any particular point. Yes, I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN, but that is -not- where we are now, are we? Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN. The way they went about it now makes it look like all they're trying to do is enrich the entrenched players. This is sure to bite this administration in the ass far more than they imagined.
- noncoml 9y ago
  > I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy. Why do they assume that non-NN will increase ISP competition? I have a choice of exactly one ISP in my area and I really don't see how the repeal of NN will make other ISPs lay fiber to my place. Can someone break down this argument for me? I cannot.
  - RussianCow 9y ago
    I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, assuming we have a lot of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US), there is no need for NN.
    - btschaegg 9y ago
      Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false assumption. But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and allowing small companies to access it.
AFNobody 9y ago
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251 C'mon now, how dumb do we think we are that these are legit comments? > Name of Filer: Barack Obama > Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 > The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f990170ea/t/5a32d72d9140b78109fd4dd4/1513281327086/SPL+TiPC+Preliminary+Report+12-14-17.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f99017... > 88% of survey respondents whose emails were used to submit pro-repeal comments likely had their identity appropriated to submit a comment, compared to just 4% of pro-net neutrality respondents.

52 points by CrankyBear 9y ago

> Congress isn't sitting idly by either. The bill, H.R.4585 - Save Net Neutrality Act of 2017, has already been proposed, and more will come. After the FCC announced its decision, Colorado Congressman Mike Coffman, a Republican, immediately announced, "This conversation belongs in #Congress." Watch out for those in the Congress pushing a law that would actually cement in place fake net neutrality, that doens't really prevent any monopolistic abuse. I suspect it was the plan of monopolists all along. They knew well, that blantant actions of FCC won't fly, but they hoped their corrupt influence on the Congress would allow them to pass a "law" that would let them run amok with anti-competitive and user fleecing behavior. Example of where it can be heading: https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/its-time-for-congress-to-act-and-permanently-preserve-the-open-internet https://web.archive.org/web/20171215060507/http://corporate.... Read carefully what Comcast lobbyists are writing. They describe their own plan pretty well. Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it? Only because they hope that they'll manage to solidify something that doesn't do anything, while "putting the discussion to rest" (i.e. making fixing it much harder, than simply restoring previous FCC rules again).

ikeboy 9y ago
Comcast doesn't say that they want Congress to implement title ii regulation. You're mixing up 2 different things.
- shmerl 9y ago
  I explained above what they are saying. They want two things: prevent strong net neutrality protections and prevent it practically permanently. For that they are now pushing for a fake law about it. Their logic is, that repealing a garbage law is usually much harder, than for FCC simply passing some new regulation. Look at how long DMCA-1201 persists, despite it being an obvious garbage.
  - ikeboy 9y ago
    You said "Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it?" You seem to be ignoring the obvious response, which is that they're fine with NN regulations as long as it doesn't come with the overhead of Title II.
    - shmerl 9y ago
      Point is, they are pretending they are pro-net neutrality, while in essence they are completely against it. It's their usual smokescreen tactic, to fool those who would fall for such weasel talk. Saying they are fine with NN regulation, but only when it's actually not doing anything to protect NN, is fallacy. So let's be clear - they are simply lying through their teeth.
      - ikeboy 9y ago
        You keep on saying some version of this but aren't giving any reason to actually believe this. What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules?
        shmerl 9y ago
        > What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules? They should stop lying and admit they are simply against net neutrality to begin with. But I don't expect them to, naturally, since they are professional lairs. Anyway, my point was that the public should be aware about this sneaky attack on net neutrality, veiled as "support" for it.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        You aren't answering the question. You've given zero reason to think they're lying except asserting it over and over.
michaelfgolden 9y ago
This. The long game for monopoly isps has been to get this in front of a favorable congress since the title II rule was enacted. Would be hard to imagine a more favorable congress than the current one, which in anticipating a wave in 2018, are all on the hunt for wingnut welfare.

pmoriarty 9y ago

The courts are also packed with ideological appointees. I don't have much faith that they'd consider the issue impartially or with the benefit of the consumer in mind. You have to remember that they're the ones that let the DMCA and endless copyright extensions stand, along with giving us other anti-consumer/pro-corporate decisions like Citizens United. It's a wonder that the US has any consumer protections at all, and those that are there are steadily being dismantled under the "pro-business" mantra, or whatever other fig leaf can be dug up.

martin1975 9y ago

In choosing a corporate shill like Pai, I think Trump has no idea of the kind of Trojan horse he unwittingly planted for his 2020 re-election. NN is, at least in my view, an entirely non-partisan, cross cutting concern/issue that concerns -everyone-, regardless of their views held on any particular point. Yes, I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN, but that is -not- where we are now, are we? Leave the regulation in place, or at least put some serious conditions and stimuli for new broadband investments if you're going to repeal NN. The way they went about it now makes it look like all they're trying to do is enrich the entrenched players. This is sure to bite this administration in the ass far more than they imagined.

noncoml 9y ago
> I am aware that increasing ISP competition will nullify the need for NN I see this argument being used a lot, but I think it is a logical fallacy. Why do they assume that non-NN will increase ISP competition? I have a choice of exactly one ISP in my area and I really don't see how the repeal of NN will make other ISPs lay fiber to my place. Can someone break down this argument for me? I cannot.
- RussianCow 9y ago
  I think you have it backwards. The argument is that, assuming we have a lot of competition between ISPs (which is obviously a false assumption in the US), there is no need for NN.
  - btschaegg 9y ago
    Well, that still does make a very bad argument, exactly because it is a false assumption. But aside from stating the obvious: I would actually be interested if there is a country where a lack of competing ISPs is not the status quo. And if there is, what the reason for that might be. If there is, I'd assume it would have to do with that country treating network infrastructure the same as roads and allowing small companies to access it.

AFNobody 9y ago

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1051157755251 C'mon now, how dumb do we think we are that these are legit comments? > Name of Filer: Barack Obama > Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500 > The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f990170ea/t/5a32d72d9140b78109fd4dd4/1513281327086/SPL+TiPC+Preliminary+Report+12-14-17.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/554441dae4b07d3f99017... > 88% of survey respondents whose emails were used to submit pro-repeal comments likely had their identity appropriated to submit a comment, compared to just 4% of pro-net neutrality respondents.