FCC Forgets About, Then Dismisses, Complaint Detailing Verizon's Long History Of Net Neutrality Violations

from the with-friends-like-these dept

So a few years ago we wrote about Alex Nguyen, one of the only folks to file a formal net neutrality complaint (pdf) with the FCC. Before the rules were killed, users could file a free complaint, of which there were thousands. But if you wanted to actually have your complaint looked at by the FCC, you needed to pay $225, submit an ocean of paperwork, and kick off a long-train of procedural and legal fisticuffs most consumers simply didn’t have time for. But Nguyen took the time, and filed a lengthy complaint outlining how Verizon Wireless had a long history of anti-competitive, restrictive behavior that harmed innovation and competition.

With 300 citations across a 112-page document, Nguyen documented Verizon’s ugly history, including banning mobile payment services that competed with Verizon’s own payment offerings, blocking tablets from working on its network to promote its own tablets, and even banning devices from using GPS to — you guessed it — force subscribers to use the company’s own subscription GPS services. Most of these efforts violated not just net neutrality, but the “Carterfone” conditions affixed to Verizon’s spectrum to ensure the company would treat all devices and services fairly.

Verizon’s long history on this front is fairly indisputable, and the company has never been held seriously accountable for any of it. And while Nguyen hoped he’d be the one to help hold Verizon to account, the regulatory capture in the telecom sector had other ideas.

Nguyen formally submitted his detailed complaint back while the net neutrality rules were still active (July of 2016), so the Pai FCC was mandated to take a look at the complaints. But instead of actually taking the only formal net neutrality complaint made seriously, the Pai FCC (surprise!) forgot completely about it for years. Last week the agency remembered it needed to at least respond, and (surprise!) broadly declared that the complaint lacked any compelling evidence whatsoever:

“[W]e deny Nguyen’s Complaint for failure to satisfy its burden of proving by competent evidence that Verizon violated the Act or the Commission’s rules or orders,” the FCC said. “Rather than support its claims with sworn affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts, the Nguyen Complaint rests almost entirely on unverified news reports and blog posts.”

Except the FCC’s claim (surprise!) isn’t true. Nearly all of the complaints documented by “blog posts” can be verified by other formal complaints made with the FCC by a litany of consumer groups, companies, and third parties. Nguyen also documented his accusations extensively using first hand information including his own Verizon Wireless bills. He provided easily-confirmed evidence that Verizon routinely used its position as network gatekeeper to, time and time again, favor its own content, services, and apps. And the FCC has repeatedly made it clear, under both parties, that it doesn’t really care.

While the company has slowly improved over the years, Verizon has long tried to claim such restrictions were for the “safety and security” of the network. As in, we blocked mobile tablets from our network for years not to give our own shittier tablets a leg up in sales, but because we were concerned about the “safety and security” of the network. Because the 2015 rules carved out exceptions for such behavior, it’s pretty easy for giant ISPs to use safety and security to justify a wide variety of bad ideas. Much in the same way fixed-line ISPs use bogus claims of network congestion to justify arbitrary usage caps and overage fees.

Granted not all of the things Verizon does technically violated net neutrality, but they were still clearly anti-competitive the majority of the time. And if we had even remotely functional oversight of the industry and/or a healthy, truly price competitive market, the company would have been punished ten times over for using its role as network operator to unfairly hamper competitors.

It’s worth repeating that the FCC’s attack on net neutrality didn’t just kill net neutrality. It also eliminated transparency requirements that can help you understand what kind of restrictions exist on your broadband line. Without them, it’s going to be easier than ever for ISPs to hide anti-competitive shenanigans in a bevy of fine print. The repeal also greatly weakened the FCC’s ability to hold ISPs accountable in other ways, shoveling any remaining authority to an FTC that lacks the competence, authority, or resources to police telecom. Really, what could possibly go wrong?

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: verizon

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Forgets About, Then Dismisses, Complaint Detailing Verizon's Long History Of Net Neutrality Violations”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

'He HAS that? ... I mean, still doens't count.'

"Rather than support its claims with sworn affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge of the facts, the Nguyen Complaint rests almost entirely on unverified news reports and blog posts."

Given their response and actions to date I imagine that if he had that, for every claim, they simply would have moved the goal-posts even further.

‘For future reference sworn affidavits only count if personally overseen by a federal judge who’s name starts with an ‘r’, and anyone who worked with or had any business relationship with the company doesn’t count because they aren’t unbiased enough to be honest and trustworthy. Also any accusations of wrongdoing will be summarily dismissed unless personally admitted to by the Verizon CEO and board of directors in a written, legally binding statement statement.’

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Regulatory Capture

We should expect government, even bureaucrats, to do their jobs. The problem is that politicians, and bureaucrats, have been working at reducing expectations for many years, so much so that expectations are not only at a historic low, and trending down, but every time there is some hope for a bottom, someone does something because there is a need to do something about something and the bottom falls away. Again.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: About that tense choice...

What do we expect when the guy overseeing the FCC was employed by the company in question?

Given his actions to date, and the stance he’s taken regarding the company in question and the industry overall, I’d say there’s a good argument to be made that he at least still considers himself to be working for the company, with the only difference that he’s not officially on the payrolls at the moment.

As soon as he ‘retires’ though…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Regulatory Capture

We need Government to get out of the free market! If you have proof of VZW hampering your services, switch services! Why do we need a Gov’t agency (that is a waste of money) to fine them and get guess what! More money! I’d rather tell a company with my wallet that i’m not happy, but you sheeple just want the Gov’t overlords to take care of everything. Well guess what, this is what happens. Nothing gets fixed. Stop trying to force someone to do the dirty work for you and switch companies if you don’t like it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A web search tells me that "vertical scaling" refers to computing power. Assuming you mean "vertical integration" or "vertical industrialization," that means acquiring other businesses and such so that your corporation has control over the production of a product from start to finish; so, you don’t own just the factory, but also the shipping, the farms, the mines, etc. Contrast this with "horizontal integration," which refers to buying/expanding control over a particular part in a product’s supply chain; so, you might not own the farms, but you own all the factories. In terms of acquiring monopoly power, I would think that horizontal expansion gets you there more than vertical, but you could get there either way.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
04:55 Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality (54)
10:50 NY AG Proves Broadband Industry Funded Phony Public Support For Attack On Net Neutrality (10)
06:24 The GOP Is Using Veterans As Props To Demonize Net Neutrality (22)
06:03 Telecom Using Veterans As Props To Demonize California's New Net Neutrality Law (12)
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
More arrow