New Bill Would Ban U.S. Broadband Caps. Sort Of.
from the performative-gyrations dept
With the midterms looming, Democrats are apparently once again embracing one of their favorite “strategies”: pushing bills they know have no chance of passing, that may not even do the thing they claim to do, in a bid to make it look like at least they’re “doing something.”
The latest case in point is a new bill pushed this week by Senators Ben Ray Luján and Cory Booker that professes to ban usage caps. The bill tasks the FCC with imposing rules that prohibit broadband caps unless they’re for “reasonable network management”:
A broadband internet access service provider shall not impose a data cap except when tailored primarily for the purposes of reasonable network management or managing network congestion.
The problem: usage caps are technically unnecessary bullshit. They’re a cash grab imposed by regional monopolies to extract even more money out of captive U.S. consumers that already face some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world. It took years, but even the industry itself was finally forced to admit that caps don’t actually help manage congestion.
It just doesn’t technically work that way. There’s a wide array of technologies that ISPs use to manage network congestion, but caps aren’t among them. So the very act of including an exemption for “reasonable network management or managing network congestion” creates a loophole for ISP lawyers to exploit as they look to dodge FCC enforcement on this issue.
The other problem, the FCC still lacks a voting majority because the telecom industry, GOP, and several key Democrats are blocking the nomination of popular reformer Gigi Sohn. So the bill might task the FCC with creating loophole-filled rules prohibiting usage caps, but the agency couldn’t actually vote to approve them.
Getting Sohn appointed to the FCC should be the tactical priority for Democrats interested in telecom reform. Messaging on the importance of this appointment should be unyielding and relentless. But so far messaging support from the DNC, Biden, and her future FCC colleagues has ranged from fairly feckless press releases and petitions to complete radio silence. I don’t know what that is, but it isn’t strategy.
So, in short, the bill may not actually even do the thing it professes to do. And it won’t pass a corrupt U.S. Congress that has made it clear it doesn’t want to meaningfully challenge U.S. telecom monopolies. And it can’t be implemented by an vote-gridlocked FCC. It won’t even generate awareness of the issue because it was dropped in the middle of summer right before congressional recess (as of this writing the tech press didn’t even notice this bill had been released).
This is, of course, the Democratic party MO. They’re also pushing a doomed bill to restore net neutrality right before summer recess. Again, there can be a tactical function for doomed bills if they can raise awareness for important issues. But nobody is paying attention to fringe telecom policy in July. It would be great if they were, but wishful thinking isn’t actual strategy.
So the only true function of this kind of bill is for a lawmaker to say “hey, look at me, I’m doing something right before midterms.” Which is better, I suppose, than pushing a corruption-fueled, terrible law serving industry (which is what most of Congress is busy doing). But I’m still not sure it’s the best use of resources with everything going on (like, oh, fascists attempting to dismantle U.S. Democracy).
I get some pushback from activists who defend these performances (which might explain why U.S. telecom reform strategists have repeatedly had their asses kicked by industry over the last thirty years). But you really can’t tell me there’s nothing more strategically important a lawmaker could be doing than pushing a bill that won’t pass, can’t be implemented, doesn’t do the thing it promises to do, and won’t be noticed.
Filed Under: ben ray lujan, broadband, broadband caps, cory booker, fcc, high speed internet, overage fees, rip off, surcharges
Comments on “New Bill Would Ban U.S. Broadband Caps. Sort Of.”
A bit too harsh
Article seems overly harsh on the Democrats. You can tell by the first sentence, in the way the word ‘strategies’ has quote marks.
There’s a perfectly good reason for pushing bills like this, which is to demonstrate the many ways in which the Republicans are opposed to policies that most Americans would approve of. Infrastructure, minimum wage, gun background checks, availability of contraception, et al. Yeah, maybe it will go unnoticed in the summer, but it can be brought up as midterms loom.
And the point about the FCC being deadlocked is true at the present moment, but will hopefully not always be the case. There are still several years left in the Biden administration. It’s disingenuous to argue that trying to pass legislation is pointless because of a transient leadership problem in a particular agency.
That being said, this particular bill does contain weasel words to render it rather ineffective, so I can understand the author’s trepidation on that point.
Re:
This is precisely why the “strategy” is bullshit. It’s politicking, designed to help the Democratic Party rather than the public.
No shit. “Caps are banned, unless you say they’re for the exact thing all ISPs have been saying they’re for since the beginning.” And contrary to Karl’s text, ISPs have never really admitted to their customers that caps don’t help congestion. They’ve said things to their investors that can kind of be taken that way, but aren’t saying exactly that. The linked article, for instance, says Comcast is able to handle the increased loads caused by COVID; it doesn’t say they’d be able to do that without caps. And sure, the caps mysteriously disappear when competition appears, but they never outright give that as the reason or say uncapped networks would run just as well as capped networks.
Strange things
Iv talked to a few people in a few states.
And it seems there are locations where democrats act like republicans.
Which would answer allot of questions of HOW all this has ended up like this.
This is precisely why the “strategy” is bullshit. It’s politicking, designed to help the Democratic Party rather than the public
Of course it’s politicking. Since when isn’t politicking a strategy? Since when isn’t trying to help your party a strategy? You might think that a particular strategy is wrong, or poorly executed, or ineffective, but it’s still a strategy.
And, in the case of Democrats floating bills that have no chance of passing the Senate, but which are supported by a majority (sometimes an overwhelming majority) of Americans, it’s an excellent strategy. If the bill happens to pass, it helps the public by instituting some legislation that the public approves of. If it fails, it helps reveal to the public how the Republicans vote against the public’s interest.
Re:
It is a strategy. It’s just not a strategy that will do anything to help the public, which I suspect was the point of the scare-quotes. Ostensibly, lawmakers are paid to serve the public, not themselves. Perhaps it’s naïve, but I’d rather see them earn reëlection based on effective actions rather than theater.
Re: Re:
The scare quotes around “strategy” are used in a sentence that relates to the general practice of voting on bills that are unlikely to ultimately be signed into law. Democrats do it, and Republicans do it.
In my opinion, shining a spotlight on the members of Congress who vote against measures that are widely popular with the public is indeed helpful, because it informs voters what the allegiances of elected representatives are, and that can affect upcoming elections. Sure, it would be much more helpful if these bills actually pass, but bringing them up for a vote in “put up or shut up” fashion gets members of Congress on record, giving citizens more information.
Yeah, I would like effective pro-public legislation as well, and I’m not trying to defend the dysfunction that is Congress. But since Republicans will vote against just about anything substantial that the Democrats propose, this Congress simply won’t get much done. So it sounds like you (and Bode) are saying that the Democrats should essentially sit on their hands and do nothing, rather than at least giving it a Hail Mary.
I cannot defend Congress as a whole; it’s almost completely dysfunctional. But to pick on the Democrats for bringing this bill up for a vote is absurd. The reason that it’s unlikely to pass, and the reason that if it passes won’t be effectively enforced, all lies at the feet of Republicans.
there is no such thing as ‘network congestion’ other than what is purposefully created by the broadband internet access service providers, to suit themselves and prevent them from spending tax payers dollars updating/upgrading their equipment so the top management can have greater salaries/bonuses!
Fairness act for connection technology
The bill can be referred to as the FACT act.
In order to achieve parity with international standard, the Congress of the United States declares a permanent ban of data caps on all wires internet access.
As there is no hardware concerns, the act will go into effect 72 hours after passage.
Failure to remove data apse will result in a $10 per day fine, per customer, against any non-compliant provider.
Funds collected from fins will be used to expand national fibre wiring across rural areas. Such wires will be wholly owned by congress and integration is herby mandated.
Fn autocorrect