Congress Gives The FCC An Earful On Its Despised Plan To Kill Net Neutrality

from the Comcastic dept

At this point, more than sixteen million comments have been filed in response to the FCC's myopic plan to kill net neutrality protections, the majority of them in fierce opposition to the idea. We've also noted how more than 900 startups, countless engineers, and a wave of large companies and websites have similarly urged Ajit Pai to stop, pause, and actually listen to what the majority of the country is saying. And what they're saying is that they want Title II and net neutrality protections to remain in place to protect them from giant telecom duopolies with long histories of fiercely-anti-competitive behavior.

Unfortunately. there's no indication that the Ajit-Pai lead FCC much cares. Pai's FCC has made every effort to comically try to downplay this massive wave of opposition, and dress up the agency's blatant giant gift to Comcast, AT&T and Verizon as an ingenious attempt to somehow restore "freedom" to the internet (yeah, big fucking citation needed).

Hoping to perhaps pressure Pai further, 11 Representatives and 21 Senators last week sent a formal comment to the FCC (pdf) insisting that the agency's plan to gut net neutrality protections not only ignores the public interest, but the law as well:

We, as members of Congress who also sit on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, submit these comments out of deep concern that the FCC’s proposal to undo its net neutrality rules fundamentally and profoundly runs counter to the law. As participants either in the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or in decisions on whether to update the Act, we write to provide our unique insight into the meaning and intent of the law.

The cornerstone of Pai's plan is to reverse the agency's 2015 decision to classify broadband providers as common carriers under the Telecommunications Act. That, in turn, is part of a long-standing AT&T, Comcast and Verizon effort to gut meaningful regulatory oversight of broadband providers and replace it with the policy equivalent of fluff and nonsense. And in a competitive market that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, since you could trust market competition to keep ISPs on their best behavior in terms of pricing, net neutrality, privacy, and everything else.

But as you might have noticed if you've looked at your Comcast bill lately, or paid any attention to the rotating crop of sleazy behavior by companies like AT&T, the broadband market isn't competitive. In fact, decades of turning a blind eye to a lack of competition has left it downright hostile to any new disruptive entrants. As such, reducing what limited protections consumers and competitors currently enjoy would have dramatic, negative repercussions on consumer wallets and the health of the internet.

And while the FCC does have the authority to interpret the Telecom Act as it sees fit (much like Wheeler did in 2015), the Senators and Representatives are quick to point out in their letter that Pai and friends are twisting Congressional intent to flimsily justify their decision to reclassify ISPs as an “information service" rather than a "telecommunications service" (you can check out our primer on this entire debate -- and why this distinction matters -- here):

"While the technology has changed, the policies to which we agreed have remained firm the law still directs the FCC to look at the network infrastructure carrying data as distinct from the services that create the data. Using today’s technology that means the law directs the FCC to look at ISP services as distinct from those services that ride over the networks.

The Commission’s proposal performs a historical sleight of hand that impermissibly conflates this fundamental distinction. The FCC proposes to treat network infrastructure as information services because the infrastructure gives access to the services running over their networks. The FCC contends that ISPs are therefore “offering the capability” to use the services that create the content. However this suggestion obliterates the distinction that Congress set in to law-we meant for the FCC to consider services that carry data separately from those that create data. The FCC’s proposal would therefore read this fundamental choice that we made out of the law. Under the proposal’s suggestion, no service could be a telecommunications service going forward.

The lawmakers are also quick to lambast the FCC for ignoring the massive groundswell of public opposition to reversal of the rules, as well as the agency's relentless focus on using network investment as the sole cornerstone for determining whether the rules are useful:

"Americans overwhelming support stronger and clearer privacy rules. Yet the Commission—without comment—proposes to eliminate before-the-fact protections at the FCC in favor of an enforcement-only approach. The FCC should not degrade people’s privacy rights without thorough consideration. Instead of considering these critical national priorities, the proposal single-mindedly concentrates on one issue to the exclusion of all others: the raw dollars spent on network deployment. This narrow focus is clearly contrary to the public interest—if we had intended network investment to be the sole measure by which the FCC determines policy, we would have specifically written that into the law.

The problem, of course, is that ISP lobbyists have successfully managed to submerge this debate under the idiot-din of partisan politics, despite the health of the internet and broadband competition being of benefit to everyone. Polls repeatedly find that net neutrality protections have broad, bipartisan support among consumers of all political ideologies, but by framing this as a partisan debate, ISPs and their loyal, paid allies have successfully bogged the conversation down in inane partisan fisticuffs, sadly convincing an all-too-broad segment of the public that net neutrality is "a government takeover of the internet."

As such, the fact that this particular letter was written largely by Democratic lawmakers only makes it fodder to be ignored by partisans, and it it shouldn't be. Net neutrality is about preventing massive, incumbent ISPs from abusing a lack of broadband competition in a rotating crop of obnoxious, creative ways. Were either party actually interested in shaking off ISP campaign contributions and improving said competition we might be having a different conversation, but until then net neutrality is the only thing standing between a healthy, competitive internet and the predatory whims of regional telecom duopolies.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    reader50 (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:21am

    While I find Techdirt's stories important and timely, you should knock off with swearing in print. It makes the story sound unprofessional, and gives detractors one more reason to ignore the content.

    Swearing is fine in a news quote - it's what someone else said. But editorial swearing is not a normal element of news.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:37am

      Re:

      Aw, do words hurt your little, sensitive brain? Techdirt is an opinion blog, not a news outlet. If I were the writers of this blog, I would be OFFENDED by your attempt to dictate their choice of words.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Daniel (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 12:32pm

      Re:

      Karl Bode typically writes in an angsty tone, has for years; get with it. Also, these are opinion pieces.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      That political correctness directive is half the problem. The audacity to expect political correctness from everyone is too much for my ears..

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 1:49pm

      Re:

      I had to go back and check, since I didn't even remember the swearing and it clearly didn't distract me from the excellent message one bit. So it might just be your sensitive nature and misunderstanding of what an opinion blog is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    roebling (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:31am

    Just say "No!" to more government interference with private business. When you want something, it's faster and cheaper to arrange for it yourself rather than badgering some bureaucrats to get it. And, as a bonus, the quality of the product you buy from a free market is better!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:38am

      Re:

      That might be great if we actually had a free market in this instance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:48am

      Re:

      Yeah, man, have you heard of this ARPAnet thing the government is trying to ram down everybody's throats? What a bunch of baloney. I'll stick with free-market solutions like Prodigy, CompuServe, and AOL, thanks.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:48am

      Re:

      And just how many cable draped poles do you consider acceptable outside your house? Infrastructure that spans distance, like electricity/water/gas/phone/cable/Internet is best dealt with as a regulated monopoly, at least as far as owning the Infrastructure is concerned. Every country that has effective competition at the ISP level does so by regulating the infrastructure so that it is open to competing service providers.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 11:50am

      Re:

      As a citizen and consumer, "government interference" is the only thing keeping private business from killing me for profit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 1:44pm

      Re:

      Yep i will just go lay my own fiber network to every peering point in the world. Why had i not thought of this before? And surely no one would attempt to stop me...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 1:51pm

      Re:

      Have you replied to the wrong story? Because nothing you've said can be applied to the US broadband market.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 12:02pm

    Ajit Pai what kind of a name is that? Is this person American? Obviously this person is doing some globalmonger'ss bidding paying no attention to majority of Americans. These people should not feel so comfortable going against the grain of America for another global corporation. Especially not having an elected position.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 12:23pm

    Not like eight years of a president with iffy birth certification hadnt just handed America up to our enemies is it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 12:36pm

    A lot of enemy officers have been schooled in American Universities. Good God we even trained the dickheads to fly straight into the twin towers..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 12:39pm

    Dont tell me this melting pot of invited immigration hasnt jumped up and bit America in the arse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 1:58pm

      Re:

      It hasn't. Now what?

      (Unless you want to count colonialist invaders as "immigrants". They were some ass-biters right there.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 2:10pm

        Re: Re:

        What do you think all the domestic surveillance is about? So many possible enemy combatants have entered this country, the government forgot to keep track.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 2:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And then the government realized oh yeah we're enemy combatants too.. well lets dont surveil ourselves at least..

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 6:05pm

      Re:

      "invited immigration"

      I do not recall reading about this portion of world history ... when and how did Native Americans invite Europeans?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 12:58pm

    Is all you do create and serve your own information? You're an information service. (Google, Facebook, any other website)

    Do you handle information created by others in any way? You're a telecommunications service (every ISP without exception - whether they also offer their own information service is utterly irrelevant)

    How is this so hard for Pai to understand?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 8 Aug 2017 @ 1:13pm

    Ajit Pai's post-public office job and compensation plan is based on how frustrated Congress and how thoroughly he screws over Americans.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 2:23pm

    had these senators and representatives had some balls from the beginning and not allowed AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to be the law of the USA internet and Communications and allowed other companies to come into the fray, causing competition in the first place, maybe we wouldn't have been in this position anyway! whether they have enough clout to stop Pai remains to be seen because sure as god made little green apples, he's on a great big payday if he gets what he wants for those same companies mentioned above!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 2:51pm

    (putting on tin hat for a moment) OK, so the telco monopolies are paying off the politicians. ALL the politicians, of course: if Tweedle Dee the plutocrat is likely to beat Tweedle Dum the demagogue, then the "Friends of T. Dee" gets a check for $1000 and the "Dummies to re-elect Dum" committee gets a check for $500.

    Unless, of course, T. Dee breaks programming. In which case, next election, the "Dummies for Dum", "Dum Dum ta Dum", "Make Congress Dum Again", etc, etc., etc., all get checks for $10,000 from each and every senior assistant vice operating offcier in each of the three regional telco monopolies; "Dee for You" campaign headquarters phones break down on election day; and salacious bits of conversation between Dee's best friend and Dee's second-best-friend's wife leak onto the internet.

    Just business as usual.

    But are these politicians really breaking programming? If the telcos want this to be perceived as a partisan issue, then the greatest service that radicalized far-outwing members of the out-party can perform, is to reinforce that perception--by making loud partisan noises.

    Which is exactly what's happening now.

    No, I don't want to take off my tinfoil hat, the mind-control rays make my scalp itch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 2:53pm

    So 23 out of 600+ critters signed on. Implication is that the vast najority support Pai.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 4:55pm

      Re:

      Actually, the link is to a letter from 11 persons in the House who are members of a single party. What about the other 424 members of the House? As for the 21 Senators (no mention of the other 79), there is nothing in the link identifying who they are and what they may have said.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2017 @ 6:23pm

    Part of the problem here is our current 'Fuck You' politics, where we support anything and everything that fucks over the other guy, rather than being for the greater benefit to the public and the country.

    Rather than looking at it from a neutral position, people are of course taking up sides in hopes that it fucks the other guy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 8 Aug 2017 @ 8:24pm

    WHY NOT..

    Can we send the VOTED regulations TO AJIT>>
    Then send a page with all the TESTS RUN on the corp site, INTO AND OUT OF..
    THEN ask him IF' its legal??(its not)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2017 @ 4:23pm

    Can someone check his immigration status? ROFLMAO

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Patrick Leonard, 10 Aug 2017 @ 10:29pm

    It's highly frustrating when governing bodies decide to ignore the overwhelming majority. Let's hope net neutrality sitcks around for a long time

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Andy Kuiper, 16 Oct 2017 @ 10:29am

    This has me scared - big business should not be able to influence access/speed

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Andy Kuiper (profile), 16 Oct 2017 @ 10:31am

    This has me scared - big business should not be able to influence access/speed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.