Republican net neutrality bill would gut FCC’s authority over broadband
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Sen John Thune, a primary sponsor of this bill, has taken over $50,000 in political contributions between AT&T, Comcast, NCTA, Time Warner Cable, U.S. Telecom, and PACs associated with these groups.
We're not talking about a well-reasoned GOP alternative to "Obama's plan to regulate the Internet." This is a bill written by cable lobbyists to hamstring the FCC while throwing a bone to the American public.
Title II gives the FCC the authority it needs to prevent modern day monopolies from screwing up principles of net neutrality we've all enjoyed since day 1 of the Internet. These GOP plans should be viewed with a massive dose of skepticism, especially in light of the political contributions they've accepted in recent elections.
The FCC actually seems more captured than congress. The head of the FCC is a former lobbyist for ISPs and Telcos.
And what has he said recently about network neutrality?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/08/us-usa-internet-ne...
Maybe the usual ideas about "regulatory capture" aren't as accurate as they seem.
Downvoting this story doesn't make it untrue.
He was President of the National Cable Television Association, the major cable industry trade group. They did do lobbying, but he left that job in 1984. At the time he held this position, it was just about television. The members of NCTA did not offer internet service or telecommunications services, for the simple reason that there was no public internet yet. The cable companies were all relatively small--the consolidation that led to the small number of giant companies we have now had not happened yet.
The other telecom group he was involved with that does lobbying is CTIA, which is the major trade group for cellular and wireless. He was their President from 1992 to 2004. As I said, they do some lobbying. They also do a lot of testing and evaluation of devices, develop standards and certifications, administer the short code system, put on a couple major trade shows, do safety campaigns and educational programs to teach responsible wireless use (e.g., don't text while driving), and assorted other things along those lines.
The regulations for wireless phone service he negotiated with the FCC in the mid '90s are similar to the Title II proposal that seems to be on the way--which is an approach that the current CTIA objects to for internet. (And note that this approach worked well for phone. All the carriers massively expanded their infrastructure, cellular voice is quite competitive, ubiquitous, and cheap).
Between those positions, and after the latter, he's been involved with a bunch of companies as founder, President (or CEO or similar), or board member. These have been in a variety of areas, including aerospace component repair, investment banking, wireless providers, cloud services, and content providers. (He's also was on the PBS board, and was a trustee of the Kennedy Center, and wrote a couple history books on the civil war--he seems to have very wide interests).
Taken as a whole, he's been involved heavily in organizations or companies that have reason to be on pretty much every side of any telecom issue, so if he does have some prejudice toward any past employer there is no reason to believe it would be toward ISPs. His actions certainly don't show signs of pro-ISP prejudice, considering that most of his proposals have pissed them off.
Please get over yourself.
http://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_...
It's ignorant to assume only those who support this bill benefit from political contributions. It almost seems as if the people who are most knowledgeable about networks (ie companies that actually build the darn thing) are against net neutrality rules.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowled...
This bill leaves plenty of holes for ISPs to abuse. Here is a few pieces of that article:
- Allows discrimination in violation of the principles of the Open Internet.
>For example, these principles would not have prevented AT&T from limiting FaceTime to particular tiers of service – as it tried to do in 2012. It would not address discriminatory use of data caps, such as Comcast has used to favor its own streaming content over that of rivals. It would not address potential issues arising at Internet interconnection, the gateway to the last mile. Even worse, by eliminating any flexibility on rulemaking or enforcement, the bill would prevent the FCC from addressing any new forms of discrimination and threats to openness that arise.
- Does not effectively block ‘fast lanes.’
>Even with the protection the draft does provide – addressing blocking, fast lanes, and throttling – it opens a huge, undefined loophole of ‘specialized services.’ As this draft reads, Comcast or AT&T or any other provider can offer its over-the-top online streaming service as a ‘specialized service’ and give itself prioritized service. Companies could essentially sell prioritized service to specific applications or content simply by calling these fast lanes ‘specialized services.’
- Consumers lose protections while special interests gain new ones.
>But while consumers lose, Hollywood wins. The draft contains a special carve out so that broadband providers can act as Hollywood’s special enforcers
- Enforceability.
>This draft would prevent the FCC from providing more clarity about what behavior runs afoul of the stated Internet openness principles. By requiring that the FCC only hear complaints, only the most well-heeled and well-lawyered companies and individuals may be able to enforce their rights.
This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing if I've ever seen one. Hopefully The President sticks to his statements and vetos this if it gets pushed through.
> Much of the language was lifted directly from the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Order, which was thrown out in court last year.
[1] http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/16/7558715/net-neutrality-new...
There are always loopholes, and it would take years for the courts to determine if Comcast was breaking the law.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/11/cogent-now-admits-slo...
Many ISPs have 100-10,000x over subscriptions per meg
But sure, let's pretend that the FCC shouldn't have the right to regulate ISPs, or that somehow ISPs aren't telecommunications companies</s>
I don't want the government monitoring or restricting my internet. I would like the government to prevent companies from doing that to me.
I think this is a distinction without a difference.
It isn't a restriction of free speech. It's a restriction on what the newspapers can print to deliver the speech.
It's a restriction on bus drivers refusing passengers based on what newspaper they're reading.
That said, you do realize that the Tom Wheeler whose appointment is your go-to example of regulatory capture is the guy who appears to want to classify ISPs under Title II, don't you? That is, a former lobbyist for the telecoms is proposing a regulation that's counter to their interests, so they're buying a law to bar him, and the regulatory agency he works for, from doing that. Which is the corrupt side, again?
Also, hold them accountable how? With an incumbency rate > 90%, and congresscritters being all but necessarily for sale in order to finance their campaigns, how exactly does the farce of democracy and republicanism (note: small-r) that we have in the US punish the bad actors?
Imagine if they grab both sides of washington in 2016 and then the supreme court nominations by the end of this decade.
Country will become a wasteland.