The Net Neutrality Sellout: Still Bad, But What's Next?

[RossaLincoln]

The Net Neutrality Sellout: Still Bad, But What's Next?

It's likely FCC Chairman Wheeler will obstinately continue trying to kill the Internet. But it's far from too late to do something about it.

Read Full Article

 

[RossaLincoln]

I wonder if people will go for Ted Cruz's idea of gutting the FCC from any power over the internet and giving it to Congress.

Might be better, might be worse. But at least the FCC wouldn't be in the mix.

The problem there is that the Internet would be so much more fucked. Congress, especially people like Cruz, oppose regulation on principle and tend to support policies that, to put it politely, encourage the formation of entrenched monopolies (it isn't a single party problem incidentally, but it is rather... concentrated.)

Congress being what it is now would almost certainly vote to end even the pathetic version of net neutrality we have now. I don't hate the idea of an FCC, I hate the corrupt people who get put in charge of it. But we won't solve that problem by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Not to be exceptionally critical of this, but this article puts way too much of the blame on the FCC, which originally required net neutrality [http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet], and not on the ]DC Circuit ruling [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality_n_4597831.html] that struck down those rules, starting this whole thing.[footnote]Yes, the FCC could have attempted to appeal it to the US supreme court, but given the current make-up of the bench, it would be highly unlikely to have a different result[/footnote] Since the FCC cannot force net neutrality (although it's not necessarily a given that the US congress can't), the FCC has to figure out a way of regulating internet providers without requiring net neutrality. You're effectively demonizing the FCC for actions they are trying to make in order to preserve at least a semblence of this policy.

This also grossly recharacterizes the nature of that vote you mention (recreated below):

Interestingly, the Republicans, opposed to any regulation of the Internet (we can save the discussion of whether or not a hands-off approach would even work for another time), voted against moving the proposal to public comment. This suggests they will likely also vote down any final proposal. Meanwhile, Wheeler's fellow Democrats - Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel - voted with him. That's disappointing on the surface, but examining what they've said about the proposed rules is heartening.

In other words, you claim that the Republican members of the FCC were fighting for net neutrality, when their actions in preventing rulemaking would let the circuit ruling stand, thus meaning Net Neutrality is dead.

 

[RossaLincoln]

Not to be exceptionally critical of this, but this article puts way too much of the blame on the FCC, which originally required net neutrality [http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet], and not on the ]DC Circuit ruling [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality_n_4597831.html] that struck down those rules, starting this whole thing.[footnote]Yes, the FCC could have attempted to appeal it to the US supreme court, but given the current make-up of the bench, it would be highly unlikely to have a different result[/footnote] Since the FCC cannot force net neutrality (although it's not necessarily a given that the US congress can't), the FCC has to figure out a way of regulating internet providers without requiring net neutrality. You're effectively demonizing the FCC for actions they are trying to make in order to preserve at least a semblence of this policy.

This also grossly recharacterizes the nature of that vote you mention (recreated below):

Interestingly, the Republicans, opposed to any regulation of the Internet (we can save the discussion of whether or not a hands-off approach would even work for another time), voted against moving the proposal to public comment. This suggests they will likely also vote down any final proposal. Meanwhile, Wheeler's fellow Democrats - Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel - voted with him. That's disappointing on the surface, but examining what they've said about the proposed rules is heartening.

In other words, you claim that the Republican members of the FCC were fighting for net neutrality, when their actions in preventing rulemaking would let the circuit ruling stand, thus meaning Net Neutrality is dead.

Actually, the FCC is to blame, because as I state elsewhere, and elaborated on in a previous article, the FCC tied its own hands for no good reason in 2002, when it classified the Internet like cable instead of like a utility. That decision meant it removed its own power to do what it tried to do in 2010 with the rules struck down earlier this year. The ruling doesn't say it has no power, ever, to try and regulate net neutrality, the ruling says it has no power to regulate under the classification system it chose. It has the power to reclassify as a utility which would easily solve the problem. As for thinking that opposing all regulation means they support net neutrality, I'd like to introduce you to people who think pollution regulations are wrong. No rules means anarchy, and not the cooperative kind.

Anyway, because I clearly did invite some confusion, I'm making a slight change so it'll be clearer why the FCC is to blame.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

 

[RossaLincoln]

Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

The point of my article, summed up succinctly. Thanks.

 

[Ninmecu]

And as a foreigner, what can we do? Granted, we can throw /some/ weight against it, but as you've mentioned this is an American issue which, by the very way the world seems to think, will affect the entirety of the planet. So, what can we do.

 

[Agayek]

And as a foreigner, what can we do? Granted, we can throw /some/ weight against it, but as you've mentioned this is an American issue which, by the very way the world seems to think, will affect the entirety of the planet. So, what can we do.

Simple. You can do the same thing US citizens can: Prepare some strongly worded letters to send to Washington so they can be ignored after the telecom companies decide that democracy isn't working for them and that they need to start making "campaign contributions" until they get what they want.

That's usually how American politics work nowadays at least.
---

In all seriousness, there really isn't much anyone from another country can do, beyond calling anyone you know from the US and convincing them to act in your stead. The best you could hope for directly is to organize a movement that would convince your government to level sanctions or embargoes or somesuch against the US if the FCC continues to fail to do their job, and that might, depending on your country of origin and its relation to the US, be able to influence the outcome. Maybe. Assuming your government doesn't cave like most do when the US decides it doesn't care.

 

[Ninmecu]

And as a foreigner, what can we do? Granted, we can throw /some/ weight against it, but as you've mentioned this is an American issue which, by the very way the world seems to think, will affect the entirety of the planet. So, what can we do.

Simple. You can do the same thing US citizens can: Prepare some strongly worded letters to send to Washington so they can be ignored after the telecom companies decide that democracy isn't working for them and that they need to start making "campaign contributions" until they get what they want.

That's usually how American politics work nowadays at least.
---

In all seriousness, there really isn't much anyone from another country can do, beyond calling anyone you know from the US and convincing them to act in your stead. The best you could hope for directly is to organize a movement that would convince your government to level sanctions or embargoes or somesuch against the US if the FCC continues to fail to do their job, and that might, depending on your country of origin and its relation to the US, be able to influence the outcome. Maybe. Assuming your government doesn't cave like most do when the US decides it doesn't care.

The Canadian Government has it's proverbial head up America's Ass. So, yeah, it's not going to quickly cave in and follow suite. Because fuck independent thought and the reality that a strongly created Internet Infrastructure means a strengthened Economy. Sigh.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

Not to be exceptionally critical of this, but this article puts way too much of the blame on the FCC, which originally required net neutrality [http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet], and not on the ]DC Circuit ruling [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/net-neutrality_n_4597831.html] that struck down those rules, starting this whole thing.[footnote]Yes, the FCC could have attempted to appeal it to the US supreme court, but given the current make-up of the bench, it would be highly unlikely to have a different result[/footnote] Since the FCC cannot force net neutrality (although it's not necessarily a given that the US congress can't), the FCC has to figure out a way of regulating internet providers without requiring net neutrality. You're effectively demonizing the FCC for actions they are trying to make in order to preserve at least a semblence of this policy.

This also grossly recharacterizes the nature of that vote you mention (recreated below):

Interestingly, the Republicans, opposed to any regulation of the Internet (we can save the discussion of whether or not a hands-off approach would even work for another time), voted against moving the proposal to public comment. This suggests they will likely also vote down any final proposal. Meanwhile, Wheeler's fellow Democrats - Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel - voted with him. That's disappointing on the surface, but examining what they've said about the proposed rules is heartening.

In other words, you claim that the Republican members of the FCC were fighting for net neutrality, when their actions in preventing rulemaking would let the circuit ruling stand, thus meaning Net Neutrality is dead.

Actually, the FCC is to blame, because as I state elsewhere, and elaborated on in a previous article, the FCC tied its own hands for no good reason in 2002, when it classified the Internet like cable instead of like a utility. That decision meant it removed its own power to do what it tried to do in 2010 with the rules struck down earlier this year. The ruling doesn't say it has no power, ever, to try and regulate net neutrality, the ruling says it has no power to regulate under the classification system it chose. It has the power to reclassify as a utility which would easily solve the problem. As for thinking that opposing all regulation means they support net neutrality, I'd like to introduce you to people who think pollution regulations are wrong. No rules means anarchy, and not the cooperative kind.

That was my point: You were equating opposing the rules with supporting net neutrality when the result couldn't be farther from the truth. Even if that isn't what you meant, through your initial omission, you ended up framing it as that from the perspective of a reader.

Regardless, I think you're also potentially approaching this in a way that isn't as direct as it should be (although approaching it that way could be just as effective). Instead of classifying just internet service as a utility, you should probably classify cable as one (thereby snagging both). It's more of a legislative lift, but both Democrats and Republicans [http://thehill.com/policy/technology/299135-congress-eyes-cable-tv-prices-as-mccain-pushes-a-la-carte-plan] have expressed significant interest in more substantive regulation over the cable television industry (which is getting dangerously close to a Comcast monopoly in the US). The US Congress can then frame Net Neutrality as a matter of statute, not simply agency guidance or regulations, which are much easier for a company to overturn in court under the nondelegation doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine], and would thus provide a more permanent solution to the problem. It would also have a much more immediate effect on the industry, as unless they have fully captured the agency (like the financial sector has effectively done with the SEC), the regulatory guidance would be incredibly clear. However, they're are two big catches with this:

1) This would likely mean internet infrastructure (most notably bandwidth-expanding infrastructure) would have to be built by the government or heavily-controlled by the government (similar to power and water).

2) This would require pushing for legislation in the 5 1/2 months leading up to the 2014 mid-term elections. It could certainly be bipartisan, as the internet providers are the only companies that would really have something to loose from this while major internet companies, small business owners, and consumers would be the beneficiaries.[footnote]I can see the financial sector being fence-sitters on this, as while they wouldn't mind a priority line for high-frequency trading, having to pay for it would probably negate their benefits.[/footnote] But legislation is no easy feat, and getting it to pass may require Tarintino-grade political theater to make sure it gets through.

Anyway, because I clearly did invite some confusion, I'm making a slight change so it'll be clearer why the FCC is to blame.

That is appreciated.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

Yup, now is not the time to be cynical or defeatist, in fact they are counting on it. We have to focus on taking action and continuing to take action no matter the odds. Tell everyone.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It's likely FCC Chairman Wheeler will obstinately continue trying to kill the Internet. But it's far from too late to do something about it.

I posted this http://www.broadbandforamerica.com/sites/default/files/CEOLettertoFCC-5.13.14.pdf in a topic a few days back, in it the ISPs are threatening some pretty severe action if they aren't allowed to do as they please. The short of it is, they are threatening to stop maintaining and investing in their networks. Eventually this would cause all Internet accessibility to stop.

 

[Nimcha]

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

 

[RossaLincoln]

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

You're entitled to feel that way, and even contact your reps and the FCC to express your point of view. We will never see eye to eye of course, but last I checked we still live in a democratic country, so godspeed.

 

[Kotaro]

Once again, I implore every American citizen on this site to stand up and speak out about this. Don't whine about Wheeler and how corrupt everything is. Don't moan about how things have already been decided and there being no point to speaking out. Just do it, and tell everyone you know to do it too.

I posted a comment on the public forum at fcc.gov. Took several paragraphs to calmly explain exactly how the death of Net Neutrality would screw me (and my employer) over personally. Good to make sure they're aware that their decision here affects real people in a very real way, I think.

 

[Pickles]

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you agree with it?

 

[evilnancyreagan]

To sincerely believe that the US government will make a stand for the sake democracy is a sad joke, your prescribed efforts are really tantamount to a fart in the wind. Our political system is a vacuous malleable twink capitulating for whoever has the biggest wad. Instead of pleading with some feeble flapping head to put on their lame song and dance to your tune, invoke your only real power. Vote with your dollar, it's the only way to effect any real meaningful change. If every person and business in this country canceled their internet and cable subscriptions for just one month it would send a message infinitely more powerful than any amount of yodeling the DC mouth-breathers could ever munster.

But we won't and that's how we got here. We did this to ourselves, we deserve this.

See the thing here that needs mentioning here is that this fiber optic axis of evil really doesn't have any ownership over the internet, they merely own the roads people commonly use to get around on the webs. Blaze new trails and you strip them of their power and worth.

Let this be your wakeup call, we need to take responsibility as consumers. The government signs the laws but the dollar runs this country.

You elect your representatives with your purchases.

 

[Nimcha]

And what of us who don't agree with the idea of net neutrality in the first place?

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you agree with it?

Long story. Suffice it to say it's telling that this article seems to think to speak for the 'internet' as a whole without taking into account that it doesn't exist.

 

[Madman123456]

I wish i could appreciate the irony more...

But 'MERICA, you know, "Land of the Free" became one of the biggest threat to freedom.
"Personal Freedom" that is, like in my freedom to access content made by americans. For now.

I'm scared shitless about this. Over here in germany, we have some rural areas where you have very limited choice in ISPs, sometimes there's two.
We had this one minister of domestics, one Wolfgang Schäuble, who acted like a nutcase, as in i'd like to see him get professional help. The big fat panic after a certain September the 11th was a formidable outlet for his mental problems and eventually he went on to say that operatives shouldn't face any persecution by the law if they saw and shot Osama bin Laden. When asked later what would happen if there was a guy who looked like Osama bin laden he replied that such a person wouldn't be entirely without fault in his demise.
That was three days after cops in a london subway station shot and killed a man for attempting to run away.
Cops saw an arabian looking man with a backpack. Cops yell "Freeze!" and he takes off. Cops shoot him four times.

They never found out why he tried to run, was kinda hard to ask him.

Let's say we get another nutcase like Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble. He merely needs to look over to the americans to see just how far you need to go. All the talking points, all the arguments lead against them on a silver platter. I reckon cutting german network speeds would be a "Sacrifice needed to be made to finance _____.". Maybe we'll continue to not catch a single terrorist with even more expensive and restrictive measures.

Before someone reminds me that bowing to comcast has little to do with terrorism; changes come easier when disguised by fear. See calloused feet after standing for hours because TSA has to stick their hands up someone's ass for reference.



TL;DR U.S.A. is now the biggest threat to freedom.