Critics Aren't Buying Blackburn's 'Fake' Net Neutrality Bill Tennessee Representative Marsha Blackburn has unveiled plans for a net neutrality law she professes will "protect the open internet," but is far more likely to do the exact opposite. We just got done noting how ISPs like Comcast have begun pushing hard for net neutrality legislation. Why? Comcast knows the FCC's recent repeal of net neutrality rests on shaky legal ground thanks to the numerous instances of fraud and bizarre FCC behavior during the proceeding.

The FCC will also struggle to prove the broadband market changed so substantially in just two years to warrant such an unpopular reversal, which could nullify the repeal as "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act. Comcast, AT&T and Verizon know this, which is why they've been pushing for a new net neutrality law. One that blocks many of the things ISPs have no intent of ever actually doing (blocking Netflix, for example), but doesn't address all of the more nuanced areas where net neutrality violations are now occurring (usage caps, zero rating, interconnection). The real goal of such legislation? To prevent the FCC or any future Congress from passing real, tough net neutrality protections. Enter Marsha Blackburn, who for years has rubber stamped every whim of sector giants like AT&T and Comcast and consistently opposed net neutrality. Blackburn has also vigorously defended protectionist state laws, written by companies like AT&T and Verizon, that restrict towns and cities from building their own broadband infrastructure (or in some cases striking public/private partnerships). Even in locations these incumbent ISPs refuse to serve (such as her home state of Tennessee, not coincidentally one of the least-connected states in the nation). Such laws have one function: protecting incumbent ISP revenues from consumers tired of entrenched duopolies. Yet now she insists her Open Internet Preservation Act (pdf) will help protect the open internet, despite the fact it blatantly ignores all manner of potential violations, from zero rating and interconnection to paid prioritization deals. The bill also attempts to pre-empt state efforts to protect net neutrality, since again, the real goal is to prevent tougher rules -- not protect consumers. Consumer advocates savaged Blackburn's bill as a transparent effort to try and push through weak protections before the ISPs and the FCC can lose their fight in court. "Having lost their fight against Net Neutrality in the court of public opinion, companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are trying to use fake Net Neutrality bills like this to end all effective oversight of their anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices," consumer group Free Press said in a statement. "Blackburn’s legislation fails at the very thing it claims to accomplish. It prohibits a few open-internet violations, but opens the door to rampant abuse through paid-prioritization schemes that split the internet into fast lanes for the richest companies and slow lanes for everyone else," the group added. "This bill’s true goal is to let a few unregulated monopolies and duopolies stifle competition and control the future of communications," the group continued. "This cynical attempt to offer something the tiniest bit better than what the FCC did and pretend it’s a compromise is an insult to the millions who are calling on Congress to restore real Net Neutrality." Note however that Blackburn's law will likely be one of many pushed in the new year. And while some Democrats may be inclined to support these bills under the argument that "bad bet neutrality laws are better than no rules at all," that's a naive reading of what ISPs are up to here. Their goal is to push a law so full of loopholes that it's effectively useless, outside of its primary objective: pre-emptive tougher, meaningful rules. Net neutrality supporters shouldn't buy it. Once 2018 rolls around, listen to consumer groups, objective experts and groups like the EFF. If they don't sign off on the bill, fans of net neutrality shouldn't either. For now though, the best path forward to protect net neutrality is to wait to see the outcome of the numerous lawsuits that will be filed against the Trump FCC in the new year, highlighting how the agency ignored public input, facts, and rampant abuse of the comment system to push through what may just be the least popular tech policy decision in history.







News Jump Starlink's Network Faces Huge Limitations; AT&T Whines T-Mobile Merger Put Too Much Spectrum In One Place; + more news WISPs Get CBRS Range As Great As Six Miles At 100 Mbps Speeds; Windstream Officially Exits Bankruptcy; + more news Charter Relaunches Free 60-day Internet And Wi-Fi Offer; NCTA: FCC Should Stick With 25/3 Speed Threshold; + more news Comcast Shuts Off Internet for Subs Who Were Sold Service Illegally; AT&T, Verizon Team To Stop T-Mobile 5G; + more news California Defends Its Net Neutrality Law; AT&T's Traffic Up 20% Despite Data Traffic Actually Being Down; + more news Are The Comcast-Charter X1 Talks Dead In The Water?; AT&T May Offer Phone Plans With Ads For Discounts; + more news Europe's Top Court: Net Neutrality Rules Bar Zero Rating; ViacomCBS To Rebrand CBS All Access As Paramount+; + more news Verizon To Buy Reseller TracFone For $7B; 5G Not The Competitive Threat To Cable Many Thought It Would Be; + more news MS.Wants Records From AT&T On $300M Project; Google Fiber Outages In Austin, Houston, Other Texan Cities; + more news States With The Biggest Decreases In Speed; AT&T Hopes You'll Forget Its Fight Against Accurate Maps; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed

Most recommended from 70 comments

Tony0945

join:2015-03-26

Streamwood, IL 1 edit 16 recommendations Tony0945 Member It's bi-partisan corruption " And while some Democrats may be inclined to support these bills under the argument that "bad net neutrality laws are better than no rules at all,"" That's what they tell their constituents, but look at campaign disclosures to see who benefits. zed260

Premium Member

join:2011-11-11

Cleveland, TN Netgear R7000

15 recommendations zed260 Premium Member i think the courts overturn the recent fcc action as for congress next year being an election year its gonna be hard to get both houses of congress to agree to this (i think with so much pro net netruailty support dems will be able to block any law with a filabuster)



heck the pro net netrualty movement was strong enough to even get a republican congressmen susan collins on board so i think any laws that get into the senate related to net netrualty is dead till post election anonymouse

join:2001-05-28

Littleton, CO 12 recommendations anonymouse Member Marsha Blackburn - epitome of greed, incompetence, dishonesty, corruption .. What can I say - anything for money is M. Blackburn's motto.

We say politicians are corrupt, it's actually corrupt individuals end up becoming politicians.

M. Blackburn has a permanent retainer from AT&T in the form of campaign contributions, etc.

Why will she support "True Net Neutrality" and risk her recurring retainer from Telco/Cable companies!

Red Hazard

Premium Member

join:2012-07-21

O Fallon, IL 8 recommendations Red Hazard Premium Member Vote their Arses Out That vote they had about 2 months ago which the Republicans passed to facilitate scrapping NN, I checked to see how my congressman Michael Bost voted. Sure to form, he went the party line. This time I will vote against him.

Rambo76098

join:2003-02-21

Columbus, OH 5 recommendations Rambo76098 Member At least we know what to expect... If it's coming from Marsha Blackburn, at least we know what to expect... A pile of shit that came straight out of the closest ISP lobbyist or lawyer's ass. wkm001

join:2009-12-14 4 recommendations wkm001 Member Raise your hand if you read all seven pages Marsha Blackburn has proved on numerous occasions she is not competent on a technical level and I don't like her.



With all of that said, her proposal isn't all that bad. I'm not a fan of limiting the FCC's power, I believe it is their purpose to enforce the rules they or the US government sets. I understand wanting to limit state's rights, having to follow two sets of rules puts a burden on all service providers, both small and large.



If you haven't read it, do so, it is short. It really sounds like common sense rules.



Service providers:

May not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management; and may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.



FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURES:

Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Commission shall adopt formal complaint procedures to address alleged violations of subsection (a) and alleged violations of subsection (e)(2). Such procedures shall include a deadline (relative to the date of filing of a complaint under such procedures) for the disposition of such complaint. InternetJeff

I'm your huckleberry.

join:2001-09-25

. 4 recommendations InternetJeff Member The truth is ... ... that any credible rules need to be passed by Congress. That's thier job. Period.



What you don't want is unelected commission bureaucrats flipping the rules with every administration. Debate it in Congress and live with what passes. Don't complain when your team is out of power and you cannot continue push something though via your political appointees any more. Nor should the other side. If something like this is really that important (?) then it should be enshrined in law by congress.



Everything else is just noise.

Anon9ee36

@quadranet.com 3 recommendations Anon9ee36 Anon Mixed bag of flaming you-know-what On one hand, the ALEC/GOP ghostwritten addendum bandied about by this hairdo muppet superficially addresses consumers' greatest fears about blocking and throttling. On the other, if paid prioritization is lawful, then Comcast et al could simply charge Netflix and others to reach their subscribers on non-degraded ports, which means that acceptance of throttling is implicitly baked in to the addendum.



Either way, you can expect to see new ISPs appear in the market if major incumbent ISPs begin degrading Internet access in any way, and potentially even if they don't. All things being equal, you'd want to go with a local ISP (especially a co-op or not-for-profit or muni-broadband provider) that honors net neutrality over a evil conglomerate with $2.2 billion in free cash flow that pays these pillbilly shills to claim it can't invest in service improvements.



Obviously, if real time entertainment makes up 71% of inbound traffic, then it's clear that much of the network upgrades paid for these past 2 years have been to support video streaming of Netflix/Amazon Prime Video/etc., which makes Pai and Blackburn's claims outright lies.

wutsinterweb

End Citizen's United

Premium Member

join:2014-08-26

USA 2 recommendations wutsinterweb Premium Member Marsha is a party hack and a corporate sell out Marsha Blackburn is that "pretty girl" blonde Republican corporate sell out your mother warned you about. She's a cheap, two bit so and so. She stupid but she's been bought off by the corporations and doesn't care one bit about common people. I detest the woman. And now she's doing this. The republicans are sealing their fate, selling out to narrow/short minded corporate shenanigans that are killing industries and innovation and jobs. I'm sorry, but it has to be said, the Republicans are killing jobs, killing our pocketbooks, and only making the 1% any better off. They hate us, mock us, use us like cattle. What they forget is that throughout history, slaves HAVE killed their masters.

woody7

Premium Member

join:2000-10-13

Torrance, CA 2 recommendations woody7 Premium Member hmmm.... Gawd is she stoopid or what?.......................... mmmdonuts

join:2011-02-28

Raleigh, NC 2 recommendations mmmdonuts Member Lather, rinse, repeat... I guess pinning a post just isn't good enough.

maartena

Elmo

Premium Member

join:2002-05-10

Orange, CA 2 recommendations maartena Premium Member Oh its Marsha again.... She is the same woman that proposed (and passed) laws in Tennessee that would block FCC rules from overriding State Laws when it comes to broadband competition, stopping a lot of municipal broadband efforts in its track (Chattanooga fiber is still active, but that is because they have a progressive city council over there!)



She actually calls it "Protecting private ISP's from having to compete with municipal broadband initiatives". If there ever was a woman whos pockets are completely lined with the gold from ISP's, its this one.



On top of that, she doesn't seem to have a clue about technology either.

Anon1f063

@teksavvy.com 2 recommendations Anon1f063 Anon Whats the terminology for people who take money and screw other people? I can't quite remember what it is.