Don't Drink the Thune, Upton Net Neutrality Kool Aid Senator John Thune and Representative Fred Upton are spearheading a new attempt to pass weak net neutrality rules before the FCC can vote to craft tougher, Title II based rules on February 26. The press is being incredibly polite about this effort, often painting it as an honest, bipartisan solution to net neutrality from two gentlemen that have changed their tune. It's simply not.

The goal is to crush meaningful Title II based net neutrality rules by basically passing into law many of the weaker provisions already overturned. Reading the actual proposal (pdf), you'll find that it's filled with the kind of ambiguous loophole language that pretty much allows any and all types of anti-competitive behavior. Terms like "reasonable network management" are left too vague, it actually reduces the FCC's ability and flexibility to protect consumers, and it's mired with language that leaves the door open to a litany of ongoing abuses. In short, the proposal sets the neutrality discussion back years, and it's an effort to effectively codify into law a total lack of net neutrality. Still, ISPs, Thune, Upton, and the broadband industry's army of hired flacks are trying to put on a show to convince the press, public, and regulators this is an honest effort. As part of that effort Thune and Upton (a top Comcast donor recipient) held a series of hearings this week, where folks like former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the cable industry's top lobbyist) gushed about how rules his industry helped write will really help consumers: quote: "I firmly believe that the proposed legislation under review today achieves the aims of every stakeholder in the Internet ecosystem. First, the proposal clearly identifies the foundational principles of the open Internet: no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization, and transparency. The cable industry has always supported these basic principles – from the Four Freedoms first annunciated in 2005 to the Open Internet Order that was approved in 2010. Cable companies did not appeal the 2010 order and still voluntarily abide by the rules it imposed. It's important to remember that AT&T and Comcast really liked the set of neutrality rules passed back in 2010 because they intentionally helped write them to make sure they did nothing. They were actually Of course broadband providers like rules they help write. It's important to remember that AT&T and Comcast reallythe set of neutrality rules passed back in 2010 because they intentionally helped write them to. They were actually annoyed with Verizon for suing to overturn them, in the process opening the door to even tougher rules.broadband providers like rules they help write. Powell and the cable industry's support was mirrored at the hearing this week by the wireless industry and most of the largest carriers' assortment of hired policy wonks. That paid support is only going to heat up in the coming weeks as the broadband industry fires up its think tanks, lawyers, lobbyists, PR friends, co-opted groups, fauxcademics and various media mouthpieces to take to editorial sections nationwide in the hopes of convincing the public up is down, and cold is hot. ISPs and neutrality opponents clearly hope that if they introduce an awful neutrality bill, then make a few minor concessions to neutrality supporters here and there, they can essentially end up with rules just as flimsy as the original ones under the pretense of a "bipartisan solution." One, as we've long argued, it's silly to believe net neutrality and the health of the Internet is a purely partisan issue as it benefits everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. Two, a bill written by the broadband industry and rife with loopholes is indisputably not in the public interest. Pretending that it is, then pretending the public is too stupid to notice, certainly doesn't help achieve the goal of consumer protections everyone can live with. Most seem to see the latest effort by ISPs as the transparent ploy that it is, and it doesn't appear to be seeing much traction among neutrality supporters in Congress. Even if passed (which is unlikely), it most certainly won't be signed by the President, who Most seem to see the latest effort by ISPs as the transparent ploy that it is, and it doesn't appear to be seeing much traction among neutrality supporters in Congress. Even if passed (which is unlikely), it most certainly won't be signed by the President, who recently (though absurdly belatedly) expressed his support for Title II reclassification. Unfortunately for the broadband industry (and its literal army of paid associates), the fight over Title II is here, it's real, and some adorable last-minute performance art isn't going to change that.







News Jump 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 AT&T's CEO Has A Familiar $olution To US Broadband Woes; EarthLink Files Suit Against Charter; + more news 5G Doesn't Live Up To Hype, AT&T's 5G Slower Than Its 4G; Cord-Cutting Now In 37% of Broadband Households; + more news FCC Cited False Broadband Data Despite Warnings; ZTE, Huawei Replacement Cost Is $1.87B, But Only $1B Allocated; + more Cogeco Rejects Altice USA's Atlantic Broadband Bid; AT&T Is Astroturfing The FCC In Support Of Trump Attack; + more news ---------------------- this week last week most discussed view:

topics flat nest

Tock

It's just me

join:2014-02-19

Glendale Heights, IL 1 recommendation Tock Member Morpheus "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."

-Morpheus

Title II

@comcast.net Title II Anon Re: Morpheus a bill written by the broadband industry and rife with loopholes is indisputably not in the public interest. Pretending that it is, then pretending the public is too stupid to notice, is too stupid to notice. DSLReports followers aren't representative of the general public. Most of the public has never heard of net neutrality and even some that have could care less about Title II proposals. The publicto notice. DSLReports followers aren't representative of the general public. Most of the public has never heard of net neutrality and even some that have could care less about Title II proposals.

mikekay

Premium Member

join:2011-01-29

Kitchener, ON mikekay Premium Member Re: Morpheus +1 mmay149q

Premium Member

join:2009-03-05

Dallas, TX mmay149q to Title II

Premium Member to Title II

While I agree that the public is too stupid to notice, the public is waking up to a lot of things that have been pulled over their eyes for too long, I feel either that way, or just feel that people are done with putting up with the crap they're being served on a daily basis, because honestly, probably 90% of people just put up with things they dislike on a daily basis and justify it in their head instead of saying what's on their mind and trying to reach a solution, so it's not always just ignorance, it's lack of wanting to speak out for change as well... AndyDufresne

Premium Member

join:2010-10-30

Chanhassen, MN AndyDufresne Premium Member bipartisan But it is bipartisan so according to media this should be the best of all worlds.

Flyonthewall

@teksavvy.com Flyonthewall Anon Stakeholder 8800; Customer ISPs are stakeholders.

Shareholders are stakeholders.



Customers are money deposits meant to be strip mined.



At least he was honest when he said that. The rest was obviously meant to boost ISP revenue and protect their current status and hold off any meaningful competition and allow them to charge content providers as much as they want to reach their customers over the IP address pipe their customers pay for. They provide no real value for that connection, but they sure want to charge as much as they can, and charge whoever they can.

neill6705

join:2014-08-09 neill6705 Member Re: Stakeholder 8800; Customer said by Flyonthewall : ISPs are stakeholders.

Shareholders are stakeholders.



Customers are money deposits meant to be strip mined. This is why I keep saying I love the co-op model. Things work much better when the people own the service they are using instead of a few rich fucks who could care less about customer service. Small towns here in Minnesota I'm sure nobody else on this forum has even heard of have 100mbps fiber, with a few at 1gbps thanks to co-ops like CTC, the Arrowhead Electric co-op, Paul Bunyan Communications and others. Some of the places can't even get DSL from Centurylink they're so far out. A company that answers to shareholders would never touch them. Similar things are happening in Vermont and other states.

woody7

Premium Member

join:2000-10-13

Torrance, CA woody7 Premium Member hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm All legislation has to be signed by the Prez and he sic can veto, they would then have to overide and then you would see who (m) actuall care....................

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA TIGERON Member Petition to bring Sonic.net to Pacifica California petitions.moveon.org/sig ··· =4516097



Please sign Please sign clone (banned)

join:2000-12-11

Portage, IN 1 recommendation clone (banned) Member Re: Petition to bring Sonic.net to Pacifica California What effect, exactly, do you expect one of those meaningless petitions to accomplish?

TIGERON

join:2008-03-11

Boston, MA TIGERON Member Re: Petition to bring Sonic.net to Pacifica California get people aware for starters.

woody7

Premium Member

join:2000-10-13

Torrance, CA woody7 Premium Member hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm We are all doomed, and yet these people keep getting reelected year after year......

neill6705

join:2014-08-09 1 recommendation neill6705 Member Re: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm With two choices that have both been bought by the same companies, what do you expect? wiid

join:2008-02-17

Outland wiid Member Nobody reads anymore To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Internet

openness, to prohibit blocking lawful content and

non-harmful devices, to prohibit throttling data, to prohibit

paid prioritization, to require transparency of network

management practices, to provide that broadband

shall be considered to be an information service, and

to prohibit the Commission or a State commission from

relying on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act

of 1996 as a grant of authority. 7 SEC. 13. INTERNET OPENNESS.

8 (a) OBLIGATIONS OF BROADBAND INTERNET AC-

9 CESS SERVICE PROVIDERS.A person engaged in the pro-

10 vision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as

11 such person is so engaged

12 (1) may not block lawful content, applications,

13 or services, subject to reasonable network manage-

14 ment;

15 (2) may not prohibit the use of non-harmful

16 devices, subject to reasonable network management;

17 (3) may not throttle lawful traffic by selec-

18 tively slowing, speeding, degrading, or enhancing

19 Internet traffic based on source, destination, or con-

20 tent, subject to reasonable network management;

21 (4) may not engage in paid prioritization; and

22 (5) shall publicly disclose accurate and rel-

23 evant information in plain language regarding the

24 network management practices, performance, and

25 commercial terms of its broadband Internet access

1 services sufficient for consumers to make informed

2 choices regarding use of such services and for con-

3 tent, application, service, and device providers to de-

4 velop, market, and maintain Internet offerings, ex-

5 cept that a provider is not required to publicly dis-

6 close competitively sensitive information or informa-

7 tion that could compromise network security or un-

8 dermine the efficacy of reasonable network manage-

9 ment practices.

10 (b) COMMISSION AUTHORITY.

11 (1) IN GENERAL.The Commission shall en-

12 force the obligations established in subsection (a)

13 through adjudication of complaints alleging viola-

14 tions of such subsection but may not expand the

15 Internet openness obligations for provision of

16 broadband Internet access service beyond the obliga-

17 tions established in such subsection, whether by

18 rulemaking or otherwise.

19 (2) FORMAL COMPLAINT PROCEDURES.Not

20 later than 60 days after the date of the enactment

21 of this section, the Commission shall adopt formal

22 complaint procedures to address alleged violations of

23 subsection (a).



ISP's must openly define how they manage their network and how traffic issues are managed.



Complaints to the FCC must be adjudicated, and they have 60 days after complaint to adjudicate.



Wow, this is awful, imagine how sad it must make dslreports readers to think evil Republicans would want no throttling, no paid high speed lanes, require openness about traffic management, and force no discrimination by device or packet of any legal traffic.



What an atrocity, I'm so glad dslreports is opposed to this. Instead, lets do nothing about the traffic surcharges, non-open throttling but increase costs for internet access by 25% the way our President wants. That's the real solution, the good solution, the one that helps no user, but empowers government and business. Yay Democrat solutions are always the best, even if they are the worst. Sad to see it, but on this forum nobody reads even linked .pdf copies of legislation. Let me highlight some of the offensive terms this bill inflicts on poor internet users:The above restricts throttling, and states this new section of law is controlling, no other section, regarding the subject of Internet throttling. ISP's can't throttle, what weasel words, huh, ask any dslreports poster who previously replied to this thread.So lets parse the above weasel words. ISP's can't charge for priority, can't provide priority for their own services (other than network management services), can't discriminate based on origin, destination, or type of packet (aside from illegal content).ISP's must openly define how they manage their network and how traffic issues are managed.Complaints to the FCC must be adjudicated, and they have 60 days after complaint to adjudicate.Wow, this is awful, imagine how sad it must make dslreports readers to think evil Republicans would want no throttling, no paid high speed lanes, require openness about traffic management, and force no discrimination by device or packet of any legal traffic.What an atrocity, I'm so glad dslreports is opposed to this. Instead, lets do nothing about the traffic surcharges, non-open throttling but increase costs for internet access by 25% the way our President wants. That's the real solution, the good solution, the one that helps no user, but empowers government and business. Yay Democrat solutions are always the best, even if they are the worst.

Snakeoil

Ignore Button. The coward's feature.

Premium Member

join:2000-08-05

Mentor, OH Snakeoil Premium Member The Government can't even keep the roads in decent shape. How many times has the Government tried to develop something, only to turn it into a mess?

Their approach is an "all or nothing" approach. And of late seems to favor big business over the customer, and to put coin in their pockets.



IMO, I don't give much hope that the consumer will get the services that he is seeking under the Government's plan. Plus, I doubt that cable companies will actually be forced to compete against each other.



Though, I do hope that someone with brains is involved in this. Because if they are, then the sacred "last/first mile" will hopefully be broken. As well as "forcing" cable companies to lease their lines to other internet providers. Much like phone companies do with their lines. your comment..

