Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISP Lobbyists Pushing Telecom Act Rewrite (dslreports.com)

Posted by msmash on from the my-money,-my-rules dept.

Karl Bode, reporting for DSLReports:Telecom lobbyists are pushing hard for a rewrite of the Telecom Act, this time with a notable eye on cutting FCC funding and overall authority. AT&T donated at least $70,000 to back Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, and clearly expects him to spearhead the rewrite and make it a priority in 2017. The push is an industry backlash to a number of consumer friendly initiatives at the FCC, including new net neutrality rules, the reclassification of ISPs under Title II, new broadband privacy rules, new cable box reform and an attempt to protect municipal broadband. AT&T's Ryan donation is the largest amount AT&T has ever donated to a single candidate, though outgoing top AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi has also thrown his support behind Hillary Clinton.

45 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. $70K sounds pretty low by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't claim to know any political internals, but $70,000 to get legislation that you basically write yourself passed sounds extremely low. Wouldn't this cost at least mid 6 figures? How much are the industry lobbyists and body shops paying Congress to ignore issues with the H-1B program and expand it? I'd guess there's a lot of non-reported money following behind that official $70K figure.

    Industry lobbying must be the ultimate blank ticket for a Congressperson. It must be nice to just call up a lobbyist, promise to do something and get whatever your heart desires. I often joke with colleagues about "golfware" products like SAP or Oracle where the salespeople just pump the senior execs full of booze, hookers and blow until they sign the deal, but this must take stuff like that to a whole new level.

    1. Re:$70K sounds pretty low by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      That's $70k to just a single congresscritter though. You have to grease multiple others on both sides of the aisles in both both houses. And then you probably should donate to the Presidential Victory Fund for incoming presidents, Presidential Reelection Victory Fund for incumbent president, or Presidential Library Victory Fund for 2nd term presidents.

    2. Re:$70K sounds pretty low by anegg · · Score: 1

      I suspect its not so cut and dried in many cases (give me the money, you get your law). Its more like the money buys access to the ear of the politician, and the politician's ear is filled predominantly with one point of view, that probably sounds well thought out and reasonable. Unless the politician has the time to go out and seek an alternative view (and that may take a lot of time, because the alternative view may be poorly understood/poorly bankrolled), the politician could just be happy to be passing a reasonable law that makes sense to a lot of people. So $70K to get the chance to explain your side of things to a lawmaker might even seem like a lot of $$, and you might even feel put upon that you had to put up that kind of money to get the person to listen to you. After all, you are a citizen, aren't you?

    3. Re:$70K sounds pretty low by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I don't claim to know any political internals, but $70,000 to get legislation that you basically write yourself passed sounds extremely low.

      Part of the POINT of government corruption is that the cost is low compared to the benefits.

      If using the money to actually build something consumers wanted to buy had a better return - and politicians didn't gate-keep and demand ransom ("rent-seeking behavior"), businesses wouldn't spend a dime bribing politicians - or at least those that did would be out-competed and driven out of business by those that didn't.

      Politicians know this, and set their prices accordingly.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:$70K sounds pretty low by blackanvil · · Score: 1

      $70k gets the legislation into the system -- all that takes is one congresscritter, and yes they're that cheap. Then you have to lobby every committee member on every committee that reviews your legislation, to keep them from re-writing your bill into something you don't want, then you have to lobby enough to make it pass the first vote, then enough for the other half of Congress, including keeping any other committee from sabotaging your bill and enough votes to get passed and made into a law. Then you have to lobby the relevant enforcement agency, as well as possible state-level efforts depending on the bill and its arena of impact. The $70k is just the entry fee to the party, if you want to drink, that's extra.

  2. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But the Democrats are not? Right. What other fairy tales do you believe in? The Great Pumpkin?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  3. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by unixisc · · Score: 1

    That's why the other Paul - Nehlan should have won. Too bad his constituents were shills of AT&T

  4. Contribution limits? by Holi · · Score: 1

    Doesn't a 70k donation seriously violate the maximum contribution limits?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:Contribution limits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not when it's donated to, let's use an example here... The Clinton Foundation. Big business buys whatever laws and regulations it wants. Whoever has the deepest pockets wins.

    2. Re:Contribution limits? by zlives · · Score: 1

      many ways to skin that cat
      http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch...

    3. Re:Contribution limits? by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

      There are two types of federal campaign limits. Those to candidates and those to political action committees (PACs). Candidates have some limits, but PACs lost those restrictions in the suprime court ruling known as Citizens United. While candidates and PACs can not coordinate, many politicians have their own PACs dedicated to their pet interest. Another pernicious effect of Citizens United is that disclosure rules do not apply to most of these organizations. The truth is we no longer have any idea how money is being dumped into US politics. We do know that the Koch Brothers had planned to spend $899M on the US elections this year, but the republican primary did not turn out to their liking so they be spending a bit less than planned.

  5. A LOT more than 70K by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    AT&T alone is in the 4-15M range per year: https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

    Telecom has a big lobby.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
  6. Democrats too by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Informative

    [Republicans are] all owned by corporations and do their bidding.

    Have you been avoiding the news recently?

    Google Clinton and "pay for play", or Clinton and "foundation", or Clinton and "Wikileaks". (Or just wait a week or so for that last one.)

    Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling Uranium to Russia.

    Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology (private and military uses) to Russia.

    Here's $17 million that disappeared from the Clinton Foundation.

    We've complained for years that the political elite is owned by the corporations, and that there's no difference between having a D or R after a candidate's name.

    Don't blame corruption on just the Republicans, it's not intellectually honest and distracts people from the true problems.

    1. Re:Democrats too by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I blame corruption on the voters. They're only looking for politicians that will *bring home the bacon*. How else can you account for 10% approval ratings combined with a 95% reelection rate?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Democrats too by epine · · Score: 2

      Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology [nypost.com] (private and military uses) to Russia.

      In case you haven't noticed, most of our "dual use" technology has been shared with the Russians for a long time already. For example, the decimal number system.

      In some instances, we might even consider ourselves better off if the Russians did choose to adopt our technologies, such as fail-safe command and control systems responsible for nuclear weapons (supposing our technology is actually better; I suspect the Russians have had 8" floppy disk drives for quite a while already).

      Just about any improvement in the Russian commercial space would probably trickle down to the Russian military (trickle down seems to work much better in some directions than others). Are we still in the middle of a 1950s-style total economic blockade? Not that I've heard. Our bigger technical battles are with countries who have not yet produced thousands of nuclear warheads.

      In summary, all of this is all a lot of hand-wavy durf, durf, durf.

      Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later. Having met that bar, then maybe this issue will start to seem important to people outside your particular Kool-Aid enclave.

      Hint #1: you might need to avail yourself of sources other than wnd.

      Hint #2: just about every dollar given to a politician comes from someone with an interest who wants something.

      Arguably the Saudi's and their Wahhabist agenda have done more damage to American foreign interests over the last thirty years than anything the Russians have done. That line of thinking would probably lead you straight back to the Bush Foundation.

      Bush's Newest Secret: Who's Funding His Library?

      In this piece, Mother Jones at least displays the decency to tar the Democrats and the Republicans with the same brush.

    3. Re:Democrats too by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

      Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later.

      Challenge accepted.

      You're misdirecting the reader away from the important point. It's #17 in the Rules of disinformation.

      The real point is that corporate cash flowed to the politician in return for favours.

      A lot of the analysis of HRC as SoS shows that these decisions benefited companies while at the same time made the country less safe (by enriching and/or strengthening a potential enemy), did not benefit the people of the US in any way, and gave Hillary more cash to work with.

      The point was cash => politician => favors, not the details of any one deal.

      Which was the actual point.

    4. Re:Democrats too by inode_buddha · · Score: 1
      "How else can you account for 10% approval ratings combined with a 95% reelection rate?"

      Quite easily, They're called "rigged elections". It's nothing new; during the 1968 presidential election, Hubert Humphrey's mic would randomly and abdruptly cut off in mid-sentence....

      --
      C|N>K
    5. Re:Democrats too by TigerPlish · · Score: 2

      They're called "rigged elections". It's nothing new; during the 1968 presidential election, Hubert Humphrey's mic would randomly and abdruptly cut off in mid-sentence....

      Puerto Rico, 1980: A vicious campaign season, which yielded much two great little campaign jingles...

      Anyway, the night of the count, the incubment proclaims he's the winner, while the official count had the challenger way ahead.

      Then, the power went out at the counting center. The computers crashed. When they came back online, the challenger was up by only 1000 votes, with the San Juan Metro area still to count - an area which favored the incumbent.

      Roughly a month later, the results were certified. The incumbent had won by roughly 3000 votes. You shoulda heard the shouting and hand-wringing during that month. It was a comedy of epic proportions, at least for our little island. I was 10 then. Learned a lot about politics that year but especially with the election itself.

      I'm not buying that power-out story.. although to be fair, late 70's power in PR sucked so bad my house in a nice 'hood had four kerosene cold-blast lanterns and they got used a lot. I loved the light they put out, I have two here myself even today. Blowing transmission-line towers with TNT was a tactic used by the linemen union. Lots of sags and outright outs.

      Still.... I'm still not buying that power-out.

      Couldn't find an English version of this farce.

      Then again, USA claims a similar fiasco.. 2000.... x.x

      We are doomed, aren't we..

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    6. Re:Democrats too by somenickname · · Score: 1

      The entire system is corrupt to the core, I agree. But, it's been rigged in such a way to resemble a sporting event and people will blindly pick a side and then vehemently defend it. I really don't know how to convince people to vote in their best interest. They are completely fixated on voting for "their team". It doesn't matter that said team doesn't represent them, has no interest in representing them and would happily throw them into a tree grinder if it meant they would get re-elected.

      GO TEAM!

    7. Re: Democrats too by chihowa · · Score: 1

      You can't even follow your own statements logically. You blamed the democrats, when it's clear the republicans are doing the same and probably much worse.

      Reread his post. That's exactly what he said:

      We've complained for years that the political elite is owned by the corporations, and that there's no difference between having a D or R after a candidate's name.

      Don't blame corruption on just the Republicans, it's not intellectually honest and distracts people from the true problems.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  7. I wish I could purchase laws... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, I don't have the money to spare to buy the activities of lobbyists and give massive campaign contributions to those who pass legislation. I'm just an ordinary citizen who is subject to the downward spiral of deteriorating customer service and who watches as our Country falls further and further behind the rest of the world in broadband deployment.

    .
    But the ISPs, God bless 'em. They are making money like crazy as they continue to purchase laws favorable to reducing competition and increasing profits.

    1. Re:I wish I could purchase laws... by SteveSgt · · Score: 1

      "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."--Anatole France

      Likewise, our law, in it's majestic equality, permits the poor as well as the rich to donate millions to their favorite politicians in order to favor their unique interests.

    2. Re:I wish I could purchase laws... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Try buying local ordinances instead. It should be cheaper than buying Federal laws.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:I wish I could purchase laws... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to buy a politician. They eat like pigs and are not even house-broken. They would be a pain in the ass to clean up behind. You couldn't trust them enough to leave them home alone; they'd steal everything you own, no matter how little you have. They're born liars. Your neighbors would never forgive you if you brought one of them home with you.

      I wouldn't even want to live next door to one of them.

  8. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, when it comes to telecoms and ISPs, yes the Democrats are MILES better than the Republicans. The Republicans aren't even shy about being in the ISP's pocket, and anyone who reads Slashdot knows that everything they've said about Net Neutrality has been pure, 100% Industry-fed horseshit.

  9. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by zlives · · Score: 1

    the only time you get 100% of what you are said to get.

  10. Error in story by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    AT&T donated at least $70,000 to back Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan

    Should be

    AT&T bribed Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan at least $70,000

    1. Re:Error in story by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Careful! You'll get a lot of politicians and their apologists hemming and hawing and acting faux-outraged that you would suggest that a campaign contribution and a bribe are anything alike. Those major contributions, why don't affect the sort of access a company or individual gets, or what priorities the candidate will focus on, or in any way affect who gets contracts.

  11. It's all true by youngone · · Score: 1
    Here we all are, moaning about the capture of Government by Corporations, and it's all true. The US Government is of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, but what's the solution?

    It seems the only way to change the situation is through violence, but history tells us that that's not a very good solution.

    Does anyone have any thoughts?

    1. Re:It's all true by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Nonviolent revolution (a la, civil disobedience in India) has at least one reported instance of success.

      However, the US electorate lacks a suitable cultural stereotype upon which to sustain nonviolence, in the face of government totalitarianism. Eg, when people start getting arrested and destroyed financially, people will either suddenly forget their morals, or will turn violent.

      You asked for an alternative, the problem is that it does not look plausible for US culture.

    2. Re:It's all true by Mogster · · Score: 1

      Disallow corporations from contributing to campaign funds?

      Allow donations from private citizens only?

      Get rid of the PACs and make politicians work their own campaigns?

      Prevent lobbying from corporations?

      FYI I'm a kiwi and admittedly don't know much about the US electoral laws - our process is a little different down here

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    3. Re:It's all true by jodokast98 · · Score: 2

      If we could only somehow convince all the millions of guns in this nation to stand up and revolt ... you know cuz, guns somehow have minds of their own and ... Sadly, I think the only solution at this point is for violence and the citizens to revolt. Don't think it's going to happen though, as the general public is nothing but a bunch of sheep who would rather have their MTV. Anonymous should start a Million Anarchist March on Washington; bring your friends and bring your guns.

  12. Huh? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The more that ISPs seek to rewrite the rules in their favor, the more likely it is that the citizens will ignore those rules.

    I give up. How do we ignore those rules?

    Start our own ISPs - and get everything seized by the government for failing to play by their rules?

    Hack the infrastructure - and get busted for "stealing service" or "unauthorized access to a computer system" - and get everything seized by the government, plus a felony conviction and the resulting revocation of constitutional rights for the rest of our lives?

    Did you have something else in mind? I'm really confused about what you mean.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  13. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm a moderate... I believe in "The Pretty Good Pumpkin"...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  14. And individuals should have no limits either. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Candidates have some limits, but PACs lost those restrictions in the suprime court ruling known as Citizens United.

    And ordinary citizens shouldn't have limits for the same reasons - but didn't have the big pockets to argue that in court like the organized lobbyists do.

    Campaign spending limits are a bait-and-switch. They pretend to level the playing field by cutting down the big spenders' power. But instead they block the grass-roots' influence - individually or when organizing - while leaving the rich able to circumvent them, and (by building a complex paperwork maze to navigate) give incumbent politicians a further massive advantage against upstart challengers.

    What they're really about is helping those currently in power STAY in power.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  15. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by jodokast98 · · Score: 1

    Mmmmmmm.... I smell Troll! If you think that only one side is evil, you truly are deluded...vote them both out! Sigh, I remember when Slashdot used to be a news place for Nerds and not this stupid political bull crap of pointing fingers at one another.

  16. Is there any doubt left that Commerece rules Gov't by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is there even remotely a chance that this insidious cycle can be broken?

    Voting party lines won't fix this. This is party-agnostic.

    It's time we add something to the Constitution: The separation of Commerce and State. But this will never, everty-ever happen. That relationship predates the US, it predates most of the last 2000 years, and I bet such shenanigans went on before that, too.

    Citizen's United made it bloody plain these grotesque hybrid corporation/person abominations have the right to Free Speech, and money is speech. This BS needs to be overturned, it's probably Step 1.

    Step 2 may be the Lobbies must be busted. Commerce went on a union-busting binge, we need to go on a lobby-busting binge.

    The Soap Box is drowned in a sea of noise, the Ballot Box is broken, the Jury Box is bought and paid for, maybe it's time for the Ammo Box?

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  17. I remember farther back. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sigh, I remember when Slashdot used to be a news place for Nerds and not this stupid political bull crap of pointing fingers at one another.

    I remember farther back. (Note that I have two fewer digits in my I.D.)

    It's always been like this. We may have a few more professional grass-roots trolls now that we have a couple orders of magnitude more eyeballs. But come politics season people's political leanings come out.

    Face it: Politics IS "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters".

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  18. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by TigerPlish · · Score: 2

    You do realize the problem is party-agnostic, right? It doesn't matter what party the congresscritters belong to -- they're bought and paid for. Been like this for ages, but it seems to have gotten real bad in the early 70's.

    I wonder... perhaps as payback for the whole anti-war movement? That's part of the Powell memo... the schools are teaching anti-corporate sentiments.. therefore the scools must be silenced or "encouraged" -- via generous "donations" to change their teachings, and the Rabble (that's us) needs to be silenced and our vote diminished.

    Go read it, AC. There's copies of it all over the 'net.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  19. Re:Is there any doubt left that Commerece rules Go by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    Oh great, now I have this looping in my brain

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  20. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by kn9sli01 · · Score: 2

    But the Democrats are not? Right. What other fairy tales do you believe in? The Great Pumpkin?

    Donald Trump IS the Great Pumpkin just look at him ,and your right I don't believe in him.

  21. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by theGhostPony · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Proven fact: Dems are on the side of the common man, you and I more often than not.

    Mod parent down, he doesn't know shit from Shinola.

    --
    /. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
  22. Re: Vote out the Republicans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sure, sure they are. If you truly believe that, you need to stand back and really look at the politician's actions and the results of those actions, not what the politicians say. If you do this with an open mind, you will find that very few politicians, on either side of the aisle, have your best interest at heart. So please avoid such sweeping generalities, they are just not correct.

  23. Re:Is there any doubt left that Commerece rules Go by blackanvil · · Score: 2

    The Soap Box is drowned in a sea of noise, the Ballot Box is broken, the Jury Box is bought and paid for, maybe it's time for the Ammo Box?

    Nope, the corporations and state own the ammo box as well. Time to think outside the boxes they've convinced you you're stuck with.

  24. Re:Vote out the Republicans. by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    What the fuck kind of crack have you been smoking? If you believe that either republicans or democrats are on the side of the "common man" then you are completely delusional. They are all in it for their own gain. What would benefit you is a thought that has never been entertained short of crafting speeches for election.

    Don't be fooled by the psychopaths, they don't care about you, and in fact many of them take great delight in your suffering.