Slashdot Mirror


Senator Doesn't Buy FCC Justification For Killing Net Neutrality (dslreports.com)

From a report: Senator Edward Markey this week questioned FCC boss Ajit Pai's justifications for killing popular net neutrality rules in a hearing in Washington. We've noted repeatedly that while large ISPs claim net neutrality killed broadband investment, objective analysis repeatedly finds that to be a lie. That's not just based on publicly-available SEC filings and earnings reports, but the industry's own repeated comments to investors and analysts. But that doesn't stop AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Charter (and the ocean of politicians, think tankers, consultants and other PR vessels they employ to make this misleading argument in the media on a daily basis) from making the claim anyway. And while Pai once again this week breathlessly proclaimed that net neutrality put a damper on network investment, Markey simply wasn't having it. "Publicly traded companies are required by law to provide investors accurate financial information, including reporting any risks or financial burdens," Markey said. "However, I have found no publicly traded ISP that has reported to its investors by law that Title II has negatively impacted investment in their networks. Many, in fact, have increased deployment and investment."

42 comments

  1. In before "the telecos wanted NN all along! " by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Since that seems to be the paid shill argument de jour about it--the PR whores know they lost the battle against network neutrality, so now they want to convince net neutrality proponents that they were falling into the ISPs' trap all along in supporting it.. even though anyone with half a brain can see the opposite is true. Sad!

    1. Re:In before "the telecos wanted NN all along! " by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The correct people have been paid, the fox is running the hen house. Losing net neutrality is just a matter of time. Enjoy your cable-package-esque internet access. Enjoy everything going up in price as ISPs get to charge both users and the destinations they want to reach.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  2. Re: The lie that bots posted objections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They couldn't offer proof because it didn't happen.

  3. Net Neutrality is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Source: The Mouth of Sauron.

  4. What is this common sense doing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The little git(ajit pai) is obviously being paid by the big telecom to kill net neutrality, since it prevents them from gouging consumers and companies for more money. Strange seeing a senator actually being somewhat smart for once.

  5. Doesn't matter by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Edward Markey is a member of the democratic party, so at this point he has no power whatsoever in congress. It's great that he feels this way but unless he can convince enough other people to care, then he's just pissing in the wind (ie, pandering to his base).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it's not his "job" to make you care, it's yours.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Actually it's not his "job" to make you care, it's yours.

      It's no one's job, it's no one's responsibility. But if no one does it, then nothing will get done.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Edward Markey is a member of the democratic party, so at this point he has no power whatsoever in congress

      Because party now equates directly to political power?

      What kind of political hack nonsense is this? "his base" isn't the sole interested group. He is part of the only body that makes national laws and it's an immediate concern of the entire population of said nation. In this case, "his base" and "the US public" happen to align so I'm not sure that you're being constructive belittling a national figure making noise about a nationwide concern.

      The black/white viewpoint (they have power or they don't) that is used to voice every description of every political event has taken over the most poisonous and ignorant voices on the internet. Then when this distorted reality is challenged by events that don't conform, it's like a fucking miracle instead of the pedestrian workings of a democratic process. Shame on you and your ironic sig.

    4. Re:Doesn't matter by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because party now equates directly to political power?

      Because he is a member of the party that has essentially zero power right now. That has potential to change, but it won't for a couple years.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Doesn't matter by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I do care (I don't speak for the other guy), and I'm sure lots of other people in tech care too. But it doesn't matter: we have zero power now. Trump is President, and Pai is the FCC Director, and the GOP is in power in Congress, so there's nothing any of us can do at least until the 2018 elections, and even that's questionable as you'd need a really strong majority in Congress to pass a law overruling the FCC's leadership.

    6. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, OK. So when you cheered Obama for saying he would get around Congress with his phone and his pen (meaning he would sign executive orders) it was all just fine. But now your favorite candidate no longer occupies the White House and we all need to get along for the common good.

      You'd make a great politician but nobody is buying it fool.

    7. Re: Doesn't matter by jordanjay29 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obama was known for asking Congress to "put a bill on [his] desk" long before he would sign an executive order to do the same thing. He tried constantly to get them to do their jobs, but they were too busy arguing about trivial political points instead.

    8. Re:Doesn't matter by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      I do care (I don't speak for the other guy), and I'm sure lots of other people in tech care too. But it doesn't matter: we have zero power now. Trump is President, and Pai is the FCC Director, and the GOP is in power in Congress, so there's nothing any of us can do at least until the 2018 elections, and even that's questionable as you'd need a really strong majority in Congress to pass a law overruling the FCC's leadership.

      Look, I and most people I've talked to whose views are fairly-consistent with mine don't want ISPs doing shady crap regarding who gets what how fast any more than anyone else does. I (we) just don't think a federal bureaucracy is the go-to, best solution to making sure it doesn't happen.

      I also don't want the federal government extending it's power ever-deeper into regulating the internet. Especially not by a commission whose head is politically appointed and makes & alters policies & regulations with each new administration and political-appointee heading it. Every government agency, dept., etc experiences 'mission creep'. They never give back expanded powers and scope once gained.

      It's a situation of; "You don't want to see our guys with that much power, and we don't want to see your guys with that much power." How about instead of fighting about what the federal government should do to make sure ISPs don't play dirty, we find another means of accomplishing the same thing and avoid either side having the big stick?

      I just don't want to allow the slightest possibility that permitting the government camel's-nose into the internet-tent might someday lead to US ISPs required to tie accounts to federal I.D. and other such chilling and oppressive possibilities we see occurring elsewhere.

      Far too often people talk past each other. We share far more of the same goals than we differ on. Our principles are mostly the same, we just have different ideas of how to go about solving some problems, and what may constitute a problem.

      No matter who might achieve political power, there will always be ~40% or more of the population that will never see things the other way. What are you going to do with them? You've got to live with them, otherwise we start talking about camps and ovens and other horrors, and nobody wants that.

      Both sides need to stop trying so fscking hard to win at any cost, and start talking to and actually listening to the other side. Otherwise, Horror-Ville is the only way it ends.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Doesn't matter by andydread · · Score: 1

      So how do you suggest this specific problem be solved? OK so you are against govt regulation. So who is left to crack down on monopolistic practices?
      (1) When massive corporation with massive amounts of power and no competition runs amok in the marketplace and there is no free market in their segment who is supposed to fix the issue?
      (2) When massive corporation with massive amounts of power and no competition and no free market in their segment dumps toxins in streams and waterways because it's better on their bottom line who's left to crack down on such behaviour?

    10. Re:Doesn't matter by guises · · Score: 2

      The parent was making reference to one of the realities of current American politics: no one cares what you have to say if you're from the other party. This guy can make all of the sensible, logical, truthful, insightful statements that he likes, but as long as he's a Democrat only Democrats are going to listen to him.

      It's a bit of an exaggeration to say this, but sadly not too far from the truth.

    11. Re:Doesn't matter by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      So how do you suggest this specific problem be solved? OK so you are against govt regulation. So who is left to crack down on monopolistic practices?

      Just because the FCC isn't in charge of the internet does not mean corporations/ISPs are suddenly immune from the law. Normal existing laws already cover most things. If DAs and prosecutors, etc would actually decide to do something, laws against fraud, racketeering, etc etc could be applied.

      That's the heart of the problem right there: There are already laws on the books that could be applied here, but government is unwilling because they are corrupt. Handing the global internet to the FCC isn't going to make them any more willing to do the right thing. It just hands a major amount of power over the internet to an agency in a corrupt government.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    12. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing can be said about you too, idiot. When Obama was signing the EO's he was a Hitler like tyrant. But now that the Chump in Chief is doing it, its showing leadership.

      The biggest difference that you fools dont realize is the Chump is selling out the country to get more money from the Russians for his businesses.

    13. Re:Doesn't matter by andydread · · Score: 1

      The issue here is not fraud or racketeering. In the US there is no free market in the ISP space. It’s not like customers can vote with their dollars and move to another ISP that does not practice these anti-consumer behaviours. In our current political climate we see a political party has complete control of the government and what do they do? They parrot the marketing speak of the giant corporations which means they are not going to do anything about the anti free market and anti consumer practices of said giant corporations.

    14. Re:Doesn't matter by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the nature of these anti-consumer practices (absent any laws to change it) would be mostly invisible to the consumer. If your ISP is selling information about you that they gathered in the course of your everyday web activity (even in your broswer's 'private browsing' mode) - how would you know?

      And for those worried about government 'interference', wouldn't having your entire web browsing history one subpoena away be a bigger threat than the government telling ISP's they can't block access to Netflix or some future competitor. At least with a regulated internet someone has the ability to tell them they can't store your info at all - though, I suppose, if you're paranoid enough to assume they want to be able to subpoena it...? But, at least, if the government has the power to regulate such things, and we theoretically have the power to vote them out if they don't demand our privacy be protected, there's some hope.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    15. Re:Doesn't matter by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      From andydread ( 758754 ):

      In the US there is no free market in the ISP space.

      From: Rob Y. ( 110975 )

      Not to mention that the nature of these anti-consumer practices (absent any laws to change it) would be mostly invisible to the consumer.

      Change the laws/pass new laws directly addressing net neutrality specifically through Congress where there are elected representatives that can be held accountable directly. Handing it off to a political-appointee-run bureaucracy to write and implement sweeping regulations with the force of federal law (mostly to avoid that accountability in the first place) is asking for trouble.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    16. Re: Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. But it's not his fault that he has no power. The fail lays squarely on those who voted republican senators into power.

      Think again.

    17. Re:Doesn't matter by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, net neutrality died the moment you elected that fuckwit. Forget about it.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    18. Re:Doesn't matter by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But it's OK: as a wise Frenchman (I believe) once wrote, "every nation gets the government it deserves". Apparently, we deserve Trump.

  6. Need to bill Apple and Netflix for access... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast, Verizon and AT&T can bill the crap out of Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc. to give them acceptable bandwidth to push their products out to their customers. As a stockholder in Comcast I want them to bleed Apple dry. There's money to be made and stock prices to inflate.

    Get rid of NN ASAP!!

    1. Re: Need to bill Apple and Netflix for access... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go die in a fire.

    2. Re: Need to bill Apple and Netflix for access... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! Someone is making sense!

  7. not the only shaky argument from the FCC on NN... by Jaegs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From a Gizmodo article about their FOIA request regarding the DDoS attack on the FCC's website:

    "Taken at its word, the FCC’s statement means that for a period of about 15 hours, no one in the agency’s IT department wrote a single email or memo, nor did they take down any notes of any kind about the cyberattack that, according to Chairman Pai, caused a malicious 3000-percent increase in network traffic."

    (http://gizmodo.com/the-fcc-is-full-of-shit-1797124634)

    I've been out of IT for a while, now, but I'm sure others on /. can attest to how impossible this is.

  8. That's because there is no justification by Letophoro · · Score: 2

    The only reason that the large ISPs hated NN was that it didn't allow them to use their typical "if value, then money" rent-seeking monopolistic means testing.

    They were forced to provide a service for a fixed fee that could not be adjusted based on the perceived value of the transfer of bits to the customer. That is, if video is important, then obviously providers like Netflix should pay a higher rate. Even better, customers should pay a higher rate to get those bits from Netflix in a "Giga Blast Video Extreme" network package.

    After all, why charge only one side of the equation when both the provider and the consumer can be charged?

    1. Re:That's because there is no justification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Netflix is charged for internet access.
      The consumer is charged for internet access.
      The consumer is charged for netflix.

      So the ISPs are already burning the candle at both ends and the consumer gets burned twice. And that is in the best, most net-neutral of cases.

      They want to charge both the provider, and the consumer, again, for the nature of their use (above and beyond the bits for which they are both already paying).

    2. Re:That's because there is no justification by Letophoro · · Score: 2

      Netflix is charged for internet access. The consumer is charged for internet access. The consumer is charged for netflix.

      So the ISPs are already burning the candle at both ends and the consumer gets burned twice. And that is in the best, most net-neutral of cases.

      There is no double-dipping in this case. Both sides are getting charged separately for access, which is fair. Consumers pay for Internet access. Netflix pays for their Internet access out of what customer of their service pay them for their service.

      They want to charge both the provider, and the consumer, again, for the nature of their use (above and beyond the bits for which they are both already paying).

      Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but that's what I was trying to say.

      Essentially, with NN, everyone got charged the same rate for the bits they used without consideration of what kind of data those bits were. Without NN, the ISPs will try to charge more for certain types of data. Or more accurately, they will charge you more to not degrade the delivery of those bits.

  9. Re: The lie that bots posted objections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This proves the FCC exaggerated. Most people want fairness rather than more government control.

  10. Really doesn't matter by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Edward Markey is a member of the democratic party, so at this point he has no power whatsoever in congress. It's great that he feels this way but unless he can convince enough other people to care, then he's just pissing in the wind (ie, pandering to his base).

    Note that the Democratic party held both houses and the presidency from 2009 to 2011, and nothing useful got done.

    Pandering to your base is easy when you're the minority party, or when the other house is controlled by the opposite party.

    Then you can pander all you want, placing blame on the other party for preventing you from doing what's right and just for the people!

    During 2009 to 2011 the Democrats held majorities in both houses, but not supermajorities! If only the Democrats had just a few more votes, just *think* of all the good things they could have done!

    The situation is a bit more interesting right now because many civilian outlets are saying "fix health care or we'll vote you out at the mid-terms". That's about 1.5 years from now, and campaigning starts in about 6 months.

    Republicans are between a rock and a hard place with that one, but let's see what happens.

    Most likely, congress will flip from R to D, and it still won't matter.

  11. Senator DOES Buy FCC Justification by volkris · · Score: 1

    And elsewhere in the hearing was a senator emphatically SUPPORTING the FCC justification. Slashdot could have mentioned both sides of this issue, but instead seems to cherrypick the side it prefers.

    In fact, the senator bringing analysis showing a decrease in broadband investment following the Open Internet Order goes farther, not only bringing a counter claim but also showing where the other analysis went awry. This is supportive of the FCC's position that there is a real cost to micromanaging internet service providers, as used to be the bipartisan consensus.

    I've made a clip on C-SPAN since this side doesn't get much coverage:
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?...

  12. Pai points to the data... by volkris · · Score: 1, Informative

    When you watch the video of the exchange, Markey was being given data he was asking for. He just ignored it.

    Markey says there's no data that Network Neutrality hurts investment, while Pai responds by pointing to the data saying it does. Markey doesn't do anything to say why he'd ignore the facts Pai is bringing out; he simply restates that it doesn't exist.

    Here's the video clip: https://www.c-span.org/video/?...

    Elsewhere in the hearing another senator runs with the data provided by the FCC, pointing out that analysis shows broadband investment was harmed by the Open Internet Order while identifying issues with the NYT analysis saying otherwise.

    We need to be clear here that Markey was ignoring information that didn't suit his conclusion. He was cherrypicking.

    1. Re:Pai points to the data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the integrity of this supposed "data"? Keep in mind companies can and will intentionally damage their business to manipulate policy in their favor. What stopped the corporations from building out their network when Obama gave them grants to fucking do it? They pocketed that cash and didn't invest in their networks, effectively stealing from the taxpayer.

      These companies need to be reined in and forcibly fractured. Municipalities don't deserve the right to establish a monopoly, and states certainly shouldn't be deciding on winners and losers. We wouldn't be having this conversation if there was real choice in the market, because there'd be a provider that followed NN guidelines that everyone could switch to and "let the market take care of it" by forcing the other companies to adapt or lose business.

      When you remove that requirement for businesses to adapt, they predictably do everything they can to make more money and ensure others *can't* make money in the same sector.

      So, if there's all this data, it must be supported by evidence and reasoning. Where is it? Nobody's talking about the obstacles to adopting NN; they're dismissing it out of hand without even trying. And that proves there's foul play at work.

    2. Re:Pai points to the data... by volkris · · Score: 1

      The FCC proposal does cite its sources.

      For example, the FCC points to this study: https://haljsinger.wordpress.c...

      So where's the data? Well, the FCC has provided it openly and publicly. Anyone who doesn't see the data isn't looking for it, and I'd include both this senator and reporting about his remarks in it. Certainly, we should be suspicious of any news source highlighting this senator's lack of awareness without also covering the other senator's familiarity with the data.

  13. Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys are commiting fraud against the people and should be going to jail for it. You know if a common man did it, that's where he'd end up.