Republican's 'Net Neutrality' Proposal Called 'Bait and Switch' (techcrunch.com)

Remember that net neutrality legislation introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)? TechCrunch is calling it "half-hearted" -- and suspect. It's not going to happen, it wouldn't help if it did and Blackburn isn't someone you want writing this kind of legislation. Among other things, she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content, and voted to kill the Broadband Privacy Rule.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.

Comments

News flash, that's how it works

[bkmoore]

Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation....

That's how our political system works. You need bribes, -cough- I mean campaign contributions, to get elected. Once elected, you have to do what your donors want you to do, even if it's at odds with the best interest of your constituents or the well being of the country. Conversely, if you're a special interest group and want to enact your agenda, you need to bribe, I mean make enough campaign contributions, to get your agenda passed into law. Who's bribing politicians on the behalf of net- neutrality???

Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[Anonymous Coward]

Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.

Funny that only one party seems to be trying to kill NN. And healthcare. And a host of other issues that affect people's lives in dramatic ways. But they're both the same, surely.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad acts are always a both party thing unless it's a Democratic thing. But I have still yet to figure out why most of the things happening now are mainly being done by the ruling Republican party and it is still the fault of Democrats.

Not that I care mind you, but I just love to see how people convince themselves their politics are correct.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad acts are always a both party thing unless it's a Democratic thing. But I have still yet to figure out why most of the things happening now are mainly being done by the ruling Republican party and it is still the fault of Democrats.

Not that I care mind you, but I just love to see how people convince themselves their politics are correct.

It's easy. Republicans screamed about Obama's birth certificate for 8 years, but it's Hillary's fault. Republicans chose an unrepentant birther whose tendency towards hysterical tirades and corruption is well known, but it's Hillary's fault. Republicans vote dozens of times to repeal the ACA, but it's Hillary's fault. Trump buddies up to Russia, and denies their perfidy, but it's Hillary's fault.

Transparent as glass, everything is always and ever will be Hillary's fault. Even the American Civil War. Hillary's fault.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[liquid_schwartz]

Both parties are working to aid their people. Democrats are promoting NN (for the poor people) and Republicans are promoting No Limits Capitalism (for the rich people).

Meanwhile the middle class continues to fade away. Neither party helps the middle class, both parties see the middle class as something to be milked and woo'd.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[MillionthMonkey]

This behavior is required by law. A long time ago the Supreme Court altered corporate behavior forever with a ruling that corporations have a duty to their stockholders only, and aside from taxes, absolutely no responsibility to the community at large. They also recently decided that politicians have a duty to represent their supporters, not their constituents. Then they established that a corporate person has a Constitutional right to free speech, with a decision that redefined political bribery out of existence- at this point corruption can't be prosecuted unless someone can find a legal document where both parties agree to a quid pro quo.

This is what happens when you use a few narrow issues like abortion and guns as litmus tests for judgeships. Since judges have lifetime appointments, Trump has wisely chosen to nominate Hitler Youth who apparently haven't even seen a single episode of Law and Order, and he is rapidly filling all the seats that Congress left empty during the Obama administration.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[drinkypoo]

This behavior is required by law. A long time ago the Supreme Court altered corporate behavior forever with a ruling that corporations have a duty to their stockholders only, and aside from taxes, absolutely no responsibility to the community at large.

One thing, however, does not lead to the other. Corporations have a duty to follow their charter. If the charter includes a commitment to community service, then the investors know what they're getting into when they put their money into the company, and the corporation can do all the good deeds it likes. Corporations are generally designed first and foremost to maximize shareholder value, however, and this is reflected in their charters.

Don't make excuses for corporate evil. The decision to write a charter which places shareholder value first is just that, a decision. It is a willful choice which we must not excuse.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[Solandri]

Historically, contributions by the communications industry has favored Democrats (every year since 1990, except '98 when they were equal). 3/4 of the top recipients are Democrats. That's even more incredible when you consider that the party in power usually gets more lobbying contributions. The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and the Democrats are still receiving more lobbying money from the communications industry. (You can drill down to the cable or telecom subsets if you want. The general trend is still the same - Democrats receive more lobbying dollars from these industries. Telephone utilities are one of the few subsets whose lobbying contributions consistently favor Republicans.)

The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news). The same thing happened with science funding during Bush 2's term. The media so badly misportrayed his science policies (excessively focusing on killing the Superconducting Super Collider and his ban on fetal stem cell research) that most of the public still think his administration was anti-science. Ask yourself - based on what you heard on the news, do you think Bush was pro- or anti-science funding? In fact his administration enacted the biggest increase in Federal science R&D funding since Bush 1 and the 1960s space race.

You can even see when this started to happen. Up until 2000, contributions by the print, publishing, and newspaper industries only slightly favored Democrats. But from 2000 onwards, it's skewed to wildly favor Democrats, by about a 5:1 margin today. Around 2000, the media stopped trying to remain unbiased, and skewed unabashedly towards the left. (My guess would be the appearance of Fox News favoring the Right meant the rest of the media felt they no longer had to try to restrain their bias favoring the Left.)

Health care is more of a mixed bag.

Don't believe everything the media spoon-feeds you just because it confirms your pre-existing biases. Do your own research to see where the money is flowing (to and from). The Open Secrets website is a great tool that's organized to be very easy to use.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[quantaman]

Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.

Both do it, but both don't do it to remotely equal extents.

Democrats are generally a bit more supportive than their base of strong IP laws, that's probably because of donors in Hollywood.

But Democrats also support financial regulations that their base likes but their donors hate.

Meanwhile the GOP just enacted a massive tax reform that is almost purely a handout to their donors. And a lot of the Trump department appointees are simply industry representatives being asked to regulate themselves.

Basically the Democratic legislators represent their voters and are nudged by their donors, the GOP represents their donors and is nudged by their voters.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[fahrbot-bot]

Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation....

That's how our political system works. You need bribes, -cough- I mean campaign contributions, to get elected. Once elected, you have to do what your donors want you to do, even if it's at odds with the best interest of your constituents or the well being of the country.

Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.

Yup, getting re-elected and maintaining party power is more important than actually governing for the/your people.

As Veronica said in Better Off Ted, Season 1, Episode 4, "Racial Sensitivity":

"Money before people." That's the company motto engraved right there on the lobby floor. Just looks more heroic in Latin.

Re:News flash, that's how it works

[pots]

Historically, contributions by the communications industry [opensecrets.org] has favored Democrats

Did you look at your link? They're grouping communications and electronics together. If you pick out just the communications companies - AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Cox - all favor Republicans. Be careful about how you use the term "fake news," it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Most criticism of Bush 2's science record was climate change, the stem cell business, etc. He also supported that "teach the controversy" BS, in schools. These are things for which his record is demonstrably poor. Spending more money in other areas does make up for suppressing research.

What your link tells me about print industry lobbying, is that the print industry doesn't spend money on lobbying. Compare to your link for communications lobbying - there's an order of magnitude difference there. (I was going to offer an alternative theory to your one about Fox News, but it doesn't seem necessary...)

Given that the person you were replying to was only claiming that the two parties are not the same, this seems to be born out by your links.

So, basically, the choice is

[Opportunist]

Having the FCC destroy the internet or let congress do it.

(2) Ignored but fundemental questions

[MSTCrow5429]

1) The differences between Title I and Title II?

2) Why the FTC and not the FCC should under current law handle internet regulation as such, and why no one is asking the FTC to do anything instead?

Re:(2) Ignored but fundemental questions

[guruevi]

The differences are simple:
The FTC was used to regulate the monopoly that was Bell (Federal TRADE Commission can set limits on effective monopoly trade within the market). With all the carriers like Google threatening to come into the market they wanted away from the FTC oversight which is why Obama introduced his "Net Neutrality" rules, move ISP's away from trade oversight and under the FCC which puts heavy technical requirements on new players in the market.

Now that the incumbent ISP's have once again merged into a large monopoly they want away from the heavy technical requirements within the FCC and go back under FTC oversight. The big monopolies have no threat anymore from smaller players even if they wanted to compete, the FTC puts no technical limitations, as long as they play "fair".

Whenever that balance gets threatened again, we'll see them campaign for FCC oversight once again and we'll have another supposed "Net Neutrality" law which is just going to be another oversight dodge.

Paid prioritization.

[Monster_user]

So the new rules are "paid prioritization". https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

And the concern is how to protect websites from being "down voted" out of existence, in respect to QoS priority, etc.

My concern is what is this going to do to VoIP providers. Aside from VoIP/SIP providers, I don't know what is latency sensitive. I actually don't give a rooty toot toot if a Facebook page takes a few seconds longer to load, or a video stream has to buffer a little longer before playing (as long as it doesn't buffer during the stream). VoIP prioritization, and video game lag are about the only things that concern me.

Re:Paid prioritization.

[currently_awake]

If you use your ISP provided VOIP and Video streeming service then you get priortized. Competing services will be slowed. Obviously they will charge extra for these premium services, no free U-Tube here.

Re:Paid prioritization.

[dgatwood]

So you want YOUR things prioritized, but you don't care about other things being prioritized, even if they might be considered of value to other people.

Because it's the holiday season, I'm going to assume that you simply don't understand how the Internet works, rather than dismiss you outright as a paid shill. On the Internet, packets move between devices called routers at a speed determined largely by the type of physical interconnect between those routers. At each router, packets are delayed. The delay is usually very slight. However, when packets need to flow through a connection that cannot accommodate the full incoming data rate, they are delayed until there is enough room in that connection to accommodate the additional packets.

As long as that overload is relatively small, users usually do not perceive the delay. For example, if the user is playing streaming video, the player requests several minutes of content at a time, and requests the next few minutes of content long before it actually needs it, so that by the time it gets to the end of the content that it has already downloaded, the next chunk of content is already there. Similarly, when the user is loading a web page, that initial latency is usually only a small part of the total page loading time, so the user doesn't really notice it.

There are exceptions, however. Some technologies, such as real-time streaming—things like Skype, video chat, etc.—are considered inherently low-latency protocols. Delays of even a few hundred milliseconds can make the difference between being able to use the service and being unable to do so, both because talking to someone over a high-latency connection is very difficult and because echo cancellation fundamentally depends on low latency. Thus, there is a fundamental, unavoidable technical reason why these protocols must be prioritized; if they are not prioritized, they become completely nonfunctional. Quality-of-service prioritization is critical for preventing latency spikes that would otherwise break these latency-sensitive services. So when the GP said that VoIP needs to be prioritized, it was not an "I want my voice streams to be faster" sort of desire, but rather an "I want voice streams to work".

Other services, no matter how much value other people might consider them to have, do not have hard latency requirements, and thus prioritization of those services provides no benefit to users. A user either has enough bandwidth to the destination to handle streaming at a particular quality or he/she doesn't. If the bandwidth isn't there, that problem can't be fixed by changing the priority. There are only two ways in which paid prioritization could affect the average bandwidth between a user and a given service:

• If the ISP is deliberately not buying enough bandwidth, it can use the lack of laws against paid prioritization to allow them to extort money from other companies on the Internet who are not their customers to pay for buying more bandwidth. This is bad, because it allows ISPs to hold arbitrary companies hostage and causes a complete breakdown in the way that Internet service is billed. Instead, those ISPs should either put pressure on their peers to get better peering agreements with faster service or raise the prices of their service so that they can afford the needed bandwidth.
• An ISP can throttle some other service to make more room. So if Netflix paid for prioritization, the ISP could reduce bandwidth to other services and use it for making more bandwidth available to Netflix, breaking those other services. This is bad, because it is inherently an unfair distortion of the free market and represents unfair competition.

In every case, paid prioritization causes harm for consumers, and benefits only the ISPs. In no case can it create any benefit for any consumers. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something—probably Internet service.

Risk of fake news

[Monster_user]

So following a train of thought I just had. Fake news becomes harder to detect. "Paid prioritization" has an interesting feature of enabling the quarantining of localities.

If local businesses, government, or organizations suffer from the effects of "paid prioritization", a solution is to make it so those are within the local network, before hitting a major ISP pipeline. That way locals would have access, but anyone outside the local community wouldn't have access because "paid prioritization" would consume all available bandwidth across the national pipelines. Then some vague "other" or "they" get blamed for a site being inaccessible.

The results are two-fold. One, foreign powers wouldn't likely be granted paid prioritization to influence elections. Two, if there is any meddling or fake news, foreign or domestic, there wouldn't be a nation wide internet to corroborate or collaborate to identify and challenge the "fake news".

Something Stinks about this Article

[SmaryJerry]

Either a new bill is fair and includes Net Neutrality or it isn't. That doesn't mean all bills on the subject will be horrible. I don't get the give up mentality by this writer. The point is to make a law about Net Neutrality so we don't have votes made of 5 people making important decisions, but congress. Hell you could make it an amendment to the constitution, it might be that important.

Paid prioritization controls the national network

[pikine]

That only works if all the towns only have municipal broadband that is entirely autonomous and locally administered. But the reality is that most people's Internet access are controlled by national networks. Paid prioritization just makes it easier for foreign powers to target the national network and spread fake news to the entire country of people.

How do you suppose you got your Internet access?

Re: Paid prioritization controls the national netw

[pikine]

Even if all ISPs are completely patriotic, it's hard to distinguish foreign interference from grassroots movement. You only need to look at a few recent examples, e.g. Heart of Texas. Before ISPs and Facebook realize that they have been foreign sponsored, it would have been too late after the damage is done.

And seeing how the ISPs are able to lobby the government to abolish net neutrality, they now have enough monopoly and power so that they don't have to pretend to be patriotic anymore. In many municipalities, the telecom companies have exclusive access to the utility poles so even Google Fiber can't build new Internet access. Let alone common folks like you and me. And Municipal Internet is just not happening. Here is the list of states with conditional or total ban, or minefield in their laws.

I still want to know how you got your Internet. You seem ingenuously optimistic.

Choice #3

[rsilvergun]

Stop voting Republican. It's already been pointed out that they're the ones behind this. And vote in your primary. Voting doesn't do any good if your just voting for Republicans running with a D next to their name (Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelocy, I'm looking at you).

Re:Choice #3

[Opportunist]

If you could change anything by voting, it would've been outlawed a long time ago.

Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal

[Rakarra]

Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".

Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested.

It's like the "toll lanes" on a freeway. It's not too bad for the people who pay, but it's a lane that was taken out of service from general traffic, thus making the traffic for non-payers even worse.