Leading Lobbying Group for Amazon, Facebook, Google and Other Tech Giants is Joining the Legal Battle To Restore Net Neutrality (recode.net)

A leading lobbying group for Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter and other tech giants said Friday that it would be joining the coming legal crusade to restore the U.S. government's net neutrality rules. From a report: The Washington, D.C.-based Internet Association specifically plans to join a lawsuit as an intervening party, aiding the challenge to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's vote in December to repeal regulations that required internet providers like AT&T and Comcast to treat all web traffic equally, its leader confirmed to Recode. Technically, the Internet Association isn't filing its own lawsuit. That task will fall to companies like Etsy, public advocates like Free Press and state attorneys general, all of which plan to contend they are most directly harmed by Pai's decision, as Recode first reported this week. As an intervener, though, the Internet Association still will play a crucial role, filing legal arguments in the coming case. And in formally participating, tech giants will have the right to appeal a judge's decision later if Silicon Valley comes out on the losing end. "The final version of Chairman Pai's rule, as expected, dismantles popular net neutrality protections for consumers," said the group's chief, Michael Beckerman, in a statement. "This rule defies the will of a bipartisan majority of Americans and fails to preserve a free and open internet."

Comments

Re:Lawyers fighting for more laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

The quantity of laws and regulations is only an issue for know-nothings and demagogues. This issue is their quality, and that must be assessed on an individual basis.

Personally I would much rather have competition

[Solandri]

My workplace only has Verizon (now Frontier) as a choice for Internet. They are charging $35/mo for 768 kbps down / 128 kbps up DSL, $50/mo for 1.5 Mbps down / 256 kbps up, and it isn't even very reliable. My home Internet (Cox-only area) is $90/mo for 200 Mbps down / 10 Mbps up. Frankly I don't need 200 Mbps down, but could use more than 10 Mbps up (for when I VPN into my home network). Net neutrality doesn't fix ISPs charging you an arm and a leg because they have a government-granted monopoly in your area.

An AT&T rep knocked on my door a couple weeks ago to announce they were rolling out fiber to my area, and were expecting pricing to be around $45/mo. Competition fixes both abusive pricing and throttling. If my ISP decides to throttle Netflix for not paying them, and I have a choice of ISPs, all I have to do is switch ISPs to one which doesn't throttle Netflix. The problem net neutrality is trying to solve is entirely caused by these government-granted cable/phone monopolies. (AT&T is only able to offer broadband in my area because they're the local phone monopoly.)

So I would rather have the solution which eliminates both artificial throttling and abusing pricing - competition. The gas and power utilities even provide the model for doing this. You hire a company to build and maintain the distribution wires or pipes going to each home. That company is paid to maintain those lines/pipes, but is prohibited from selling service (gas, electricity, Internet) over them. Instead, they sell access rights to those lines/pipes (at a fixed price regulated by a Public Utilities Commission) to other companies which provide the service. This lets hundreds or even thousands of companies compete against each other to sell you gas, electricity, or Internet service. Thus insuring anyone trying to price gouge you or degrade your service as part of their petty extortion schemes simply puts themselves out of business.

So wait...

[RedK]

we're all for corporate interests lobbying for laws ?

And Google and Facebook of all places lobbying for "Neutrality" of packets, while at the same time being biased in their handling of their user generated content platforms ?

The Slashdot crowd cheering for this really has lost it if they think any of this is in their best interest.

Re:So wait...

[MadCat221]

When the interests of the public good and corporate interest align against opposite corporate interests against the public good.... Yes.

Re:So wait...

[RedK]

There is no public good in having more and more governement intervention in the Internet. We need even less. Remove monopolies from Telcos/Cable companies, repeal Net Neutrality rules. Let the corporations compete to give you the best and cheapest Internet.

Forcing them to do it will only result in more and more and more rules being made, and upping the barrier of entry into the market for smaller businesses wanting to provide good Internet service.

Re:So wait...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Let the corporations compete to give you the best and cheapest Internet.

Ahahahahahaha

Wait. You were serious... Maybe you haven't noticed, but Internet service providers in the United States have been behaving like an illegal cartel for two decades now, since the inception of the public Internet. They're not going to compete no matter how you change the rules. They don't have to, they don't want to, and because of the difficulty and expense of deploying that last mile, it's effectively a natural monopoly. Not quite as natural as water and sewer, but enough that you can expect the current behavior to always evolve, absent rules to the contrary.

Removing all the rules does not make things better. The right rules make things better. Net Neutrality is a right and necessary rule, because competition will always be absent.

Re:The user is going to pay in any case

[DickBreath]

I agree that we all will pay for the necessary network infrastructure.

I strongly disagree about getting rid of net neutrality. We NEED net neutrality. A neutral internet is what allows it to become the global economic engine that it is. Now ISPs want to erect troll booths and non neutral traffic.

Suppose AT&T goes to Netflix and strikes up an ugly smoke-filled back room deal where Netflix pays AT&T so that Netflix customers on AT&T get "zero rated" or "preferred" or whatever you want to call it. This increases Netflix's cost. That cost will go to ALL Netflix customers even Netflix customers who use Verizon instead of AT&T. Thus Netflix customers on Verizon are now subsidizing the improved service of Netflix customers on AT&T -- while those Netflix-Verizon customers continue to have the poorer service.

So now HBO strikes up a deal with Verizon so HBO gets "zero rated" service on Verizon. Similarly HBO customers using AT&T are now subsidizing HBO-Verizon customers.

How about this: BAN this practice. If the ISP needs to build more infrastructure to handle Netflix, then CHARGE ME THE CUSTOMER for how much internet bandwidth I use. I'm going to pay for it anyway. But make it simple. Make it fair. Stop making some users subsidize other users.

There is no such thing as "building fast lanes". That is just a euphemism for building SLOW lanes. If an ISP is building out its infrastructure, then that ISP's customers should pay for what they are using that requires that infrastructure.

Finally, this "fast lanes" approach also helps cement in the established players while making it difficult for new entrants into the market. Suppose a new obscure specialized video service emerged. One whose content is mostly about the mating practices of obese new jersey millennials. The small subscriber base for this particular video service may not be powerful enough to strike a crooked back room deal with AT&T, thus resulting in it getting unfair treatment -- even though their end subscribers pay the same local ISP bill as everyone else.