Slashdot Mirror
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."
Lawyers fighting to for more laws and regulations. Slashdot loves it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Literally no matter how many times you tell these people "It's not that we're against net neutrality, it's that we don't think the FCC is the right place to do it" they plug their ears and scream "YOU DONT WANT A 'FREE' INTERNET HEATHEN, IF YOURE NOT DOING IT OUR WAY YOURE WRONG". I'm happy to see them waste their money.
Now if they were to lobby the FTC about the bad business practices of ISPs, I'd be all in. Every month I get a report of the text messages I send. I think every time I hit some sort of network mangement cap, I should also get a report from my ISP of exactly when and why it happened and how I can avoid it. Also no more of "up to speeds of 300mbts", they should not be allowed to advertise burst speeds, but only the steady state download speeds. Finally, if the terms change (new network management practices introduced), I should be able to easily cancel my contract with no penalty, since they were the ones that modified the agreement. With those rules in place, forcing ISPs to advertise what they limit will quickly destroy any market for "fast lanes" except for the people that actually want them.
The fact is that infrastructure needs to be updated. ISPs want content providers to pay so your Netflix, etc bill goes up. content providers what the ISP to pay so your internet bill goes up. Either way the bill is going up. I would prefer the government agency that controls what words are allowed on television not be involved in regulating the internet.
Amazon, Facebook and Google, especially, have all worked to STOP free and open expression on the internet. We're not talking about blocking people on their own services but actively trying to block certain voices from hosting web services AT ALL.
It's always fascinating how slashdot and its liberal readers will rail against big tech and wall street, evil corporationy groups as teh evil peoples out to oppress the free peoples of the world - until they suddenly sign-up, en-masse for the leftist cause du-jour and then they're heroes to the people?
A curious individual might question the motives behind these *cough* content producing companies *cough* and whether their motives are noble for a "free and open" internet of if they just don't want to pay more for the infrastructure they're using.
It's a giant legal circle-jerk. Those filing the suit get to thump their chest, pose as The Great People's Champions of... something, tweet aphorisms, and pump up their resumes. The FCC, meanwhile, quietly warns the other side's lawyers to go away lest they be taunted further...
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.
They are all owned by multi billionaires.
I doubt they are lobbying to save the consumer money.
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.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
The saviors and guardians of a properly functioning democracy... right?
Free and open internet is about routing of packets. Not about subjects discussed in online forums. Not about search engines.
If there is free and open routing of packets, then you are perfectly free to connect to (or even create!) an online forum whose echo chambers are more to your liking.
A free and open internet means that just because you create a small site that people are unable to reach it because you cannot afford to strike special "zero rated" deals with AT&T.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Just like the previous NN story about states making doomed laws this approach is also doomed; if these suits don't die in appellate courts then SCOTUS will kill them if for no other reason than what this summary states; whatever bipartisan majority you suppose exists is perfectly capable of taking its grievance to Congress and solving its supposed problems via legislation.
Therein lies the thing that eludes so many of you and Silicon Valley's captains of industry. Until you sway Congress and enshrine your scheme in law it is forever subject to the next round of regulatory appointees. There actually is a straightforward and appealing pro-market case to make here and it could attract many (R)s, but unfortunately our technology giants are so wrapped around their PC politics axle that courting an (R) to come over to their side is as yet unthinkable; they played hardball social issues politics for years and now they're in the cold.
You can't overturn administrative rules of the Executive branch with a lawsuit.
That's just another form of regulation and yet another place where the system can be abused.
Would Google like to support the free routing of YouTube packets to my Amazon Fire stick? Because I sure would like things like that to be included in our definition of net neutrality.
Hey hey, don't distract DickBreath from his noble cause du jour!
All packets are equal but some packets are more important than others.
Ok. So, things that NN isn't about:
1. Censorship of forum discussions, blog posts, etc.
2. Search engine results, paid, censored or otherwise
3. Arbitrarily blocking content (re: Youtube/Amazon)
Your expectation is that the body politic mentally segregate all of these various issues about who is controlling what on the interwebs, isolate the one precise thing that you are wound up about, arrive at the same conclusion about that one thing as you have, and act in a very specific manner to address your grievance.
Think about that.
You forgot:
4. Blocking certain groups from obtaining DNS credentials and hosting services because of their speech.
But ignore all of that because you claim you're for a free and open internet and supporting CONTENT PRODUCING COMPANIES that are joining lawsuits to make sure they don't get charged more for their data.
Think about that and what grievances YOU have.
You aren't getting it. We have a choice of whether or not to use google or Facebook.
But most of us do not have a choice of who our ISP is.
There is the big difference.
If you don't like Facebook...use twitter
Don't like google...use bing
Think about it, man!
Must be nice. This is how it should be, everywhere in the USA.
You aren't getting it.
I'm "getting it" just fine. I'm thinking about worthwhile solutions as opposed to fantasizing about magic regulatory bullets or futile lawsuits.
Ok then can we expand the definition of neutrality on the net to include tracking? No company tracks my activity across the web and if I permit it I get to say who's allowed. That sounds like a very "neutral net" that I'd like to have.
Let's see, Google, Amazon and Facebook are the top 3 for online spying. I'm pretty sure that what they want is a handout, not a level playing field.
They're really going hard at that Indian guy Obama appointed to the FCC.
Seriously, let Net Neutrality die. Instead, CONgress needs to require that ALL states allow for muni networks as well as NO monopolies. Right now, all monopolies for coax, fiber, STP, etc are forced by state, local govs. If they were prevented from having gov. enforced monopolies, then as each ISP fucks with a locality, then either another ISP will compete, or the local gov can build out their own local much cheaper, much faster network.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Or else you would recognize that the proliferation of regulations always tends towards the arbitrary and anti-market forces, yielding government-protected monopolies, less competition, and higher prices.
In large urban areas the number of ISPs available to a consumer create competition which drives companies to provide a marketable service. Rural geographic areas usually exist in a state in which an ISP has a virtual monopoly. Add to that state and local laws that prevent laying new cable and the virtual monopoly becomes a lasting de-facto monopolies. An ISP with a market lock can do whatever it wants to consumers despite the fact that in many cases the ISP received funding from the FCC to assist with service development. We live in a financial environment that will require executives in ISPs to find new streams of revenue and the easiest mechanism to do so would be to charge consumers more for existing services. Some of the mechanisms by which ISPs could do so were prevented by net neutrality. Repealing net neutrality repeals existing consumer protection. We need consumer protection.