Slashdot Mirror


In an Accidental Email To TechDirt Editor, Telco Lobbyists Outline How They Intend To Shift The Blame For Privacy, Net Neutrality and More To Internet Companies (techdirt.com)

Technology news outlet TechDirt on Thursday published a hell of a story about the ways telecom lobbyists are going to try shifting the blame for a range of recent developments -- including net neutrality, competition, privacy, and cybersecurity -- to internet companies. The outlet cites talking points that it received in an accidental email that was supposed to go to a different Mike. Here's an excerpt from the story, which shares the privacy section: MESSAGE: Here is the modern reality of consumer protection: the greatest risks are posed by companies on the internet's edge. Privacy is a shared responsibility -- and the burdens and obligations can not rest solely with ISPs and must be applied equally across the internet ecosystem.

The increased scrutiny of Facebook and other edge provides offer a significant opportunity for Congress to implement clear and consistent rules that apply equally to all companies in the internet ecosystem. And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.

For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers' trust.

Consumers and companies alike deserve one set of protections and rules of the road. This is the best way to ensure consumer protection while also providing the necessary flexibility for a competitive and innovative marketplace.
TechDirt editor Mike Masnick writes: There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:

Trump/Google Drama: People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge.
On net neutrality: MESSAGE: Our nation's broadband providers strongly support net neutrality -- without 1930's-era regulations -- and with consumer protections that are consistently applied across the entire internet ecosystem. Read the full story here.

15 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Good stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is really awesome. Kudos to Mike for publishing it.

  2. Loose lips sink ships by nwaack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too bad it won't happen this time. The lobbyist will just bribe some more politicians with fun money to make this story "go away."

    1. Re:Loose lips sink ships by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't have time to explain the finer points of weasel words and controlling the narrative. But the simple answer is that the story has been deliberately crafted to sound good and reasonable to everyone. You have to look closer to find the manipulation.

    2. Re:Loose lips sink ships by HeckRuler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really?

      And when they begin the process of establishing best practices for privacy, they will need to look no further than broadband providers.

      You want congress to go ask the top 5 major ISP companies for how to make rules for privacy? The people who have been caught violating your privacy for profit. You really think that's a good idea?

      For years, our members have embraced strong consumer privacy policies, because they understand the success of any digital business depends on earning their customers’ trust.

      The telcoms have success at business because they're monopolies. Most people believe them to be untrustworthy.

      People have spent years clamoring for ISP net neutrality. We need same rules of the road for edge.

      Most network neutrality issues pertain to those controlling the pipes. But hey, sure, I too have to admit that sounds like a good idea. So it shouldn't matter where you're requesting a video from Youtube and there should be no "restricted due to your countries IP laws". Buuuuuuut that's an issue ABOVE congress. You know, since it's international. ISPs on the other hand, are pretty constrained on the rules of the nation their pipes currently reside in.

      Federal investment must be used to fill the gaps in truly unserved areas, not create false market competition by allowing electric utilities with established monopolies to extend their market power over this already fragile market. Together, we should be laser-focused on serving the unserved and maximizing the federal support to do it, while avoiding duplication and overbuilding, and ensuring efficiencies wherever possible.

      If you believe at all in capitalism, you HAVE to realize that the ISP industry doesn't have competition and the major telcoms are engaging in anti-competitive practices:

      1) They collude not to compete in each other's territory
      2) They subsidize service in any area where new competition comes to town, like Google Fiber.
      3) They've sued against anyone touching the poles which have their cables. If they're arguing a power company having a monopoly on their own poles, they're hypocrites to the extreme.

    3. Re:Loose lips sink ships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm... actually on the side of the lobbyist talking points on this. Someone care to educate me where they are wrong?

      The talking points themselves are not terrible, but they make the false equivalency that ISPs and websites are the same thing and require the same, equal levels of regulation (IE, you'd better not regulate me but leave them alone..)

      If people had their choice of a number of broadband providers, maybe they would almost have a point. I can, and am, free to connect to the Internet, and choose any website I'd like to get my information from. Twitter doesn't stop me from doing that. Facebook doesn't stop me from doing that. Even Google doesn't stop me from doing that. The ISP cartel is the only one trying to put roadblocks in the way by acting like mobsters requiring "protection money" from businesses, and can, and currently do this because they are able to ensure that they own the lines that the users use, lines which should be a utility not owned by media companies.

      They're not _just_ asking the user to pay for the bandwidth he uses, or the companies to pay for the bandwidth _they_ use, the ISPs want an additional fee on top of that from the websites. They can't just charge the users more because users would revolt over such direct violations, so they want to charge websites the extra money they want to pocket, knowing that websites will pass the costs "invisibly" through to the users. This is because the ISPs are trying to be more than ISPs. They are media companies, owning their own content services. Since they own the lines, they don't need to pay the fees they charge others. They are against net neutrality, because lack of net neutrality lets them use their monopoly/duopoly positions as ISPs to gain a competitive advantage in any other Internet they wish to expand to. Everything else in regards to "regulating" online websites has to do with harming those websites. Again, with the disingenuous insinuation that if ISPs should be regulated, then online sites should be as well.

  3. Lobbyists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can we just ban all lobbyists and campaign donations and kickbacks and bribes?

    I mean, if I took money for my company to give preferential treatment to someone or to another company I would be arrested. How is this different? (and don't bother replying with, "its the American way" or some canned response like that, really try to come up with a valid reason)

    And how are lobbyists support anything but corporate best interest at this point? They are all bought and paid for as well.

  4. Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because you don't have to use the content platforms, but you have to use the ISP as there is only one in the area. We need GDPR equivalent to apply to all the platforms and content providers and all companies you interact with on the internet

  5. swamp thing by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a brief section later in the document, suggesting that they play up Trump now fighting with Google, and suggest that's a good point to drop in the "same rules for edge" providers meaningless argument:

    You notice how some of the worst people in the world are now using Trump's antics to excuse the most dishonest and despicable behavior? Everything from white supremacists and jackoffs with swastikas tattooed on their necks are crawling out from under rocks and trying to claim their rightful place atop the dung heap. There are bunches of openly white supremacist candidates running as Republicans this election, some with open nazi connections. Cops are throwing up gang signs and shooting into cars filled with black kids. Neo-nazis demonstrate in front of the White House. If you need an excuse to be shitty, you just have to point to Trump and expect a pass.

    Remember when people were saying that Trump would "Drain the Swamp"? Those people have had to fully retreat from reality into some #qanon insanity just to try to keep their fragile worldview from falling to pieces, and now there's no way back for them. All because, as the noted philosopher Lao Tzu once said, "You never go full retard".

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:swamp thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I see your claim of "Nazis everywhere!", and raise you one Antifa.

    2. Re:swamp thing by UdoKeir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And they've been doing it for over seventy years!

      Prick.

  6. Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah sweet, you're conflating privacy and security, issues that nobody really thinks every handler of data on the internet should be responsible and accountable for, with content issues for two entirely different segments of service and function on the internet. Waters sufficiently muddied, false dichotomy suggested! Telcos pleased!

    Net neutrality doesn't have shit to do with what kind of data is published on websites anymore than the owner of the only road in town should be able to say that because a store can kick somebody off their property, the road owner should be able to as well.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  7. Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... by jdschulteis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A competitive ISP market doesn't guarantee that at least one provider will offer reasonably priced, net-neutral service. We need net neutrality mandated by law even if there are multiple high-speed, low-latency ISPs serving every area.

  8. Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But if ISP's have to be content-neutral and take responsibility for privacy and security issues, then why shouldn't platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. have to do it too?

    If the road needs to be neutral as who is allowed to drive on them, then why don't the garages and houses connected to the roads let everyone into them?

    It's probably because the roads are intended to be generic and public, whereas the "edges" are far more diverse and intended to be for whatever someone wants. Everyone has to use the roads to get somewhere, but for any given place, there's probably not many people who ever need to go there.

    But I think I can get you to answer your own question to your own level of satisfaction, simply be asking this:

    Here you are, using the internet. That means your computer is on it. Are you running a telnet server which gives root shell access to everyone? Are you running an anonymous ftp server? If not, why aren't you letting anyone and everyone have access to your computer? Are you, for some reason, thinking of your computer as exclusively yours, with exceptions determined on a case-by-case basis?

  9. Re:They're Right by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    downstream platform monopoly

    You can choose to get your ill-thought short diatribes and banal status updates from somewhere other than Twitter.

    Unless you're an ideologue like many of the 'pro netneutrality' crowd who are completely fine with other voices being censored so they can monologue unopposed.

    Just who the fuck are you? Show me one god-damned instance of someone arguing in favor of network neutrality that somehow veered into advocating for censorship. Go on. Pour some sauce over here. Throw me a link. Because you can't just spew that sort of garbage around without at least SOME sort of backup.

    I'm pro-NN as fuck and I believe Hall said it best: I might disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

  10. Re:Hate to agree with the cablecos on this, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right, we can't endanger profits just because some people want to have an internet that ain't just a walled garden.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.