At the Great Orange Satan:

Fri Mar 13, 2015 at 04:00 PM PDT

What the net neutrality rules say: We win

by Joan McCarter

….For the stuff that matters to us most, as an online community: the order bans paid prioritization, throttling and blocking. That means that outright blocking of content, slowing of transmissions, and the creation of so-called “fast lanes” available on a pay-to-play basis are banned. Daily Kos will be delivered across the networks as easily as the New York Times’ website or Fox News’s or RedState (it still exists! Who knew?) and you and we won’t have to pay more to have it delivered to your screen. In fact, it will be delivered to all your screens equally-fixed or mobile….

Here at Show Me Progress we’re big fans of the concept of net neutrality, entrepreneurial spirits that we are. The right wingnut republicans in the Missouri General Assembly are another matter. A resolution introduced yesterday by Representative Jeff Pogue(r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Resolution No. 949 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE POGUE.

2531L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted to implement new net neutrality rules which will become effective sixty days after publication in the Federal Register; and

WHEREAS, net neutrality, also called Open Internet, is based on a principle that Internet networks should be equally available to all types of legal content generators; and

WHEREAS, while FCC-approved net neutrality rules have been in place since 2008, the FCC was forced to propose new net neutrality rules when the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in early 2014 vacated the earlier rules; and

WHEREAS, the new rule reclassifies ISPs, including wireless data providers, as public utilities, like phone companies, that are subject to a set of regulations regarding fair access to services; and

WHEREAS, the new net neutrality rules will allow big ISPs to charge online companies for faster delivery of their content, which essentially will create a two-tiered system that allows ISPs to offer premium access to content providers who could afford to pay for it; and

WHEREAS, the new rules will create a “segregated” Internet where smaller and newer companies are unable to compete with established firms and their deep pockets; and

WHEREAS, ISPs could end up having to pay more fees under the new rules and will likely pass those additional charges on to consumers; and

WHEREAS, imposing these new rules by reclassifying broadband under the same rules

the FCC uses for the telephone network gives the FCC authority to set prices on services and collect fees; and

WHEREAS, while the FCC officials have stated that they won’t raise fees for ISPs, there are no protections in the new rules which would prevent such a change in the future:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth General Assembly, hereby strongly opposes the new FCC net neutrality rules which could result in higher costs which could inhibit ISPs from introducing new services and limit innovations in improving their networks, and will likely be passed on to consumers; and



BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation.

[emphasis in original]

Never underestimate their enthusiasm to act as shills for large corporations.

There were 3.7 million public comments on net neutrality sent to the FCC.

Public Knowledge: Net Neutrality

[….]

….Without net neutrality rules in place, ISPs can prevent users from visiting some websites, provide slower speeds for services like Netflix and Hulu, or even redirect users from one website to a competing website. Net neutrality rules prevent this by requiring ISPs to connect users to all lawful content on the internet equally, without giving preferential treatment to certain sites or services.

In the absence of net neutrality, companies can buy priority access to ISP customers. Larger, wealthier companies like Google or Facebook can pay ISPs to provide faster, more reliable access to their websites than to potential competitors. This could deter innovative start-up services that are unable to purchase priority access from the ISPs. Also, if ISPs can charge online services to connect to consumers, consumers would ultimately bear these additional costs (for example, on their monthly Netflix bill or in the cost of products from a local online store)….

[….]

Yep, now we understand why Representative Pogue (r) introduced HR 949.

There are two current White House petitions on net neutrality:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Maintain true net neutrality to protect the freedom of information in the United States.

True net neutrality means the free exchange of information between people and organizations. Information is key to a society’s well being. One of the most effective tactics of an invading military is to inhibit the flow of information in a population; this includes which information is shared and by who. Today we see this war being waged on American citizens. Recently the FCC has moved to redefine “net neutrality” to mean that corporations and organizations can pay to have their information heard, or worse, the message of their competitors silenced. We as a nation must settle for nothing less than complete neutrality in our communication channels. This is not a request, but a demand by the citizens of this nation. No bandwidth modifications of information based on content or its source.

Created: Apr 24, 2014

Issues: Consumer Protections, Regulatory Reform, Technology and Telecommunications

Signatures needed by May 24, 2014 to reach goal of 100,000 73,493

Total signatures on this petition 26,507

[emphasis added]

And, a solution:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Reclassify Internet broadband providers as common carriers.

We have benefited enormously from the egalitarian way in which the Internet treats information regardless of type or source, some of the most successful companies in America owe their existence this feature, but the FCC has failed to establish it as policy. Now the FCC has proposed a system that allows broadband providers to discriminate amongst Internet traffic, ensuring special treatment for companies and services of their choosing, the opposite of the neutral Internet that has existed so far. When the court vacated the FCC’s weak rules on traffic discrimination in January, the judge gave a specific instruction on how they could ensure a neutral Internet within the boundaries of the law: reclassify Internet broadband providers as “common carriers.” We are petitioning for just that.

Created: Apr 25, 2014

Issues: Consumer Protections, Regulatory Reform, Technology and Telecommunications

Signatures needed by May 25, 2014 to reach goal of 100,000 97,922

Total signatures on this petition 2,078

[emphasis added]

Unrestricted access to snark and sarcasm would continue to be a feature, not a bug.

Have you noticed how the GOP is exploiting the jobs issue – the problem they caused – as a club to fight off everything that worries their corporate friends no matter how weak the connection? Roy Blunt is no exception. Section 6 of his six point jobs creation plan offers this little favor for his long-time pals and clients of his lobbyist son in the telecommunications industry.

FCC Regulation of the Internet – Over the past two decades, the country’s telecommunications providers have taken advantage of a light regulatory environment to invest in and expand access to wide varieties of high-speed communications.  Unfortunately certain voices within the Democrat-controlled Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are determined to impose sweeping government regulations on the Internet. This will result in slower investment and innovation in this critical industry and fewer jobs of all levels.

What Blunt is talking about here is net neutrality – as in killing net neutrality, which is something that the big telecoms and Internet Service providers (ISPs) really, really want their pet politicians to do. If you’re not up on what net neutrality is and why it is important, take a look at this brief video:

Currently, as Blunt indicates, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering new rules that would preserve net neutrality.  In response, the ISPs recently debuted the “net neutrality will cost jobs” line of attack, and Blunt, like a good little toady, is simply parroting the industry line.  

Prior to launching their attack, the industry commissioned several “studies” that attempt to show a connection between job loss and the FCC’s proposed rules. Needless to say, none of the studies stand up to serious scrutiny, nor do they need to do so to serve their purpose. They are intended to bamboozle poorly informed but well-intentioned politicians like Missouri’s Russ Carnahan, Lacy Clay, and Emanuel Cleaver while providing some media talking points for the Blunts of the world, a way to muddy the waters in discussions where real scrutiny is almost always lacking.

At first glance, the three most ballyhooed studies seem to be issued by reputable sources, the New York Law School’s Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute, the DLC affiliated Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), and by George Brazalon of the Brattle group. One should not, however, be deceived by appearances. PPI receives much of its funding from AT&T and the Bradly Group, which Timothy Karr describes as “a right-wing cabal  of anti-Neutrality groups.” The other studies were commissined and paid for by the telecoms, and, in the first case, co-authored by a known industry stooge, Bret Swanson, characterized by Techdirt as “AT&T’s go to guy for pure anti-net neutrality propaganda,” who “seems to relish in totally making stuff up.”

For what it’s worth in these days of “truthiness,” these studies have all been widely debunked in terms that ought to leave those responsible writhing in shame – if they were capable of shame, that is. For example, in the report cited above by Bret Swanson, mentined above, has:

… used completely bogus “science” to insist that network neutrality rules would result in 1.5 million job losses. He came to that number simply by adding up all of the people employed by companies that submitted comments to the FCC opposing network neutrality (seriously).

So much for net neutrality as a killer of jobs. In fact, as Karr points out, the ISPs have been busy cutting jobs for some time – a trend that will continue no matter what:

PPI’s report assumes that if the FCC has basic oversight authority, it will lead to bad outcomes. But history tells a different story. When the Bell companies were subject to the full weight of Title II, they increased employment by 15 percent, according to their own SEC filings. But once the FCC began dismantling these pro-competitive rules through massive deregulation, these companies shed nearly 40 percent of their work force, even as their revenues increased and profits soared.

AT&T and Verizon alone are responsible for tens of thousands of layoffs over the last two years. Verizon is accelerating its layoffs, while AT&T laid off 12,000 workers through 2009 and thousands more in 2010.

“Sadly, this pattern of ISPs destroying good jobs while reaping higher profits will likely continue with or without reclassification and Net Neutrality,” Turner says.

Of course, you can bet good ole Roy won’t talk about this predatory, job-killing corporate behavior, but  will, instead, whenever necessary, pull out the “research” that shows that preserving the Internet for all of us will cost jobs. After all, the job that he is worried about the most is his own – and AT&T and, over the years, the Baby Bells have done him and his very good indeed in that respect.

Last week  Rep. Roy Blunt, in his role as a member of the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, which has oversight of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), stood up for the interests of the big communications giants like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T – but to hear him tell it in his press release, he is going to the wall to fight against the “government takeover of the Internet”:

Just like last fall, this federal agency [i.e., the FCC] is trying to side-step our elected representatives in Congress. Once again, this unelected bureaucracy is ruling on an issue that will have a huge impact on the economy and the free flow of information throughout Missouri and across the country. Missourians don’t want more federal regulation of the Internet, they want transparency and freedom to innovate.

What Blunt is talking about is the move by the FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, to blunt the effect of the recent Appeals Court ruling, Comcast v. FCC , which found that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate broadband access as long as it is classified as an information service. The FCC does, however, have the authority to reclassify broadband access services as telecommunications services which it can legally regulate, and which Chairman Genachowski has decided to do, although in a very limited fashion.

This relatively narrow exercise of its authority will, nevertheless, permit the FCC to insure basic privacy for Internet users; require that Internet Service providers (ISPs) cannot discriminate in providing access to content that they dislike (such as political blogs, for instance); and require transparency from ISPs about the services they provide and their costs. It will also clear away obstacles that stood in the way of President Obama’s critical National Broadband Plan. Consequently, those of us who think that the Internet is too important to freedom of expression to be turned over to greedy telecoms who are only concerned abut their bottom line are delighted with this turn of events.

That Roy Blunt has chosen to characterize an unexceptional exercise of the FCC’s allocated powers as a “big-government” power grab on the part of an “unelected” official is proof enough that he and the corporate honchos who pay him have no real arguments against net neutrality. But never fear, the use of emotionally loaded doublespeak has worked well with the always volatile members of Blunt’s constituency – I doubt that we will find him worrying overmuch about the accuracy and truthfulness of his rhetoric anytime soon. How else could a man whose record of corruption led Public Citizen’s Congress Watch to to label him “unfit to lead” now try to pass himself off as a defender of the little guy?  

In spite of Chairman Genachowski’s recent announcement, the debate is not yet over. Corporate proxies like Blunt will do their best to spread industry misrepresentations while posturing as high-minded saviors of the Internet. I can assure you that Blunt’s press release was only one of the opening salvos. So, if you are not clear about what’s at stake, take a look at this video that briefly explains basic Net Neutrality:

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Missouri Republicans who were gearing up to fight Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that would guarantee net neutrality.  Net neutrality is the collective term for a set of principles that would guarantee that Internet service providers (ISPs) cannot discriminate or deny access based on content. It is vitally important to a free and transparent internet.  Consequently, in these days of a debased and diminished news media, it is arguably of equal importance to our democracy.

Since it is to the advantage of the ISPs to be able to charge differentially based on content, they are fighting these new rules tooth and nail.  Thanks to their deep pockets and hard lobbying they are successfully recruiting many congress members to their cause.

Three Democratic members of the House from Missouri, Russ Carnahan, William Lacy Clay, and Emanuel Cleaver have signed onto a letter to the Chair of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, asking him to back away from his proposed new rules:

As the FCC embarks on its much anticipated rulemaking addressing the subject of “net neutrality,” we therefore urge the commission to carefully consider the full range of potential consequences that government action may have on network Investment. We are confident that the objective rule of facts will reveal the critical role that competition and private investment – and of necessity will continue to play – in building robust networks that are safe, open and secure.  In light of the growth and innovation in new applications that the current regime has enabled, as compared to limited evidence demonstrating any tangible harm, we would urge you to avoid tentative conclusions which favor government regulation.

As I noted in my earlier post, these assertions are wrong on almost every point since they consist of easily discredited fictions promulgated by the ISPs. Read this Free Press report to understand just how misleading this letter is, and if any of the three congressmen represent you, contact them and make sure they understand the pertinent facts.

Update:  Also consider these suggestions (via the DailyKos):  Please ask Reps. Carnahan, Clay and Cleaver to:

… sign on with Rep. Waxman, Eshoo and Markey as co-sponsors of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458). He should also write a separate letter to Chairman Genachowski of the FCC pledging his support of strong Net Neutrality rules.

The DailyKos diarist also points out that

The fight for Net Neutrality is very real, and it’s getting nasty. You can send a message to Washington by adding your name to the 2-million-person call to action.

Last Sunday, St. Louis Post-Dispatch business columnist David Nicklaus devoted his column to an attack on internet regulation:

Some beats, like banking, need tougher cops, but others, like the Internet, are doing fine with no cop at all.

So when the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission weighs in on an important Internet issue by vowing to become “a smart cop on the beat,” we should worry that the Web’s best years, characterized by rapid growth with little regulation, may be behind it.

Nicklaus was responding to comments by FCC chair Julius Genachowski who is releasing new rules governing  broadband Internet service providers (ISPs). Genachowski declared that an open internet environment is essential to our continued economic and social well-being. He noted, however, that:

Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges. We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content.

Grenachowski indicated that the new rules will be based on the principles that underlie what we popularly speak of as “net neutrality,” which can be loosely summarized as follows:

• Free access:  Users should be able to access their choice of legal internet content, including applications and services.

• Non-Discrimination:  Broadband providers cannot favor or prohibit traffic over their networks based on content, even if  that content competes with services sold by the provider.

• Transparency:  Providers must be open about their network management practices and technologies since they can affect the ability of users to access desired content and applications.

Nicklaus’ comments were, as befits a reasonably responsible journalist, the most restrained among those Missourians who immediately leaped to defend the ISP’s longtime desire to be able to apply differential pricing based on content. He even conceded that one of the favorite objections lobbed by ISP representatives, that net neutrality would hamper network security by preventing providers from rooting out viruses and malware, is overstated since:

Any reasonable FCC regulation would surely allow the broadband companies to police their networks for harmful files.

Such moderation, however, has not been apparent  in the public utterances of the Missouri Republican politicians who have jumped onto the issue wearing their best ideological boots, and wielding the cudgels provided by the ISPs whose interests they really, really want to protect.

In the letters to the editor section of the Post Dispatch, State Rep. Joe Smith (R-St. Charles), got all fired up about the impending disaster represented by new government regulation:

The Internet’s mind-boggling growth is not a product of government regulation. Private investment in infrastructure and innovation are responsible for today’s robust network. Now is no time to muck up progress by injecting the government into the mechanics of how the Internet is managed.

One can only assume that he is also overjoyed by the chaos that resulted from financial deregulation championed by his Republican colleagues in Washington. Good one, Joe — glad to see that the ideological blinders are still in working order.

Roy Blunt also chimed in, winning the prize for the number of pre-digested, partisan talking points he was able to shoehorn into his statement:

Today’s announcement was a solution in search of a problem.  In creating new rules, the unelected Federal Communications Commission is bowing to liberal special interest groups – exactly the kind of behavior Barack Obama promised to end when he was elected president.  The fact that the Chairman never indicated his plans during an oversight hearing held just last Thursday at the House Energy & Commerce Committee even though the broad topic of Internet regulation was addressed tells me that the Administration intended to avoid congressional oversight in its new rules.  That fits a troubling pattern of unelected administrative czars and other officials who have been given unprecedented power without appropriate oversight from Congress

What do you bet that every Republican politician gets five RNC points each time he or she manages to say “unelected,” “czar,” and “liberal special interest group” in a public forum?

It goes without saying that this Republican sound and fury (and the echo provided by our newspaper business opiner, Nicklaus) doesn’t have much to do with reality.  These gentlemen are simply functioning as megaphones to amplify the dishonest arguments developed by service providers.  

As  Free Press notes in their report on the top 10 net neutrality myths, Blunt’s catchy little mantra that the proposed regulations are a “solution in search of a problem” is stolen verbatim from the claims of ISPs:

… This is a constant refrain from Internet service providers (ISPs). Yet, quixotically, the same ISPs also repeatedly have stated their intention to violate the principles of the open Internet to reap profits from discrimination. Which is it? Either there is no problem, and they will never discriminate, or they have to discriminate to be profitable. This blatant contradiction illustrates the reality that the “solution in search of a problem” argument is nothing but misdirection.

The real threat is that the technology that enables discrimination is finally available to ISPs. Comcast’s secret blocking of BitTorrent is a concrete example of an anti-competitive use of this technology – which is being sold to ISPs as a method for profiting from discrimination. The examples of marketplace abuses that have occurred thus far are simply cautionary tales about the widespread, systemic change that would occur if ISPs were given a formal green light to control Internet content and applications.

Contrary to the claims of those ardent anti-regulation crusaders, Smith and Blunt, one of the reasons that we have a viable free internet is that its development was protected by appropriate regulation:

The open Internet as we know it would not exist if not for regulation. More than 40 years ago, the FCC helped create an environment where the Internet could flourish by preventing phone companies from interfering with traffic flowing over their networks. These rules were safeguards that turned the monopoly telephone system into an open platform for competition and innovation.

But in 2005, just as the Internet was becoming an essential technology for the average American, the FCC removed nearly all of the important protections. This decision is what sparked the current debate over Net Neutrality, and it is why the FCC’s pending move to protect the open Internet will be a partial restoration of rules – not “new” regulation

A third argument made by the service providers, hinted at by Smith and Blunt, and presented in its full glory by Nicklaus, is that reliable, golden oldie that has been so successful for
the pharmacological industries, namely  that regulation would stifle the investment essential to further development and innovation.   Free Press, however, points out that:

The rhetoric about Net Neutrality discouraging investment is just a general outgrowth of the reflexive but misguided belief that any and all regulation discourages investment. The evidence does not support this theory. During the years following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ISP investment rose dramatically as new regulations were being implemented. Investment declined, however, in the period following the FCC’s dismantling of this regulatory regime

Nor, according to Free Press, is there any real reason to believe the ISP claim, repeated in the Nicklaus article, that net neutrality regulation, by hampering investment and development would lead to massive congestion on the net. As Free Press notes:

No one – neither the content and applications companies nor Net Neutrality advocates – is asking the FCC to foreclose ISPs’ ability to manage their networks. Both the Network Neutrality legislation in Congress and the rules outlined by Chairman Genachowski leave ISPs completely free to address congestion via reasonable network management practices

The ginned-up outrage of Smith and Blunt offer a preview what we will be hearing from their colleagues as this issue heats up during the review period for the new rules, though congressional Republicans have apparently dropped an effort to fight the regulations by denying the FCC funding. Of course, this reponse is only what one would expect from these white knights of big business.  The real test will be the willingness of our Democratic leaders to speak out in defense of the new rules, and it may, once again, be up to us to keep them informed and honest.