dslreports logo
 story category
Thune, Upton's Net Neutrality Gambit Unsuccessful
Senator John Thune, Rep Greg Walden and Rep Fred Upton, two of which are the largest recipients of Comcast campaign donations in Congress, had been pushing a net neutrality "compromise" in the hopes of derailing FCC passage of tougher rules. However, most realized the effort as a ploy to undermine the kind of consumer protections Internet activists have been all-but yelling for, resulting in Thune and Upton admitting this week their effort has failed:
quote:
And Republicans on Capitol Hill, who once criticized the plan as “Obamacare for the Internet,” now say they are unlikely to pass a legislative response that would undo perhaps the biggest policy shift since the Internet became a reality. “We’re not going to get a signed bill that doesn’t have Democrats’ support,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. “This is an issue that needs to have bipartisan support."
Of course Thune's bill failed to attract "bipartisan support" because most realized it was an effort to undermine real net neutrality rules, and not a serious attempt at meaningful compromise. Activists, including Mozilla, find themselves amazed they're at the precipice of a Thursday vote on real net neutrality rules, when a year ago at this time such rules seemed like little more than a pipe dream:
quote:
“We’ve been outspent, outlobbied. We were going up against the second-biggest corporate lobby in D.C., and it looks like we’ve won,” said Dave Steer, director of advocacy for the Mozilla Foundation, the nonprofit technology foundation that runs Firefox, a popular Web browser, referring to the cable companies. “A year ago today, we did not think we would be in this spot."
Of course this is just the beginning of another chapter in the net neutrality debate, and certainly not an end to the conversation. After the rules get passed this Thursday you can expect a flurry of ISP lawsuits, followed by a year or more of legal wrangling to even get the rules implemented. After that, the rules could very easily find themselves overturned by a party shift and change in FCC leadership.
view:
topics flat nest 
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Karl

Have checked telecommunications donations to Congress at opensecrets? Thune isn't in the top 10.

Worse the FCC may not vote for the proposed regulation, a Democrat is concerned about regulation of interchanges.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Karl

Yeah, Thune isn't, but Walden and Upton are among two of the biggest Comcast campaign contribution recipients around.
Expand your moderator at work
Ghoul
join:2001-02-04
Mastic Beach, NY

Ghoul to Karl Bode

Member

to Karl Bode

Re: Karl

...and numerous proponents of so-called "Net Neutrality" are also big recipients.

In any case, why are you such a cheerleader for this Karl? Have you managed to get a copy of the 300 pages of rules or is your support based on the title alone? Are you a believer in pass first, read later?

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Karl

said by Ghoul:

In any case, why are you such a cheerleader for this Karl?

Because I want the Internet to be destroyed and I hate freedom, silly!
Ghoul
join:2001-02-04
Mastic Beach, NY

1 recommendation

Ghoul

Member

Re: Karl

Seriously Karl, you're ok with hundreds of pages being withheld from the public before being voted on?

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Karl

Absolutely not. I think they should be released. For the record it's just eight pages, the rest is just supplemental material.

I do think in the absence of competition Title II is probably the best path forward, though I have my doubts that the wording of the rules will be coherent enough to prevent abusive behavior, or that they'll survive subsequent legal challenges and partisan shifts.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

said by Ghoul:

In any case, why are you such a cheerleader for this Karl?

Because I want the Internet to be destroyed and I hate freedom, silly!

If it were possible for me to believe as you do about the proposed regulation, there wouldn't be any debate between us. However, a secret rule proposal? Really Karl, why on earth does this have to be secret?

A public comment period would be helpful, knowing what the FCC was thinking about doing is helpful to all. IMO this has tremendous potential to cause grief. If parts or the rule are invalidated (parts you or I may like) and parts are upheld (parts you or I may not like) by a federal court, this could just make Internet messier.

I love freedom, and hate Comcast extorting users or providers like Netflix (or anyone else). I don't believe in caps, we should all have pipes at a rated speed, use should be up to us without grief from the provider.

It is my opinion that the FCC, Obama, and most of Congress are bought by Comcast. My best guess is our Comcast CEO or a designee knows whats in the proposed rule and either wrote or influenced a large portion of it.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 edit

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Karl

said by pandora:

Really Karl, why on earth does this have to be secret?

It shouldn't be. For the record, that the agency can't publicize policy ahead of a vote has been a (bad) FCC rule for years that has impacted anything being voted on by both parties. It's bad for transparency and it has annoyed telecom beat reporters for years.

That said, I think some of this whining about transparency (from Pai specifically) is just political theater designed to foster outrage that these FCC rules are somehow especially being crafted in secret. The same folks outraged over the lack of transparency here usually aren't too upset when AT&T, Verizon and Comcast non-transparently help write state and federal regulations, so for many of these folks I have a hard time taking their sudden adoration of transparency seriously.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: Karl

It looks like a vote will occur on Thursday, lets hope the regulation is good. As to theater, from my perspective I prefer open government, and am more or less a libertarian. Preventing Comcast from throttling Netflix (or anyone else, outside of a cyber attack or equipment malfunction) at a network interchange should be prohibited.
desarollo
join:2011-10-01
Monroe, MI

desarollo to Ghoul

Member

to Ghoul
You're not quite understanding how the FCC works in these matters. This isn't some liberal plan to subvert the internet, it is exactly how it works on other items before the Commission.
Ghoul
join:2001-02-04
Mastic Beach, NY

Ghoul

Member

Re: Karl

LOL, no, it isn't. Most FCC regulations are not only visible but open to a public comment period.

It's disturbing how many people blindly trust the government to do the right thing, well out of the interfering eye of the public.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

Re: Karl

Net neutrality proceedings had a public comment period that garnered the most comments in FCC history. That's what swayed the FCC into full Title II.

BBUserDude
@rr.com

BBUserDude

Anon

Re: Karl

Has the actual current full 332 page proposed rule change been released to the public ahead of the vote?

No.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to Karl Bode

Premium Member

to Karl Bode
Yeah, but the FCC regulations and net neutrality are bigger than Comcast. Even so, Comcast spreads a lot of cash to a lot of candidates, here is the list for 2013-2014 - »www.opensecrets.org/orgs ··· 00000461

In 2012, the biggest receipent of Comcast cash was President Obama (who appointed the FCC folks who you think are about to rule against their interests) - Obama got 3 times the contribution from Comcast of anyone in Congress. Obama plays golf with the CEO of Comcast - »www.politico.com/blogs/m ··· 524.html does Thune?

Boehner, John (R-OH) House $107,775
Markey, Ed (D-MA) Senate $53,950
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Senate $45,550
Booker, Cory (D-NJ) Senate $38,150
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) House $38,110
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) Senate $37,375
Walden, Greg (R-OR) House $37,250
Reid, Harry (D-NV) Senate $35,300
Upton, Fred (R-MI) House $34,500
Udall, Mark (D-CO) Senate $33,100
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) Senate $32,250
Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Senate $29,800
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) House $29,700
Begich, Mark (D-AK) Senate $29,450
Grimes, Alison (D-KY) Senate $28,850
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Senate $27,300
Udall, Tom (D-NM) Senate $26,600
Scott, Tim (R-SC) Senate $25,000
Toomey, Pat (R-PA) Senate $24,500
Hagan, Kay R (D-NC) Senate $24,425
Coons, Chris (D-DE) Senate $24,200
Schatz, Brian (D-HI) Senate $23,800
Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) Senate $21,600
Warner, Mark (D-VA) Senate $21,000
Cornyn, John (R-TX) Senate $20,300
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House $19,800
Fattah, Chaka (D-PA) House $19,500
Gerlach, Jim (R-PA) House $19,500
Enzi, Mike (R-WY) Senate $19,200
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) House $18,750
Fitzpatrick, Michael G (R-PA) House $18,500
Peters, Gary (D-MI) House $17,750
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) Senate $15,500
Dent, Charlie (R-PA) House $15,500
Brady, Robert A (D-PA) House $15,000
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) House $15,000
Nunn, Michelle (D-GA) Senate $14,400
Kilmer, Derek (D-WA) House $13,500
Chaffetz, Jason (R-UT) House $12,600
Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) Senate $11,500
Barrow, John (D-GA) House $11,000
Doyle, Mike (D-PA) House $11,000
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) Senate $11,000
Reed, Jack (D-RI) Senate $11,000
Walsh, John (D-MT) Senate $10,900
Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) House $10,750
Rothfus, Keith J (R-PA) House $10,666
Terry, Lee (R-NE) House $10,666
Butterfield, G K (D-NC) House $10,500
Cartwright, Matt (D-PA) House $10,500
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Senate $10,500
Honda, Mike (D-CA) House $10,100
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) House $10,000
Castor, Kathy (D-FL) House $10,000
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) House $10,000
Davis, Rodney (R-IL) House $10,000
Dingell, Debbie (D-MI) House $10,000
Inhofe, James M (R-OK) Senate $10,000
Levin, Sander (D-MI) House $10,000
Lujan, Ben R (D-NM) House $10,000
Marino, Tom (R-PA) House $10,000
Meehan, Patrick (R-PA) House $10,000
Murphy, Tim (R-PA) House $10,000
Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) House $10,000
Perry, Scott (R-PA) House $10,000
Pitts, Joe (R-PA) House $10,000
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) House $10,000
Scalise, Steve (R-LA) House $10,000
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) Senate $10,000
Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $10,000
Shuster, Bill (R-PA) House $10,000
Thompson, Glenn (R-PA) House $10,000
Bass, Karen (D-CA) House $9,250
Nadler, Jerrold (D-NY) House $9,000
Smith, Lamar (R-TX) House $9,000
Southerland, Steve (R-FL) House $9,000
Daines, Steven (R-MT) House $8,500
Garcia, Joe (D-FL) House $8,500
Latta, Robert E (R-OH) House $8,500
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) Senate $8,500
Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) House $8,500
Valadao, David (R-CA) House $8,500
Beyer, Don (D-VA) House $8,250
Leach, Daylin (D-PA) House $8,200
Johnson, Bill (R-OH) House $8,166
Byrne, Bradley (R-AL) House $8,000
Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) House $8,000
Kelly, Mike (R-PA) House $8,000
Lance, Leonard (R-NJ) House $8,000
McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) House $8,000
Messer, Luke (R-IN) House $8,000
Paulsen, Erik (R-MN) House $8,000
Pompeo, Mike (R-KS) House $8,000
Ruppersberger, Dutch (D-MD) House $8,000
Schiff, Adam (D-CA) House $8,000
Schrader, Kurt (D-OR) House $8,000
Sensenbrenner, F James Jr (R-WI) House $8,000
Coffman, Mike (R-CO) House $7,825
Rigell, Scott (R-VA) House $7,666
DeSantis, Ron (R-FL) House $7,500

Top reciepients in 2012 were - »www.opensecrets.org/orgs ··· cle=2012

Obama, Barack (D) Pres $328,128
Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $95,566
Casey, Bob (D-PA) Senate $73,775
Berman, Howard L (D-CA) House $54,860
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) Senate $48,850
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) House $41,250
Hatch, Orrin G (R-UT) Senate $38,750
Murphy, Christopher S (D-CT) House $38,500
Tester, Jon (D-MT) Senate $31,000
Upton, Fred (R-MI) House $31,000

Ghoul
join:2001-02-04
Mastic Beach, NY

1 recommendation

Ghoul

Member

Re: Karl

No no no!

Obama cares, which is why he had a sudden change of heart and the Republicans are evil! Anyone who wants to read the text of the "net neutrality" regulations before they're voted on is an obstructionist.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

1 recommendation

clone (banned)

Member

If you like your internet...

You can keep your internet! Right guys?

Secret regulations the people can't read are my favorite in a free republic. That's exactly the spirit we're looking for! I'm really happy this is going to pass so the Internet can be turned into a Chinese-style walled garden echo chamber of "approved" content and "safe, non-terrorism-related" ideas all in a Cable TV 2.0 format. You bastards got what you wanted, again. Are you happy?

I'm still not sure how the reality distortion field works, that every piece of legislation and regulation ever passed is a boondoggle that only serves to somehow enrich the corporate masters or turn the screws on the people, yet the lemmings line up behind it, every time, like good little ants.

"Oh, but it's like, good for the little guy, or something. What, do you work for the Koch brothers? 1%'er. This piece of regulation is different, it's really going to help. This is progress."

Yeah. Fucking. Right.
clone

1 recommendation

clone (banned)

Member

Re: If you like your internet...

Then please, show me the text of the regulation so I can pass judgment on whether or not I support it. Until I can read it, I'll think the worst. The regulators see us as the "marks", don't you realize that?

If you honestly think the government has our best interests at heart, then you seriously haven't been paying attention lo these last few decades.

Thanks for the ad-hominem attack, though. I'm "uneducated", a "shill", or just a "moron". Come back when you can refute me, which you can't, because the regulations are secret.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

ieolus

Member

Re: If you like your internet...

Then he will come back tomorrow, when the regulations are revealed.
Expand your moderator at work
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to clone

Member

to clone
The summary is not secret and you can continue to say the government is against you all you want, however the FCC is there to serve us, the companies are the ones that only serve themselves and see the rest of us as the thorn in their sides.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

clone (banned)

Member

Re: If you like your internet...

said by Skippy25:

the FCC is there to serve us

Oh, I'm sure they are. We'll see tomorrow what they're serving up.
Expand your moderator at work

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Thank You Verizon

It seems that Verizon is the main party to thank for all this. Whether you are for against Title II, it should be noted this whole net neutrality debate started many years ago when former Verizon CEO Ivan Seidman made the outrageous claim that content providers should pay him to access the customers using "his" pipes. Then after week Title III regulations were passed, having been written by Verizon, they sued and had them thrown out. Add to that Verizon's mysterious Netflix bottlenecks that suddenly evaporated when Netflix started paying them money. Just looking at the evidence one can see that the ISP's were on the cusp of screwing us royally.

If Title II passes on Thursday, one just needs to remember it is not permanent. First, there will be lawsuits and attempts to derail it in court. Even if all that fails, a future Republican administration could very well undo all of it. And there is still the possibility it would be scrapped at a future date because it proves unworkable. Nothing in government is permanent except taxes, pensions, corruption and nepotism.

ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Danbury, CT

ieolus

Member

Re: Thank You Verizon

Uhmm... that was Former AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre, Jr remarking about "his pipes"...
puck0114
join:2005-12-24
Portland, OR

puck0114

Member

Re: Thank You Verizon

Yeah, I remember that... I worked for AT&T at the time. Whitacre was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
techguru306
join:2015-02-11
Cincinnati, OH
ZyXEL VMG4381

1 recommendation

techguru306

Member

How are they going to sue?

The appeals court ruled that the FCC can reclassify broadband under title II. So how can they sue when the appeals court has ruled that the FCC has the authority to reclassify broadband under title II. They can always appeal the ruling to the supreme court but that does not mean that they will take the case.
Expand your moderator at work

amarryat
Verizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA

amarryat

Member

All data is equal

What happens to those services that depend on prioritized data?

Vonage
Comcast Digital Voice
All of our cell phones are going to be VoLTE soon enough.

This is what happens. When the internet gets busy, web pages will open slightly slower, but phone calls will be stuttering.

Then lawmakers will be annoyed that their phone calls are terrible. And as always, with their proactive rules they enact without any understanding of the effect, there will be new regulations, exempting voice packets from this communistic treatment of data.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

anonomeX
@comcast.net

anonomeX

Anon

We'll see

This will put us at the next step on a staircase the end of which we can't see from where we are. I'm just hoping it's not one of those M.C. Escher things where you find yourself upside down and going the other way than you thought you were.
Rader2ksl
join:2004-02-29
Grayslake, IL

Rader2ksl

Member

Net Neutrality was never really about 'Fast Lanes'

I believe the 'Fast Lane' debate is just a distraction (smokescreen) from the underlying motive of the ISP's to change their business model . The real underlying long term motive was to monetize the use of the internet instead of counting data bytes and implementing usage caps.

Those who have been around for a while may remember the term 'Walled Garden'. The Walled Garden internet model is the best way to monetize customers use of the internet instead of counting data bytes. The ISP's have a strong desire to monetize services and content. There's just not that much money to be made by counting bytes and implementing usage caps.

The 'Walled Garden' business model seeks to collect hidden fees/commissions on the internet services you are using. This model is based on the ISP making prior arrangements with partners who provide kickbacks (commissions) to the ISP when you make an online transaction. If you visit your brokerage account to buy or sell a stock, the ISP wants a part of the action. After all, it was the ISP network that enabled one to buy or sell a stock. The same applies to online banking, media consumption, news, weather, whatever, airline tickets, etc.

If one goes outside the 'Walled Garden' you will encounter a 'toll both(s)' of fees for not using the preferred partner. Title 2 is not perfect but it would effectively kill the Walled Garden business model from ever getting off the ground.

-SR

••••••