dslreports logo
 story category
Why Antitrust Won't Save You When Net Neutrality Is Repealed

If you've been paying attention to the debate over net neutrality, you probably know by now that repealing consumer broadband privacy rules and net neutrality is just the beginning of what the nation's ISP lobbyists have planned for you. ISPs have long been lobbying the government to eliminate most FCC oversight over one of the least-competitive markets in America, shoveling any remaining authority to the FTC. This, they claim, will somehow do a much better job protecting consumers from harm.

Click for full size
But experts are warning that this plan will result in broadband consumers having less protection from bad Comcast, AT&T or Verizon behavior than ever before.

Today the FCC and FTC released a statement (pdf) claiming they were working on a new joint coordination effort that will "safeguard the public interest" in the wake of the net neutrality repeal. The problem: former FCC staffers and telecom policy experts say these promises of improved consumer protection are a lie, and that under this model consumers simply won't be protected from anti-competitive ISP behavior.

And there's several reasons why.

Earlier this year, former FCC boss Tom Wheeler called this entire plan a "fraud", noting that the FTC has no rule-making authority (to adapt to changing ISP behavior) and can only take action long after an ISP has already misbehaved. He also noted how the current FTC is already so under-funded and over-extended, that most ISP enforcement would likely fall through the cracks.

"It’s a fraud," Wheeler said of the FTC/FCC enforcement pledge being made by Ajit Pai and ISP loyal politicians. "The FTC doesn’t have rule-making authority. They’ve got enforcement authority and their enforcement authority is whether or not something is unfair or deceptive. And the FTC has to worry about everything from computer chips to bleach labeling. Of course, carriers want [telecom issues] to get lost in that morass. This was the strategy all along."

Why the FTC may be Toothless to Stop AT&T and Comcast

But it's worse than that. ISPs also don't want you to realize that AT&T's currently battling the FTC in court to make sure the FTC has no authority over ISPs whatsoever. The FTC has already warned that should it lose that case, any company will be able to dodge FTC oversight just as long as some small part of their business has a common carrier component.

“The panel’s ruling creates an enforcement gap that would leave no federal agency able to protect millions of consumers across the country from unfair or deceptive practices or obtain redress on their behalf," the FTC said in its filing.

That the current FCC, ISPs, and their armies of policy folk ignore this giant looming oversight vacuum should tell you everything you need to know.

But Telecom lawyer and policy expert Harold Feld also points out that under this new joint FTC/FCC "enforcement" pledge, past net neutrality violations wouldn't be covered. From Netflix's run-in with ISPs over interconnection, to AT&T's blocking of Facetime to drive users to more expensive plans, Feld points out that under this new regime none of these behaviors would be considered problematic, nor would the government have the authority to do anything if they were.

"If you think AT&T or any other broadband provider has the right to decide what content and services subscribers should access -- then this Order eliminates what you have considered nasty FCC overreach for the last 15 years," notes Feld.

But "on the question of 'does the FTC have the power to stop a broadband provider from saying 'I’m not going to let you use a particular service or access particular content,' the answer is a flat out straight up "no," he adds. "Because for normal everyday businesses, absent a specific enforceable regulation, offering you some limited service is not “unfair” under 15 USC 45(a). Period. Full stop."

Again, the goal here is little real oversight of some of the least-liked, least competitive companies in America. Anybody that thinks letting Comcast do whatever it likes ends well for consumers or small companies either is being intentionally misleading (usually due to personal financial gain), or has managed to fool themselves into rooting against their own best self interests.

view:
topics flat nest 

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

-2 recommendations

Selenia

Premium Member

You're all gonna die!

Sorry guys, that's all I can think of is that Democrat universal talking point they give when they don't get what they want when I look at that picture in the article. It's not that I'm vehemently opposed to net neutrality. It is actually kind of a brilliant stopgap measure. But people shouldn't be focused on just saving net neutrality. We need to focus on revamping the regulatory environment that caused us to have so little competition to begin with. Let's kill franchise agreements and ridiculous pole attachment regulations to start off. What we really need is competition. With sufficient competition, we wouldn't need the government to intervene with things like net neutrality. So let's get started on fostering a healthy competitive environment, while you guys try to save net neutrality. We can do two things at once can't we?

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

9 recommendations

TechyDad

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

We definitely should be working towards increased competition in the ISP arena. Where I live, I have a choice of only one wired, high-speed ISP: Charter. If I don't like them, I can either keep paying them and gripe about it, or I can cancel and go without Internet access. Neither is a very customer friendly option and neither would stop Charter from abusing their monopoly position. One person dropping Internet access isn't going to change their practices any more than a single ant will keep me from walking down a sidewalk.

Unfortunately, ISPs have used their lobbying might to enshrine their monopolies in law - via local franchise agreements, ISP-written state level legislation banning municipal broadband, and court cases designed to slow down any new ISPs from running cables. Google was nearly brought to a standstill by AT&T in Kentucky. What hope would a smaller company have if they were to face AT&T's legal team?

I really hope we get to the point where we don't need the network neutrality regulations because competition really is robust. Until we get there, though, we need these regulations to keep the monopolies from abusing their positions.

Anon24211
@digitalocean.com

Anon24211 to Selenia

Anon

to Selenia
said by Selenia:

Sorry guys, that's all I can think of is that Democrat universal talking point they give when they don't get what they want when I look at that picture in the article. It's not that I'm vehemently opposed to net neutrality. It is actually kind of a brilliant stopgap measure. But people shouldn't be focused on just saving net neutrality. We need to focus on revamping the regulatory environment that caused us to have so little competition to begin with. Let's kill franchise agreements and ridiculous pole attachment regulations to start off. What we really need is competition. With sufficient competition, we wouldn't need the government to intervene with things like net neutrality. So let's get started on fostering a healthy competitive environment, while you guys try to save net neutrality. We can do two things at once can't we?

+1
All good points. Congress has to act though. Will they?

cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL

3 recommendations

cb14

Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

said by Anon24211 :

+1
All good points. Congress has to act though. Will they?

They will not, and you know that. That's why these are not good points, rather a propagandistic blabla, trying to play down the importance of another horrific action by this administration.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

9 recommendations

Karl Bode to Selenia

News Guy

to Selenia
No. They're not only gutting oversight, they're actively working to undermine broadband deployment metrics to try and hide the lack of competition.

Yes, in an ideal world, you wouldn't need net neutrality rules (or many other regulations) if you had competition. But I'm not sure it could be made any clearer that both parties are entirely unwilling to actually embrace policies that would accomplish this, lest it harm campaign contributions.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

-4 recommendations

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

What you overlook is even in this technologically rich generation, the concepts of our forefathers brought forth in the Constitution hold very wise, with a very deliberately light touch and small government. Regulations can cause just as many and sometimes more issues than they solve. That's what got us to the point where we need net neutrality at all. Face it, at least in major Metro areas, providing internet service even where there is an incumbent is a very profitable venture. Wireless can be profitable even in sparsely populated areas. Look at the hard time that Google has had with the regulatory environment as far as getting their fiber out to people. We're talking a billionaire company here. How do you think somebody who is not Google is going to fare against the incumbents? Exactly! Regulations caused this problem, but more regulation is never a long-term solution to a problem caused by regulation. That's why I don't oppose net neutrality, but I consider it a short-term solution until we can fix the regulatory environment in general. No, I don't think it's time to be yanking it out from under us but you got a Verizon shill as FCC chairman.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

2 edits

4 recommendations

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: You're all gonna die!

quote:
Regulations can cause just as many and sometimes more issues than they solve.
True. In this case though, net neutrality rules were a stopgap measure until somebody in government adopts policies that truly drive competition. Instead of just letting AT&T, Comcast and Verizon dictate federal and state positions on things.
quote:
Regulations caused this problem, but more regulation is never a long-term solution to a problem caused by regulation.
That's a common, but a overly-simplistic Libertarianesque reading of the situation. It's lazy thinking. It lets people just declare that all regulation is always bad without weighing the merits of each instance of regulation based on the available evidence and data.

If you obliterated the FCC tomorrow, telecom utopia wouldn't just magically spring forth from the sidewalks. Comcast and AT&T would still have monopoly control over the last mile, and they'd still all but own state legislatures in countless states.

Gutting some modest, popular, stopgap net neutrality regulations (supported by most of the people who built the damn internet, I'll remind you) without first fixing the underlying corruption only makes the problem worse.

Assuming you're open minded (a foolish assumption these days I'll admit) I'd suggest you read this:

»www.techdirt.com/article ··· ty.shtml

And when you finish that, read this:

»www.techdirt.com/article ··· ty.shtml

cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL

2 recommendations

cb14

Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

said by Karl Bode:

Assuming you're open minded (a foolish assumption these days I'll admit) ....

A foolish assumption indeed. We are in the post fact era. remember the recent Flat Earth convention?
I could have never imagined the 21st century would look like that.

Anondec75
@cox.net

3 recommendations

Anondec75 to Selenia

Anon

to Selenia
It's going to be legal to block, impair, and degrade all interconnects with your hypothetical "future ISP competition." Things are going to get much, much worse.

Regulatory capture is what caused this, not regulations themselves. Notice how you don't want to break up large ISP's to promote actual competition.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

said by Anondec75 :

It's going to be legal to block, impair, and degrade all interconnects with your hypothetical "future ISP competition." Things are going to get much, much worse.

Regulatory capture is what caused this, not regulations themselves. Notice how you don't want to break up large ISP's to promote actual competition.

It might be legal, but with competition having to actually have merit for people to choose their product over others, it's not likely. Tier 1 backbones have no incentive to block or degrade those they peer with. They either get return access(settlement free) or money(paid peering) for the bits they pass. They still move packets for the long haul. That is not changing. What would be changing is the last mile in the form of competition. The only way to compete in a healthy market is with product and pricing.

kevinds
Premium Member
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB

kevinds to Anondec75

Premium Member

to Anondec75
said by Anondec75 :

Notice how you don't want to break up large ISP's to promote actual competition.

How is that going to promote actual competition?

Comcast gets split up.. It becomes NewComcast1 in one city, NewComcast2 in another, NewComcast3 in another again.. Still no competition.. These new companies are smaller, but still not in competition with each other.

Am I missing something?

As for regulations being the problem.. If the FTC/FCC/FDA regulations are the 'real' problem do you also believe the companies that these agencies regulate would behave honesty and moral if these agencies were shut down in 2018?
TheMasterFab
join:2016-02-17

TheMasterFab

Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

It would seem to me the intent behind breaking up giant monopolies is to take away their ability to buy politicians and keep them dancing all the way through Congress to pass anti-competitive legislation. Breaking up the monopolies themselves doesn't create competition, but it encourages it. We broke up AT&T and look where it got us: the same, tired old shit we had in the 1960s. The names might've changed, but the song remains the same.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

Sad some politicians are so corrupt that we need to intervene with breaking up private Enterprise on a supposedly free market because we can't trust them not to take bribes.

Titus
Mr Gradenko
join:2004-06-26

2 recommendations

Titus to Selenia

Member

to Selenia
said by Selenia:

What you overlook is even in this technologically rich generation, the concepts of our forefathers brought forth in the Constitution hold very wise, with a very deliberately light touch and small government.

Karl covered everything but this. First, it's both an inane equivalence and logical fallacy to apply anything, conceptually or otherwise, from 1787 to 2017. The only reason this patently tired founding fathers meme still has legs is that most people either don't realize said fathers were basically rich overlords that set out to reign in mob-rule, or have guzzled the American Exceptionalism Koolaid till the sugar rotted their brains.

I mean, you'd think between knowing how many early presidents were from the same Class and states and who championed legislation like the Three-Fifths Compromise would be enough. But I guess not since the glorious acts of their political spawn, Trail of Tears ring a bell? never enter the conversation.

Maybe next time the urge strikes to run these shameless bastards up a flag pole, perhaps run a decent history book up there first.

dolphins
Clean Up Our Oceans
Premium Member
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ

1 recommendation

dolphins

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

Right on!

These flag waving constitutionalists obstruct progress and want to preserve an idealism that is no longer viable. The Constitution was constructed to accept changes known as the "Amendments" to adapt to the ever changing environment. It was conceived with the rights of individuals in mind so that no government or entity should be allowed to oppress the people or violate said rights. The founding fathers could not have ever conceived and did not plan for corporations to have the power and influence they have today. Giving corporations the same rights as individuals was and is a big mistake. Doing so has given them more power, influence and control over the rights of individuals which is unconstitutional.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

You really don't know what you're saying do you? I suggest you go back and read the Constitution that everybody still has to swear to uphold to either become a member of government or legal immigrant. It doesn't dictate the rule of law or do very much to restrict the individual even if it's a corporation being considered that individual. It's to protect from a government becoming too big and restricting freedom. A concept that is very much alive both here and especially some places overseas like North Korea. Heck, if our government actually followed the 4th amendment, wholesale collection of our communications would be illegal, among other things.
TheMasterFab
join:2016-02-17

TheMasterFab to dolphins

Member

to dolphins
I don't know why you're so insistent on playing these little identity politics games, as if the Republicans are the sole enemy of this country's progress. If you're falling for the two party scam, you've already failed. Neither party cares about you, the Constitution, or what you think. At the Senate level, Republicans and Democrats are basically one and the same. You don't get there by representing your base's interests. You get there by genuflecting before your corporate and ideological masters. People like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are every bit as toxic as people like Kirsten Gillibrand, who ironically had no issues with Bill Clinton's sexual improprieties in office, but seems to take issue with Trump's.

But tell me more about how Democrats are the party of progressivism.

dolphins
Clean Up Our Oceans
Premium Member
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ

dolphins

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

You really have to ask? Right-Wing extremism that the Republicans have turned a blind eye to further their own agenda must be eradicated and never allowed to prosper again. It cannot be allowed to dominate forums and spread via social media. People are angry confused and fearful about the direction of this country. Our president is a narcissistic psychopath and there has never been someone so unqualified to be president in our nation's history, including Bush Jr. He has a black heart and is rotten to the core.

I live in the real world. Like it or not, we have a 2 party system of government, to say otherwise is deliberate ignorance. Personally I vote for the best candidate.

All you have to do is look at the past 50 years of US history to see that Republican policies for the most part favors the rich and robs from the poor. This country is not sustainable under said policies. Time and time again, under Republican rule this country has amassed debt, stagnated the economy and has done irreparable harm to the environment. You don't have to look very far, just look the state of California which was failing in every way under Republican rule but under Democratic rule is now a leading economy, is paving the way for a clean and safe environment and is an example for the rest of the country to follow.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

Ronald Reagan was the epitome of traditional conservative small government economic policies and from what I remember, everyone was benefiting. The rich were investing here due to tax cuts and employing Americans to produce American goods that people bought for their homes. Our economy was healthy, there was lots of innovation, there were jobs, a shrinking deficeit, and 8% year over year GDP growth. I fail to see the issue with having the money the rich earn returned to the domestic economy and the money shipped overseas repatriotized(bringing value to the economy without inflation), instead of donated to growing that money toilet known as the government. The sooner liberals realize that big government and associated spending is the problem, the better.

dolphins
Clean Up Our Oceans
Premium Member
join:2001-08-22
Westville, NJ

1 edit

-1 recommendation

dolphins

Premium Member

Re: You're all gonna die!

There are Conservative facts and there are TRUE facts. At the time Reagan took office Corporate CEOs made an average of 78 times more than employees. Thanks to Reaganomics, deregulation and the trends created by such irresponsible policies, CEOs make more than 1000 times their employees today. Contrary to Conservative talking points, the top earners do not put the money back into the economy instead they hoard it and continue to amass wealth beyond that which they could ever spend. furthermore in order to pay for the tax cuts for the rich Reagan increased Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes taking more money out of the average workers paycheck. Due to his failing policies and increased military spending (Star Wars) Reagan went on to increase income taxes 11 times throughout his 2 terms which became known as the largest tax increases during peacetime of any president in US history. The U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years of Reaganomics.

Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%

George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%

Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%

George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%

Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%

Anondec75
@cox.net

1 recommendation

Anondec75 to Selenia

Anon

to Selenia
said by Selenia:

Let's kill franchise agreements and ridiculous pole attachment regulations to start off. What we really need is competition. With sufficient competition, we wouldn't need the government to intervene with things like net neutrality. So let's get started on fostering a healthy competitive environment, while you guys try to save net neutrality. We can do two things at once can't we?

What kind of "internet" do you think all these new competitors will be delivering? Notice I put quotations around "internet" because you will have no clue what your ISP will allow you to access on their internet.

pclover
join:2008-08-02
Santa Cruz, CA

4 edits

1 recommendation

pclover to Selenia

Member

to Selenia
This is well put. Unsure why your getting so many down votes.

People keep wrongly thinking and stating that NN will fix pricing and caps which it does zip for.

As I said over and over it would be very easy for Comcast and others to lower the caps to insane low levels and charge insane overages to force people to sign up for cable tv services. In doing this they can in effect shut down 3rd party companies such as Netflix by making it cheaper to sign up for typical TV subscription. But in doing this they can claim they are net neutral.

If you regulate ISPs as a utility it has to be done so in reasonable manner but historically has been done badly with utility companies being allowed to get away with a lot of crap.

So basically if you have two choices here to actually solve the problems. ACTUAL competition or reasonable regulation as a utility. History shows the 2nd option isn't always great.

If we want to start to create a environment were competition can happen the DOJ needs to do their job and enforce the anti-trust act. Don't let people like Comcast, AT&T, etc becoming the monopolies that they are now. They broke up AT&T in 1983. They can do it again with other companies.

Congress needs to prevent these no-compete clauses in contracts and shut down bills that allow this kind of crap.

Loosening the regulations for people to build out new infrastructure would be a good thing as well instead of months of delays and cost.

And speaking too much regulation can can issues Cruzio here appears to want to build out fiber soon but they are fighting the city for permits.

Anon4a369
@verizon.net

Anon4a369 to Selenia

Anon

to Selenia
Remove all of those you want. IT WONT BRING ANY COMPEITITON! PERIOD. Every single isp has said this, it does not my financial senece for a company to over build 5 other companys. ZERO. Want to bring competition enforce title 2 with open last mile requirement. You know how it was like when dsl was title 2 and I had 10 dsl providers in my area that went up and poof the day title 2 was removed to make it fair vs "cable" instead of putting cable under title 2. But I guess everyone expect companys to spend millions to over build each other lol you would fail at a isp owner.

Anon91be1
@digitalocean.com

1 recommendation

Anon91be1

Anon

Link in story no good to FCC/FTC agreement doc

Here is the good link:
»apps.fcc.gov/edocs_publi ··· 92A1.pdf

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 recommendation

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Link in story no good to FCC/FTC agreement doc

Thank you, just had some botched html in there. Fixed.

Anon083b2
@2607:f050.x

Anon083b2

Anon

FTC will be there...

To protect the interests of big corporations!