Powell is saying, "no blocking and no throttling of lawful content," which is
already miles ahead of this corrupt FCC's position. But on this point:
"Despite Powell's claim of 'common ground,' his statement on paid
prioritization illustrates a divide between the broadband industry and
proponents of net neutrality rules. Obama-era Federal Communications Commission
rules banned paid prioritization as well as blocking and throttling, while
Trump's FCC overturned the ban on all three practices."
First point, Powell is only talking about some kind of "public benefit"
service, getting this prioritization. He seems to really mean "public benefit,"
as in, for emergencies. If he truly means that, then there's little
disagreement between him and the Wheeler FCC, on this point. And, the giant
ISPs should have nothing to cheer about. Not the kind of prioritization that
will get them more revenues. If the giants are cheering, it's because, to them,
"public benefit" can be interpreted in any number of ways. That's the problem.
On the broader point of prioritization, the Wheeler FCC did its homework, as
opposed to proposing vague and impractical ideas. You cannot, in practice,
avoid throttling, if you are giving someone subscribing to a service with a
given broadband speed, "paid prioritization." It doesn't even matter who is
doing the "paying." Whether it's the web site, or the subscriber, any packets
hogging the "fast lane" will be causing other packets to be shoved over to the
"slow lane." This sort of prioritization works by putting the privileged
packets always toward the head of the queue, assuming there is a queue. But for
emergencies, for actual "public benefit" situations, Wheeler's FCC did not
object to prioritization. So that's a non-issue.
"Powell said that ISPs would support net neutrality rules if they aren't
imposed using the FCC's Title II authority over common carriers. Wheeler argued
that supporting an open Internet without supporting common carrier rules is
kind of like saying, 'I'm for justice; I'm just not for the courts overseeing
it.'"
I'd make that point even simpler. The current Chairman is so out to lunch that
he FAVORS blocking and throttling, if it benefits a handful of giant ISPs. As
to using some other vehicle than Title II, even some Republican Congressmen
told the crook in charge to wait until they could come up with something,
before repealing the neutrality guarantee. How much good did that do?
In short, in the time I've been following the FCC, I've never seen a more
overtly corrupt Chairman, more intent on shirking his duties and
responsibilities, than this one. Any arguments between Powell and Wheeler pale,
in comparison.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/02/cable-lobby-asks-for-net-neutrality-law-allowing-paid-prioritization/
Cable lobby asks for net neutrality law allowing paid prioritization
NCTA says paid prioritization should be allowed if it creates "public benefit."
Jon Brodkin - 2/7/2019, 4:20 PM
Cable industry chief lobbyist Michael Powell today asked Congress for a net
neutrality law that would ban blocking and throttling but allow Internet
providers to charge for prioritization under certain circumstances.
Powell-a Republican who was FCC chairman from 2001 to 2005 and is now CEO of
cable lobby group NCTA-spoke to lawmakers today at a Communications and
Technology subcommittee hearing on net neutrality (see a transcript of Powell's
prepared testimony).
Powell said there is "common ground around the basic tenets of net neutrality
rules: There should be no blocking or throttling of lawful content. There
should be no paid prioritization that creates fast lanes and slow lanes, absent
public benefit. And, there should be transparency to consumers over network
practices."
Despite Powell's claim of "common ground," his statement on paid prioritization
illustrates a divide between the broadband industry and proponents of net
neutrality rules. Obama-era Federal Communications Commission rules banned paid
prioritization as well as blocking and throttling, while Trump's FCC overturned
the ban on all three practices. Net neutrality advocates are trying to restore
those rules in full in a court case against the FCC, and any net neutrality law
proposed by Democrats in Congress would likely mirror the Obama-era FCC rules.
Republican lawmakers are preparing legislation that would impose weaker rules.
Powell's proposal for paid prioritization is full of caveats: "There should be
no paid prioritization that creates fast lanes and slow lanes, absent public
benefit." His testimony to Congress didn't explain how ISPs can charge online
services for prioritization without dividing Internet access into fast lanes
and slow lanes, and his statement seems to indicate that slow lanes would be
allowed as long as the paid prioritization creates some "public benefit." How
"public benefit" would be defined or who would determine which paid priority
schemes benefit the public are not clear.
Powell complains about endless debate
Powell also complained that the net neutrality debate has "swirled endlessly
without a stable conclusion" over the past 15 years and "is caught in an
infinite loop."
"Net neutrality rules have moved into the courts now four different times, each
taking years of exhausting and expensive litigation to complete," Powell said.
But that "infinite loop" didn't just come from nowhere-the cable industry
helped create it. Comcast challenged the FCC's authority to prevent throttling
a decade ago, ultimately leading to the imposition of net neutrality rules.
NCTA and other industry groups sued the FCC to overturn the rules but lost in
2016.
The FCC's court win over the industry could have been the end of the net
neutrality debate. But NCTA and others kept pushing for the rules to be
overturned, and the FCC obliged after Trump appointed Ajit Pai chairman.
But now, Pai's repeal is in danger of being overturned by the same court that
upheld the Obama-era net neutrality rules. Congress could end the debate with a
law, but it's probably a long shot, since Democrats control the House and
Republicans control the Senate.
Net neutrality and public safety
Pai's repeal of net neutrality rules "has been a disaster for consumers,"
Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) and Communications and
Technology Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) said before today's
hearing.
Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) discussed Verizon's throttling of firefighters from
Santa Clara County during last year's Mendocino Complex Fire.
"People's lives were at stake, and firefighters weren't able to communicate
with each other to get the directions they needed to do their jobs," Eshoo said
at the hearing. "The 2015 Open Internet rules [that were repealed] could have
prevented this because there were specific exemptions for public safety."
Public safety continued to play a role in today's hearing as Powell and former
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler debated paid prioritization. Powell claimed-falsely,
according to Wheeler-that a ban on paid prioritization could prevent
prioritization of public safety services.
"When I was chairman, I was a huge champion of public safety, and I think it's
a perfect example of why we should be careful about what we mean by 'no
prioritization,'" Powell said. "There are societal uses that we will all agree
should enjoy a higher priority over other uses."
Wheeler responded to Powell, saying, "there's just one thing you left out...
prioritization of public safety activities was specifically allowed for under
the 2015 rules." Wheeler led the FCC when it implemented the net neutrality
rules. The Pai-led FCC's repeal of those rules allows ISPs to throttle data
services and deprives consumers of an agency to lodge complaints with, Wheeler
said.
"It's not just the firefighters and policemen who are affected by the lack of
an open Internet," Wheeler said. "It's also the people who are the victims of
those emergencies who themselves need to get online and are experiencing the
same blocking or throttling realities and, as a result of the decision by the
FCC, have nowhere to go."
Powell said that ISPs would support net neutrality rules if they aren't imposed
using the FCC's Title II authority over common carriers. Wheeler argued that
supporting an open Internet without supporting common carrier rules "is kind of
like saying, 'I'm for justice; I'm just not for the courts overseeing it.'"
Wheeler further argued that Title II common carrier rules are important to
safeguard Internet openness in the future, because broadband providers could
unveil harmful practices that aren't addressed by the bans on blocking,
throttling, and paid prioritization.
"We do not know what the Internet is going to be, and we can't sit here and
make Netflix-era decisions that we assume will apply tomorrow," Wheeler said.
If Congress creates a net neutrality law, it should allow for "a referee on the
field with the ability to throw the flag for unjust and unreasonable activity,"
Wheeler said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
