Naïve or just plain disingenuous? And, continuous mention of "President Obama,"
to identify a neutrality mandate that the vast majority of citizens insisted
and insist on, just makes our Chairman sound like one of the lunatic fringe
yahoos. He is being the stubborn tyrant here. Not Obama.
Some of these have been debunked many times, such as "falling investment." Of
course, the Chairman prefers to only listen to the self-serving quotes of the
special interests in these matters.
Companies now providing broadband service have a very long history of charging
different rates for different content, of blocking content, of deciding what
gets bundled into different price plans. In cahoots with content owners,
usually, but so what? It happens constantly. So what's this nonsense that this
never happened? It has happened for decades, and continues to. It is in the
culture of broadband provider companies.
If Title II is bad for competition, how come there was so much ISP competition
during the Title II telephone line dialup era? Conversely, if lack of Title II
for broadband service was so wonderful for competition, how come there was
virtually NO competition for broadband service from 2000 to 2015? The very
OBVIOUS effect of Title II has been to promote competition. Anything else is
just unfounded blather.
And then, "Trust me," he is saying. Restoring the "freedom" to less than a
handful of companies, to do whatever they please, will create faster, cheaper,
better broadband. We have about 40 years of MVPD experience that says
otherwise. Nothing but rising prices, and bloated bundles.
If individual web sites want to provide "curated services," confound it, it
doesn’t mean that the monopolistic broadband provider is doing that for
subscribers. It only means that the user can pick and choose what web site
"curated services" he wants to use. There are zillions of web sites out there,
for everyone to use, thanks to a net neutrality mandate. Does he really not get
it?
And quit it with the FTC already. Telecoms for non-government use are YOUR JOB.
DO YOUR JOB.
If the FCC found fraudulent comments, many identical ones from very few
sources, it is incumbent upon the FCC to make the effort to take those away.
Form letters per se are perfectly fine, if they are sourced from different
individuals. No problem at all. Happens all the time, when petitions are passed
around, or when people are asked to contact their congressmen. So, pay
attention to the legitimate comments. You will find no difference in the
result. The vast majority DEMAND a net neutrality guarantee.
The Supreme Court made it very clear that DSL and cable broadband should both
be classified under Title II. I quoted that recently. "Light touch" Title II if
you like, but regardless, a clear neutrality mandate. DO YOUR JOB.
Courts, do the right thing.
Bert
-----------------------------------------
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1128/DOC-347961A1.pdf
Myth vs. Fact
Setting the Record Straight on Chairman Pai’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order
MYTH: This is the end of the Internet as we know it.
FACT: The Internet was free and open before the Obama Administration’s 2015
heavy-handed Title II Internet regulations, and it will be free and open after
they are repealed.
MYTH: Startups will not be able to compete without Title II regulations.
FACT: Entrepreneurs starting new businesses online thrived long before Title II
regulations, and they will continue to flourish with more opportunities to
innovate once those regulations are repealed. Indeed, companies like Google,
Facebook, Netflix, and Twitter all started and experienced tremendous growth
under the previous light-touch rules.
MYTH: Internet service providers will block you from visiting the websites you
want to visit.
FACT: Internet service providers didn’t block websites before the Obama
Administration’s heavy-handed 2015 Internet regulations and won’t after they
are repealed. Any Internet service provider would be required to publicly
disclose this practice and would face fierce consumer backlash as well as
scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission, which will have renewed authority
to police unfair, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices.
MYTH: Investment has flourished under the current regulatory framework.
FACT: Following the adoption of the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed
Internet regulations, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a
row—the first time that’s happened outside of a recession in the Internet era.
MYTH: Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach
certain online content.
FACT: This didn’t happen before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed
Internet regulations, and it won’t happen after they are repealed.
MYTH: The current regulatory framework is good for competition.
FACT: Title II regulations are bad for competition. They disproportionately
burden the small Internet service providers and new entrants that are best
positioned to introduce more competition into the broadband marketplace.
MYTH: This will result in “fast lanes” and “slow lanes” on the Internet that
will worsen consumers’ online experience.
FACT: Restoring Internet freedom will lead to better, faster, and cheaper
broadband for consumers and give startups that need priority access (such as
telehealth applications) the chance to offer new services to consumers.
MYTH: Internet service will be provided in bundles like cable television as has
happened in Portugal.
FACT: The Obama FCC itself made clear that the current rules in the United
States permit bundled offerings—or “curated” services, as they called it. So
the law regarding bundled services will not change. Furthermore, the Portugal
comparison is false; Portugal has net neutrality rules, yet plans are still
offered there that allow consumers to supplement their mobile data plans with
additional data packages containing specific bundles of apps.
MYTH: Title II regulations are good for innovation.
FACT: President Obama’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet regulations have deterred
companies from introducing new services and features. For instance, one major
Internet service provider has stated that it put on hold its plans to build out
its out-of-home Wi-Fi network because of the uncertainty surrounding the rules.
MYTH: Reversing Title II regulations will compromise consumers’ online privacy.
FACT: Repealing the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed Internet regulations
will promote consumers’ online privacy. Those regulations stripped the Federal
Trade Commission of authority to protect Americans’ broadband privacy. The plan
to restore Internet freedom, by contrast, will put the federal government’s
most experienced privacy cop back on the beat.
MYTH: Repealing Title II regulations will make it harder for disadvantaged
Americans to get online.
FACT: Restoring Internet freedom will lead to greater investment in building
and expanding broadband networks in rural and low-income areas as well as
additional competition—leading to better, faster, cheaper Internet access for
all Americans, including those on the wrong side of the digital divide.
MYTH: The Federal Trade Commission is not well equipped and has far fewer
powers to protect consumers from misconduct by Internet service providers.
FACT: The Federal Trade Commission has broad authority to police unfair,
deceptive, and anticompetitive practices online and has brought over 500
enforcement actions to protect consumers online, including actions against
Internet service providers and some of the biggest companies in the online
ecosystem. And unlike the FCC, the Federal Trade Commission can order consumer
redress (such as refunds) for violations of federal law.
MYTH: More than 22 million people have filed comments with the agency. They
overwhelmingly want the FCC to preserve and protect net neutrality.
FACT: The commenting process is not an opinion poll—and for good reason. For
example, one third of all comments consist of a single, pro-Title II sentence:
“I am in favor of strong net neutrality under Title II of the
Telecommunications Act.” These 7,568,949 identical comments, however, are
associated with only 50,508 unique names and street addresses. Indeed,
7,562,080 of these comments come from 45,001 “individuals” using email
addresses from fakemailgenerator.com and submitting the same comment more than
90 times each. In another example, over 400,000 comments supporting Title II
purport to come from “individuals” residing at the same address in Russia. In
any case, as required by federal law, the Chairman’s plan is based on the facts
and the law rather than the quantity of comments. You can see this for yourself
at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf.
MYTH: You can’t abandon the court-approved Title II rules without a change in
circumstances.
FACT: The Supreme Court has reviewed and upheld only one framework for the
Internet—the light-touch framework that the FCC is returning to. And court
precedent makes clear that the FCC can return to that framework without any
change in circumstances.
###
Office of Chairman Ajit Pai: (202) 418-2000
Twitter: @AjitPaiFCC
www.fcc.gov/leadership/ajit-pai
