Battle Over Net Neutrality Not Over Yet

Well, here's one potential way to get around the Federal Communications Commission's recently enacted net neutrality rules. Via National Journal:

House Republicans are not giving up on their quest to block the Federal Communications Commission from implementing its open Internet rules.

The House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee is set to take up a fiscal 2012 spending bill on Thursday that includes language barring the FCC from using any of its funding to put into effect the rules, which bar broadband providers from discriminating against Internet content, services or applications.

The appropriations bill also would cut funding for the FCC by $17 million over the fiscal 2011 level and would provide $40 million less than what President Obama asked for in his budget request.

The problem with this approach, as with other legislative tactics, is that it requires Senate approval. That's just not realistic. It's far more plausible at this point that the rules will be invalidated through the court system. Verizon has already filed one suit against the new rules. That suit was tossed out on a technicality, but the technical violation—essentially, Verizon filed too early—isn't likely to do anything other than delay a legal reckoning of some kind for the FCC's rules.

Read my March, 2011 feature on the battle to enact net neutrality rules here. 

Comments

[Sinic]

Net neutrality = regulatory foot in the door

[Pope Jimbo]

If the Senate doesn't approve the budget proposed by the House, and the House doesn't offer up a different version, does that mean that the FCC gets nothing?

IIRC the Senate can't originate any spending bills itself. I'd hope the House would stand strong and let the Senate know that it is their way or the information super hiway.

[Judge Smails]

you'll get nothing and like it!

[Judge Smails]

you'll get nothing and like it!

[cynical]

"IIRC the Senate can't originate any spending bills itself. "

Yes, but it can take a random House bill, completely blank it out, and then add "amended" language that is essentially an all new spending bill.

Obviously against the spirit of the law, but all levels of government in our country are dishonorable and morally bankrupt.

[WuxBobo]

Wow, OK, thats like the coolest thing I have ever seen dude.

http://www.complete-privacy.no.tc

[Fist of Etiquette]

From hell's heart, the FCC stabs at thee. For hate's sake, the FCC spits its last breath at thee.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

But but but..... COMCAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Matrix]

Net neutrality is dirty. But the solution to the problem of ISPs blocking or throttling down certain traffic is not by federal regulation. It is through competition. Unfortunately, very little if any competition exists because of local government established monopolies. No, DSL is not competitive with Cable. DSL sucks horribly. Satellite and dial-up are anachronisms in today's world.

[stuartl]

True, my only options are cable, FiOS, satellite, DSL and using a mobile phone from any of the 3G or 4G providers.

[Matrix]

My only options are DSL (3 mbps and slow as friggin hell), and 3G, which is impractical considering how much I use the internet. Again, satellite is not an option. It is completely unacceptable. Slow ass speeds, extremely limited bandwidth, and twice as much as any mid-tiered service.

The local cable company royally screwed us. We were under contract with them for 2 years. My roommates bought a home in another town, but in their service area. We asked if they serviced that house. The company rep said "yes." So we moved in and called to get them to install our service. The house is a new construction. The nearest hub is about 150 yards away. They did not want to run a line to our property. So, they cancelled our service and slammed us with a $180 cancellation fee.... bastards. But AT&T is our DSL provider, and we loathe them, even moreso than we did our cable provider.

[cynical]

I think libertarians should probably consider compromise, in this particular case (as we do with most issues tied to rights-of-way and topology).

Specifically, push a more liberty-friendly "net neutrality bill", that would
1) Drive a wall of separation between the low-level of networking and the services built on it, treating the former as a common carrier. Thus, AT&T's network side would have to sell bandwidth to U-Verse and any competing IPTV service at the same cost (and VOIP services would also pay the same rates, and cell phone backhaul, and so on), treat the packets the same and so on. Deep packet inspection would probably need to be banned, as there would not be many legitimate uses for it in a common carrier paradigm.
2) Explicitly deny the FCC any authority over the service layer. That is, the FCC would not be allowed to regulate VOIP, IPTV, etc., nor any web service.
3) Strip the FCC of any content-censorship capacity, in all circumstances (that is, including broadcast media). Even if "community standards" were a legimitate exception to the first amendment, the FCC is too centralized to represent the variety of standards in "communities".

[Overt]

Totally agreed, Cynical, but I would take it a bit further.

If you as a company are granted "last mile Monopoly" you are allowed to provide connectivity only. Make your money on the Data however you want (within the regulations of the monopoly-granting government) but you may NOT sell any services. No ISP, No Cable, No Email, No Phone. You provide the pipe and the packets.

Currently, phone companies are expected to provide access to their infrastructure for competitors. So AT&T may offer DSL, but they are expected to let EarthLink or LightDSL access to provide the same service to customers. This never works. Sure, AT&T technically allows this, but they make it as difficult as hell for the competitors because there is a conflict of interest.

Instead, if the monopoly were limited to providing transit only, All the service providers would compete for telephone, cable, isp, email, etc service equally.

[Brandybuck]

My DSL is a fourth the speed of cable. But it only costs me... wait for it... a fourth as much!

[anon]

I really want that shirt.

[Appalachian Australian]

The problem with opposing net neutrality is that most existing telecommunications infrastructure is based upon exclusive leases of government-owned land or exclusive cable TV franchises with municipal governments.

We'd be in much better shape of property owners of premises served by telecommunications providers/the providers themselves actually bothered to own the land through which their equipment runs and if they stopped paying bribes to local governments.

[Sandy]

It's okay. As long as it's not the government doing it, I don't mind my rights and privacy being trampled on. It's okay when my ISP does it.

So I guess in a year I'll have to pay Comcast extra for a Netflix account, and have to uninstall uTorrent because Comcast hates filesharing (perhaps related to their merger with NBC?) regardless of the legality of the content.

Sure wish I lived in one of them nice fancy homes with 4 different cable lines and FiOS service so I could pick and choose.

Honestly, though, as much as I hate government intervention, protecting consumer rights and privacy is something I'm totally in favor of. My ISP doesn't need to control what I browse, stream, or download any more than Ford needs to control where I drive and whose gasoline I use.

[Coeus]

Your ISP isn't subject to scope creep.

[Overt]

Right sandy, because you have a right to use Comcast's services HOWEVER you want. if you decide to lock down 80% of their capacity with your porn torrents, they shouldn't be able to do anything about that.

I have no illusions that the existing market is perfect. But reform will never happen as long as people insist that they have "rights" to use other peoples' property and rights to privacy while doing that. It just isn't that simple.

[Sandy]

So what exactly do I pay for "unlimited" "high speed" access for? I don't have the right to use their network and the right to expect some measure of privacy while doing it? Then why does Comcast send me a bill every month?

Granted, it's already not actually "unlimited" since they have an admitted hidden cap despite advertising it as "unlimited". Which for some reason the government is okay with. But since I'm not exceeding that cap, don't I have the right to use the service I, you know, paid for?

You make it sound like I'm intentionally trying to screw Comcast by overusing their network, rather than trying to use the internet I'm paying for for the services they advertise it as being good for, such as gaming, streaming HD video, high speed downloads, etc. The services they list on their advertisements. Don't take my word for it, look at Comcast's web page for new subscribers. They're the exact same services they want to control and charge extra for.

I have the right to use Comcast's network. I have a contract that explicitly says I have that right. I pay a lot for it. That's why I insist on using that right. All I want to do is be left alone to use the network that I pay to have access to.

And yes, I do insist on not being pestered or spied on to make sure Comcast approves of what I do online. Why is that a problem?