AT&T Calls For Net Neutrality Laws After Fighting To End FCC Rules (engadget.com) 126
Few people would call AT&T a champion of net neutrality, but that isn't stopping it from trying to claim the title. From a report: CEO Randall Stephenson has posted an open letter calling on Congress to write an "Internet Bill of Rights" that enforces "neutrality, transparency, openness, non-discrimination and privacy protection" for American internet users. They would not only defend consumer rights, Stephenson argues, but establish "consistent rules of the road" that give internet companies and telecoms an idea of what they can expect. The company chief also insisted that AT&T honored an open internet and doesn't block, throttle or otherwise hinder access to content.
The problem, as you might suspect, is what the company isn't saying. The US already had protections for net neutrality that do what it's asking for, but AT&T and other telecoms have spent years fighting net neutrality regulation whenever it comes up. The carrier spent over $16 million in lobbying just in 2017, and it maintained its anti-regulatory stance throughout the FCC's repeal process.
The problem, as you might suspect, is what the company isn't saying. The US already had protections for net neutrality that do what it's asking for, but AT&T and other telecoms have spent years fighting net neutrality regulation whenever it comes up. The carrier spent over $16 million in lobbying just in 2017, and it maintained its anti-regulatory stance throughout the FCC's repeal process.
It's a TRAP!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
ATT Haiku (Score:4)
Hey! I'm innocent!
Pro net neutrality spam?
Twas the other guy!
Slashdot is a trap... (Score:2, Insightful)
AT&T opposes net neutrality... Slashdot whines incessantly.
AT&T supports net neutrality... Slashdot whines incessantly.
Let's be honest. This isn't about net neutrality at all. It's about Slashdot looking for an excuse to whine about anything and everything.
Re: Slashdot is a trap... (Score:2, Funny)
Never miss an opportunity for meta whining though. So productive!
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck Beta.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T opposes net neutrality... Slashdot whines incessantly.
AT&T supports net neutrality... Slashdot whines incessantly.
AT&T opposed net neutrality when it mattered.
AT&T "supports" net neutrality now that their support is irrelevant.
Let's see if they continue to support NN when the Republicans lose their congressional majority, and Trump is out of office.
It's about Slashdot looking for an excuse to whine about anything and everything.
Well, there's that too.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.webpagefx.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Top-Internet-Service-Provider-State-by-State.png [webpagefx.com] It's from 2013 but I doubt that much has changed, name changes from mergers and buyouts notwithstanding...
Re:Slashdot is a trap... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's because we see through AT&T's schemes. They don't want net neutrality at all. They campaigned hard to get it revoked. Then they realized they created a hydra - with it revoked federally, all of a sudden states and cities were enacting their own regulations. Granted, the FCC might have prevented states and cities from creating their own laws, but the FCC didn't restrict states and cities requiring net neutrality for their own procurement decisions (i.e., the FCC prevents states from legislating it for their citizens, but the FCC doesn't prevent how the states and other governing agencies procure their access).
This means hundreds of individual laws and possibly the loss of very lucrative state and city government contracts when they come up for renewal. And it's not like they can opt-out since state and government contracts are lucrative enough that a company can be formed just to provide them access.
So AT&T realized they may have won the battle, but now they're facing a far more ruinous war of attrition - being bogged down in tons of paperwork because every law is slightly different
They're basically wanting the FCC to legislate something so they have one set of rules to follow instead of the half dozen and rising laws.
It's the law of unintended consequences. AT&T is no saint, they don't want net neutrality because they can't profit by selling special access. They want it simply to stem the losses of the excess paperwork they've created.
Re: (Score:1)
I am reminded of the the phrase "cut of his nose to spite his face".
Needless to say, I'm far from the only one that's just getting off the floor teary eyed with a heart filled with mirth. I can see several other states following suit pretty quickly (CA for one) and all of a sudden, a good 40-50% of the population (and a good portion of AT&Ts potential revenue) is suddenly tied to a plethora of laws they'll have to follow, or witness competition suddenly taking over chunks of their fiefdom.
Also there are people elected to make laws (Score:3)
In my mind, there are people *elected* to make laws, after a process of debate and open amendment. To keep their jobs, lawmakers have to face the voters every two years (or six years). Those people, Constitutionally charged with making law, may need to make some law around net neutrality (though very carefully, the technical details of managing a modern carrier network are complex).
Tom Wheeler was not an elected law maker. In fact, he was neither elected NOR had any Constitutional authority to unilateral
The very first sentence of the Constitution, actua (Score:2)
Come to think of it, that's the very first sentence in Article 1:
SECTION 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives
The framers decided the very first thing that needed to be understood about our system of Government is that all legislative (law making) authority is held by Congress, noone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't Congress pass some legislation to make a law that created the FCC and give it the power to regulate this stuff? That's how most governments work as the legislators can't micro-manage everything.
Congress made a law about 1934 phone (Bell) (Score:3)
You're thinking of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, specifically Title 2 of the 1934 Act. Title 2 created the FCC to regulate the phone company in certain ways. THE phone company, then officially named American Telephone and Telegraph, but branded as Bell. The FCC was given the authority to do specific things regarding the national monopoly phone company, which operated by telling the operator who you wanted to talk to and she's physically plug your line into their line.
Almost a hundred years later, Tom
Re: (Score:2)
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
The provisions of this act shall apply to all interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio and all interstate and foreign transmission of energy by radio, which originates and/or is received within the United States
It also specifically indicates it applies to cable companies, but that should be obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
Supremacy clause confirmed in 1964 (Score:2)
By 1964, and probably earlier, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution applies strongly to the 1934 act - states cannot step on the FCC's regulation. Congress gave the FCC full authority to regulate nationwide and did not allow for state and local changes.
Re: (Score:1)
By 1964, and probably earlier, the Supreme Court had confirmed that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution applies strongly to the 1934 act - states cannot step on the FCC's regulation. Congress gave the FCC full authority to regulate nationwide and did not allow for state and local changes.
If so, then why the specific wording in Ajit's new policy? I'm guessing because he's overstepping his bounds on localities. You see, the FCC does have limitations, as clearly indicated by the specific rulings against Wheeler's earlier policies which found he overstepped boundaries on regulating entities. He had to use existing law to make those policies work, so he classified them as Title II. Now Pai has no such ruling to fall back on, and localities have always been able to regulate providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a TRAP!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That and AT&T has probably seen the writing on the wall. They fought to end net neutrality at the federal level and now they are looking at a lot of state and local laws getting passed. So instead of one set of rules they might end up with hundreds of rules.
Well boo fucking ho. They crawled in bed with this crap. No sympathies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it's because they want the stability of rules codified into law, as opposed to the rules being able to change at a moment's notice and at the whim of the FCC.
That's right, a new Congress would never change a law that a previous Congress passed.
Re: (Score:2)
And political candidates would never use repealing their predecessors' laws as a major plank in their platform.
Re: (Score:1)
Which side one is on (Score:3)
depends a lot on how much you are vested in content. If you are an Internet provider with little content holdings then you have the option of playing gate keeper or playing neutral and not betting on winners. The short term strategy is to milk the system by gate keeping but that slows innovation and opens you to competition; the long term win is to be the best and biggest net neutral internet provider. What you don't have is the third option which is favor your own content over others.
AT&T sees two
Re: (Score:2)
That and AT&T has probably seen the writing on the wall. They fought to end net neutrality at the federal level and now they are looking at a lot of state and local laws getting passed. So instead of one set of rules they might end up with hundreds of rules.
I figure it was because they didn't want to be classified as a "Common Carrier", [wikipedia.org] which opens them up to other regulations besides net neutrality. Particularly with respect to how they can invest their money. This was the mechanism the FCC used to impose net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is poisoning you, but you can't tell without a lab test. what does it matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. I imagine Legal has finally understood the end game of revoking the 'common carrier' clause, and has communicated that to some of the higher powers.
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY... If you can't beat them...make it look like you join them?
Re: (Score:1)
So, what, you're contending that AT&T paid millions upon millions of dollars to fight the FCC's net neutrality regulations because they were the good guys and wanted to encourage the same rules only legislated by congress?
Are you high? If you're Canadian, I need to warn you, weed won't be legal until June or so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, Net Neutrality concepts (not the socialist and over regulatory parts from the FCC portion), should be enacted by congress, not a barely answereable bureaucracy.
Re:FCC vs Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
All part of the master plan. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, encode the "new" net neutrality as a law drafted by AT&T lobbyists. Set things in stone and neuter any future liberal FCCs.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Set a federal law that is actually drafted by anti-NN folks, masquerade as pro-NN, most states will defer without contest and the whole circlejerk is complete.
Re: (Score:2)
Which set of lobbyists drafted the old "net neutrality" rules?
Re: (Score:1)
This is what's really going on.
1. Get the FCC to remove real net neutrality.
2. Wait for uproar
3. Lobby hard for fake net neutrality law that's harder to remove while you have a legislature who will bend over in any direction to please you. Turn the debate from anti-net neutrality versus pro-net-neutrality into a murkier debate about the meaning of net neutrality.
4. Get more than you ever could wish for while having political cover as a "supporter of net neutrality."
Open bets.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the are merely attempting to add another lackey to their stable, to Pai they want to add Marsha Blackburn, fake representative from Tenn. She's pushing a bill masquerading as NN but in reality is merely using it to cover to attract funding for her run at Bob Corker's senate seat when he retires this year. She is incapable of feeling shame.
Bullshit (Score:3)
The company chief also insisted that AT&T honored an open internet and doesn't block, throttle or otherwise hinder access to content.
Well that's simply false. Don't believe me? Try running Exodus/Covenant on their wireless network & see how many sources you get back vs your home connection...
Re: (Score:1)
Unsurprisingly, the AC is the one who is wrong, in more ways than one.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/att-says-it-never-blocked-apps-fails-to-mention-how-it-blocked-facetime/
This is just so they can override the States (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It does seem they are bothered by state initiatives to locally enforce NN and privacy rules. One possibility is that having a mish-mash of different state laws complicates their business.
Another possibility is a slippery-slope fear that once states get comfortable adding a few local Internet regulations, they may go further. I suspect both fears are causing their rethink.
Re:This is just so they can override the States (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they prefer Congress to pass a toothless law rather then effective laws passed by the various States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except all of the proposed state initiatives I've seen have been the "You must comply with X, Y, and Z in order to do business with the state" type of thing.
I would assume they'd be within their rights to keep doing that no matter what the Federal rules were, so long as they weren't requiring something that was made illegal.
Don't trust (Score:2)
This sounds like a trap to me. The idea of a Baby Bell championing for consumer rights is just too unbelievable. The real question is, what would they actually gain?
Well, if they're involved in the process of writing these new rules, they would be in a prime position to legislate even more power to the big telecom companies while stifling smaller ISPs and the visibly growing trend of municipalities starting their own ISPs.
There may be more subtle benefits that I can't think of, but that would be the big o
Re:Don't trust (Score:5, Interesting)
They want to block individual states passing their own laws because federal law has priority over state law. When they removed the federal net neutrality rules and reclassified internet again the FCC removed their authority to block state level actions.
What ATT wants is a watered down NN that doesn't block "fast lanes" (masquerading as slow lanes for everyone that doesn't pay) and prevents state laws. In other words they want the federal NN gone because they were too strong but they still want federal rules, just really silly easy ones that they can ignore so the states can't pass their own rules.
Re: (Score:1)
This makes a lot of sense. The frightening part, it might work. They argue for for federal rules, then when anything is proposed in those rules like real hard net neutrality, they argue the FCC just repealed ones like that so obviously rules like that aren't helpful. I can see them muddying the water with this so much that it actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
The Wheeler version of Net Neutrality didn't block T Mobile's Binge On zero rating
http://www.multichannel.com/ne... [multichannel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A patchwork of laws benefits their competitors.
OK, I don't see the problem (Score:1)
What is so terrible with the idea that the people charged with coming up with laws, and are at least nominally beholden to the electorate (i.e. Congress), defining what the law is, rather than some arbitrary committee (FCC) that is entirely unaccountable to anyone? Shouldn't we WANT it to be open to a public debate, rather than a decree?
Re: (Score:2)
So I think it is great to get Net Neutrality in the law and passed by Congress. The thing is that you did not need to repeal the FCC ruling in order to achieve that.
Congress could already have written a law that enacts Net Neutrality and at the same time repeal the FCC ruling that is no longer necessary.
In other words, you usually don't sell your car and THEN buy a new one. You try to do that in a single transaction.
Re: OK, I don't see the problem (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lobby twist.. (Score:2)
Follow the money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure AT&T's idea of the legislation will include some paragraph nullifying the recent state attempts at their own net neutrality rules. Need to cut the down the number of politicians they need to bribe.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T wants a certain amount of legislation codified so it can appease the people that are pro-net neutrality. Then it can find ways to get around the law.
Find? AT&T will write the loopholes themselves. No finding will be necessary.
You know what this means, right? (Score:2)
They've got law makers, bought and paid for, waiting in the wings with copies of a "NN" law drafted by att that will look ok at first blush, only to reveal horrors unimaginable on further analysis.
God I love the smell of democracy.
Three reasons they want this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Internet version of the Patriot Act (Score:2)
This government couldn't do the right thing for a decade and it is even worse today.
They will practically write the new Federal Law to benefit them and prevent any locality from finding sensible regulations. Probably they'll try to slip in a ban for community internet (government or co-op.)
I don't think we could construct a national highway system in today's politics. Just imagine how that would play out today...
Groundhog Day (Score:2)
Do as I say... (Score:2)
...but not as I do. AT&T trying to play to public sympathy and sentiment for... whatever reason. Go fuck yourself AT&T. This is so disingenuous and practically an insult to real NN supporters.
It would be a lot easier to believe AT&T... (Score:1)
As quoted at TechDirt:
“It would be a lot easier to take AT&T at their word if they hadn't spent more than $16 million last year alone lobbying to kill net neutrality and privacy protections for Internet users,” said Evan Greer, an activist with the pro-net neutrality group Fight for the Future. “Internet activists have been warning for months that the big ISPs plan has always been to gut the rules at the FCC and then use the 'crisis' they created to ram through bad legislation in the n
I don't trust these guys BUT... (Score:2)
One valid concern they had with the FCC net neutrality is the ease and speed that the rules could change. Business likes to plan around regulation they know will be there tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Business likes to plan around regulation they know will be there tomorrow
THESE regulations in particular were ONLY changed because ANTI-Net-Neutrality Lobbyists (eg AT&T and friends) did everything they could possibly do th have them changed.
If business stopped being such whiny crybabies interfering with well established , perfectly reasonable laws there would be SIGNIFICANTLY less uncertainty.
Net neutrality for patriots (Score:2)
Yeah they're pricks. Having to plan around regulation that can change at the whims of a few unelected bureaucrats is extremely bad for business and thus bad for us too. Too bad we can't give the telecoms the inch they need for good business cause first thing they'll take a mile and bribe congress to write some consumer fucking bill full of subtle bought and paid for loopholes. "Net neutrality and child protection act for true patriots"
YATH (Score:2)
Yet Another Trojan Horse
Their proposal does nothing to prevent paid traffic prioritization or zero-rating, the meat and potatoes of actual net neutrality rules.
Just a knee-jerk reaction (Score:2)
AT&T is just reacting to the story about Montana tying Net Neutrality into state contracts, which creates headaches and potential lawsuits for any ISP that operates within Montana that wants to do business with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Montana found a way around Federal preemption which has almost the same effect as direct legislation. That is going to catch on with other states.
Called it (Score:2)
ATT and others fought to get Net Neutrality repealed only so that they could rewrite the laws they way 'they' want the lays to exist, then be able to claim that they fought to restore and improve Net Neutrality laws.....
Re: (Score:2)
for a few months
traffic shaping at scale requires hardware and they need to purchase and install it
you'll pay for the hardware by upgrading your internet to the pornhub package afterwards
Strange that that never happened in all the years up to 2015 when NN went into effect.
Let me guess, Trump* will make it happen because Trump! amirite?
Strat
* No I did not vote for Trump, I dislike the man and disagree with some of his policies and stances, I believe he has few real core beliefs and principles, but I'm not irrational in my distaste or points of opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeap, [wired.com] totally [venturebeat.com] didn't [cnet.com] happen. [consumerist.com] ISPs [slate.com] never [arstechnica.com] blocked [wired.com] or [thetyee.ca] throttled [wired.com] anything. [freepress.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeap, [wired.com] totally [venturebeat.com] didn't [cnet.com] happen. [consumerist.com] ISPs [slate.com] never [arstechnica.com] blocked [wired.com] or [thetyee.ca] throttled [wired.com] anything. [freepress.net]
But, guess what?
All those things ended quickly without requiring NN, and especially not requiring ISPs be placed under Title-II.
It's almost like NN is a solution in search of a problem, or simply an excuse to place ISPs under Title-II.
Or both.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
All those things ended quickly without requiring NN
No they didn't. Hell, just one example there. Comcast's bittorrent blocking. That literally took three years of dragging and threats from the FCC to actually resolve. It eventually ended with Comcast settling out of court to avoid class action and then they turned around and sued the FCC for over reach. THAT court case took another two years which eventually ended with the judge actually saying, Comcast is right. The FCC did over step their bounds because Comcast was not classified as Title II.
It's almost like NN is a solution in search of a problem
No, the