I've opined before that a neutrality MANDATE, unambiguous, by the FCC, the
agency entrusted with telecom regulations, is what we need and what almost
everyone wants. If not Title II, then some credible alternative. What
infuriates everyone, at least everyone who isn't being bribed to shut up,
hopelessly clueless, or who isn't one of the very few who stand to benefit from
non-neutral service, is the way this FCC wants to wash its hands of the whole
thing. Like it's someone else's job.
Well, like most truisms, even the truism that Title II is so very onerous is
perhaps not true. Certainly, this FCC Chairman has made it a habit to just
spout unsubstantiated party slogans, simplistic, prepackaged,
libertarian-sounding claptrap, without bothering to dig deeper:
"Except, again, there is nothing in the rules that are onerous. Well, unless
you're trying to screw over subscribers. As successful smaller ISP Sonic has
noted, the only regulatory burden from Title II is if you're behaving badly
towards customers. That's why over 40 small ISPs told Pai that they supported
keeping the rules, and that removing the 2015 order gives the giant broadband
companies -- Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- too much power to cut them out of the
market. For Pai to argue that this order will magically restore competition and
broadband deployment is laughable."
Always good to at least question the self-serving arguments from the tiny
handful of special interests, eh? Especially because this supposed onus is what
the FCC is basing their entire "hands-off-not-my-yob" policy on.
This article too makes one wonder, if the FCC were truly corrupt, would it
behave any differently? And implied in the very last sentence of the article,
the evident inability of this Chairman to grasp the difference between a web
site and a broadband service provider, and why they should be regulated
differently, should make everyone wonder. That level of ignorance, from the
FCC, should not be acceptable, no? And never mind dismissing out of hand the
millions of public comments. Talk about "tyrants."
Ultimately, what Hollywood actors may or may not have to say is a huge "who
cares." Another one of this Chairman's distractions.
Courts, do the right thing.
Bert
---------------------------------------------------
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171129/22340038703/absent-facts-to-support-repealing-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-wildly-attacking-hollywood-tweeters.shtml
Absent Facts To Support Repealing Net Neutrality, Ajit Pai Wildly Attacking
Hollywood Tweeters
from the well,-that's-one-strategy dept
Say That Again
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Nov 30th 2017 10:50am
As the old lawyer saying goes: "When the facts are on your side, pound the
facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your
side, pound the table." It appears that FCC chair Ajit Pai has taken that to
heart. Neither the law, nor the facts are on his side with regards to his
attempt to gut net neutrality, so he's done the modern equivalent of pounding
the table: blame Hollywood and the internet companies for the fact that almost
everyone disagrees with his plan to kill net neutrality.
The law is against him, because in order to reverse the order from the previous
FCC, Pai needs to show that this change is not "arbitrary and capricious." Many
people falsely assume that the FCC can just make whatever rule it wants, and
thus with every change of the FCC the rules can flip flop. But that's not how
it works. While the courts give strong deference to administrative agencies in
their decision-making capabilities, one area where the courts will push back is
if a regulatory change is found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law." The courts have
already upheld the 2015 Open Internet Order by Tom Wheeler as legitimate, where
that FCC showed that reclassifying broadband as a Title II service was
perfectly reasonable based on the changes to the market conditions since
broadband was declared a Title I information service a decade or so earlier.
So, for Pai's plan to actually pass judicial scrutiny, he has to prove that the
market has changed so much in the past two years, that an obvious correction is
necessary. So far, the only thing he's been able to rely on are clearly bogus
studies that are easily debunked by the companies themselves in their
statements to Wall Street about the impact of the 2015 rules. Thus, both the
rules and the law are against him.
Of course, rather than face up to the fact that the vast majority of Americans
(Democrats, Republicans, everyone) support keeping net neutrality rules in
place, Pai has spent the last week or so only retweeting his supporters and
ignoring detractors entirely. And, now, apparently, his "pounding the table" is
to lash out at famous Hollywood stars... and internet companies (note: not
internet access companies), as if they're the problem.
On both Tuesday and Wednesday he decided to lash out. In this post, we'll focus
on the weird lashing out at famous people, and in a follow up, we'll talk about
his misguided attacks on internet companies. But, really, it's kind of
frightening that Pai -- who has regulatory power over some actions of the
entertainment industry would randomly call out some actors and slam their
pro-net neutrality tweets. How dare they do such a thing, according to Ajit
Pai.
~~~~~~Quoting the Chairman~~~~~~~
Next, I'd like to take on the main criticisms I've heard directed against the
plan and separate fact from fiction-one claim at a time. And given that some of
the more eye-catching critiques have come from Hollywood celebrities, whose
large online followings give them out-sized influence in shaping the public
debate, I thought I'd directly respond to some of their assertions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He then proceeds to namecheck Kumail Nanjiani, Cher, Mark Ruffalo, George
Takei, and Alyssa Milano -- claiming to rebut each of their tweets that he
found offensive. Not surprisingly, with each one he either misrepresents what
these actors said, or the facts around what his plan will do. It's almost
pathological.
For Nanjiani, Pai repeats his big lie that he's just returning things to where
they were pre-2015, and that it will be just like the way the internet was from
1996 through 2015.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps the most common criticism is that ending Title II utility-style
regulation will mean the end of the Internet as we know it. Or, as Kumail
Nanjiani, a star of HBO's Silicon Valley put it, "We will never go back to a
free Internet."
But here's the simple truth: We had a free and open Internet for two decades
before 2015, and we'll have a free and open Internet going forward.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As we've explained in fairly great detail, that's hogwash. Since 2004, every
previous FCC chair has sought to put forth and enforce net neutrality rules,
and from 2008 on, they've been shot down by the courts every time, saying that
to enforce the net neutrality rules the FCC wanted, it had to reclassify under
Title II. At no point was the internet under the regulatory regime that Pai is
pushing with his order.
Regarding Cher, he stated:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another concern I've heard is that the plan will harm rural and low-income
Americans. Cher, for example, has tweeted that the Internet "Will Include LESS
AMERICANS NOT MORE" if my proposal is adopted. But the opposite is true. The
digital divide is all too real. Too many rural and low-income Americans are
still unable to get high-speed Internet access. But heavy-handed Title II
regulations just make the problem worse! They reduce investment in broadband
networks, especially in rural and low-income areas. By turning back time, so to
speak, and returning Internet regulation to the pre-2015 era, we will expand
broadband networks and bring high-speed Internet access to more Americans, not
fewer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Except, again, there is nothing in the rules that are onerous. Well, unless
you're trying to screw over subscribers. As successful smaller ISP Sonic has
noted, the only regulatory burden from Title II is if you're behaving badly
towards customers. That's why over 40 small ISPs told Pai that they supported
keeping the rules, and that removing the 2015 order gives the giant broadband
companies -- Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- too much power to cut them out of the
market. For Pai to argue that this order will magically restore competition and
broadband deployment is laughable.
And, on a separate note, for someone claiming to support expanding rural and
low-income broadband, Pai has some serious explaining to do. Since taking over
the FCC he's eliminated rules that stopped telcos from ditching copper
networks, he's argued that a single broadband provider can count as "sufficient
competition," has downgraded what counts as broadband to pretend there's more
competition when there isn't, and has basically made up out of thin air claims
that uncompetitive markets are competitive. In short: Pai is not credible on
this. He's done everything to give more power to the giant internet access
providers, who have shown little interest in providing broadband to rural and
low-income households.
Pai's "responses" to Mark Ruffalo and George Takei were similarly misleading (a
key point with Ruffalo is that Pai totally misinterpreted Ruffalo's tweet,
which was concerned about giant ISPs controlling the internet, for the
government "controlling" the internet -- which it does not), but let's jump
forward to his response to Alyssa Milano:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shifting gears, Alyssa Milano tweeted, "We've faced a lot of issues threatening
our democracy in the last year. But, honestly, the FCC and @AjitPaiFCC's
dismantling of #NetNeutrality is one the biggest." I'm threatening our
democracy? Really? I'd like to see the evidence that America's democratic
institutions were threatened by a Title I framework, as opposed to a Title II
framework, during the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the
first six years of the Obama Administration. Don't hold your breath-there is
none. If this were Who's the Boss?, this would be an opportunity for Tony Danza
to dish out some wisdom about the consequences of making things up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First off, the reference to "democracy" by Milano isn't specifically about
Title I v. Title II, but about how the internet itself works. A weakened
internet, controlled by a few giant monopolists, who have the power to block or
diminish access to content can absolutely harm democracy. But, even more to the
point, the fact that Pai is ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority
(98.5% by one report) of unique -- non-bot, non-pre-filled form -- comments to
the FCC on this matter supported keeping the rules.
Meanwhile, one of Pai's mentors and strongest supporters -- who lead the Trump
transition team for the FCC and recommended Pai become chair -- Jeff Eisenach
showed exactly the contempt he feels towards "democracy" when it comes to the
FCC, directly spitting on the idea that the FCC should reflect democratic
ideals:
So... maybe Pai and Eisenach should confer on whether Verizon, Comcast and AT&T
want them to be supporting democracy this week or undermining it. Because, they
seem to be confused.
Meanwhile, it appears that Pai assumed these Hollywood folks didn't understand
the issue so they wouldn't possible hit back with facts. Not so with Milano,
who responded in fairly great detail about why net neutrality is quite
important to democracy, and why Pai is being misleading in his claims.
Either way, the whole thing is weird. Tons and tons of people have been
speaking out on this issue. Why Pai decided to pick on five famous
actors/singers, when they're hardly a representative sample is anyone's guess.
Perhaps he's hoping that his audience would think that the vast, widespread
criticism and backlash he's facing was just driven by "liberal" Hollywood.
Perhaps he's hoping that by naming famous names it will distract from his lack
of facts. But all it really highlights is just how weak Pai's case really is.
Stay tuned for our next post on his even odder decision to attack internet
companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.