Rep. Latta Breaks New Ground In Introducing Anti-Net Neutrality Bill Where Almost Every Claim Is Laughably Wrong
from the impressive! dept
Rep. Bob Latta achieved an impressive feat last week in introducing some legislation, which he claims is to make sure the internet remains “open and free.” While we’re big supporters of an “open and free” internet, what’s most amazing here is that almost everything that Latta claims about the bill is not true — including the whole “open and free” bits.
Congressman Bob Latta (R-OH) today introduced legislation to ensure the Internet remains open and free from government interference by limiting the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to regulate broadband under Title II of the Communications Act.
So, first, he’s saying “open and free” not in the way that internet users, innovators and entrepreneurs can set up businesses, but rather “open and free from government interference.” This is, simply, bullshit. While I tend to lean on the “less regulation” side for many things, people claiming that net neutrality is a fight about “regulating the internet” are one (or more) of the following three things: (1) stupid (2) ignorant or (3) lying. The internet is already heavily regulated. The question around net neutrality is not “do we regulate or leave unregulated” — it’s what type of regulation makes the most sense.
Remember, telcos are happy to be classified under Title II for their fiber, because that’s how they’re able to get subsidized access to power poles and conduits (and the ability to dig up yards and bury new lines). They’re also “regulated” in how they get spectrum for wireless communications. The broadband providers are thrilled to be regulated in these ways because it has made it easier and cheaper to build their networks and to keep out pesky competition.
The idea that broadband should be “open and free” from government interference is simply untrue. If the broadband providers really wanted that to be true, then they shouldn’t be making use of rights of way access granted by the government. Somehow, I don’t see Latta asking Verizon and AT&T to change that…
The legislation comes after the FCC released a proposal to reclassify broadband Internet access under Title II as a telecommunications service rather than an information service.
Except, of course, the FCC did no such thing. It, in fact, released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which explicitly does not propose to reclassify broadband under Title II. It actually proposes to keep broadband as it was, preferring to put in place new rules under Section 706. The only thing on Title II is that, while making it clear the FCC is focused on Section 706, it asks the public to comment on what it thinks of Title II as an alternative. To outright claim that the FCC has proposed reclassifying is blatantly false.
Isn’t it great that Congressional Representatives flat out lie to the public?
“In light of the FCC initiating yet another attempt to regulate the Internet, upending long-standing precedent and imposing monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations on the 21st Century broadband marketplace, Congress must take action to put an end to this misguided regulatory proposal,” said Latta.
Except, again, the internet has always been regulated in some form, this request for comments has upended no long-standing precedent, and broadband providers have long made use of those very same “monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations” to get government subsidies to install their broadband infrastructure. Oh, and again, the proposal does not actually suggest what he claims it’s suggesting.
So, both the reasons and the overall claim of the proposal are simply wrong. Who elected this guy?
“The Internet has remained open and continues to be a powerful engine fueling private enterprise, economic growth and innovation absent government interference and obstruction. My legislation will provide all participants in the Internet ecosystem the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services that have been fundamental for job creation, productivity and consumer choice.
Yes, the internet has remained mostly open and is a powerful engine of private enterprise at the service level by keeping the network level free from discrimination. And the FCC claims to be looking for a way to keep that in place, while the telcos who are supporting Latta’s proposal are looking to do the exact opposite: to limit private enterprise by allowing the infrastructure players to discriminate against services they don’t like. Latta’s legislation does not provide “certainty” to anyone other than Verizon, AT&T and Comcast — all of whom will get to double-charge and increase profits.
Instead, it will create massive uncertainty for basically every other business that uses the internet. It will devastate investment into internet startups, because those with great new ideas will know that they’ll have to pay extra just to reach people online. It will entrench big companies who already have the power to pay, while cutting off upstarts and innovators. It will take away the incentives for the big broadband providers to actually invest in infrastructure, because when their networks get clogged, they can charge more to internet companies. That means, the US will fall even further behind on the internet.
It makes you wonder why Rep. Latta is so against small businesses and innovation.
Oh, no, there’s no reason to wonder. We already know. Latta is bankrolled by the big broadband companies with AT&T, NCTA, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, American Cable Assocation and Centurylink among his top campaign supporters. Because, of course they are.
Yes, we know that politicians mislead the public, but this is to an egregious level. Nearly everything about the reasons, the intent and the impact of Latta’s legislation are completely incorrect. There are reasonable debates to be had about whether or not reclassifying broadband under Title II makes sense. But you won’t get that from this bill. Thankfully, Latta can’t find any other politician willing to co-sponsor his ridiculous bill, so it appears that even many other politicians heavily funded by the broadband companies recognize how totally dishonest this particular bill is.
Filed Under: bob latta, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, regulations, rights of way, subsidies, title ii
Comments on “Rep. Latta Breaks New Ground In Introducing Anti-Net Neutrality Bill Where Almost Every Claim Is Laughably Wrong”
Who?
He’s a teabagging republican from Ohio. The answer to your question is “Idiots”.
Re: Who?
The ‘Teabagging Republican’ part is surprisingly redundant when you change it to ‘politician’, at least of the current variety.
The problem as I see it is that cable TV companies are also allowed to deliver broadband services. These services are increasingly coming into competition, so the cable companies are looking for ways to either limit competition, and or replace their lost income from the cable cutters. The content providers upstream of the cable companies are also reliant on the cable business for a significant income, so of them due to packaging, more income than they could hope to get as stand alone content providers.
That is allowing cable providers to also provide broadband is an unstable situation due this competition, and somehow a divorce between cable TV and broadband has to be arranged otherwise the demands of cable will slowly strangle its Internet competitors, or replace it cable business with equivalent Internet business, complete with bundling of content access.
Off the cuff, so forgive my meter and rhyme...
There was Rep whore from Ohio,
who left something out of his bio.
Which “clients” he has, like Verizon/Comcast
Somebody should tell him “Goodbye-o!”
Lying liar lies! Just Congress, as usual.
What kind of idiots would push legislation so monopolies can do whatever the fuck they want?
Oh right, republicans
Re: Re:
“Oh right, politicians”
there, fixed it for you.
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. There is not much of a left anymore. It’s all degrees of right and which companies each side represents.
Don't regulate the Internet?
The ISPs very deliberately conflate and abuse the “don’t regulate the Internet” battle cry with a legislative agenda that serves their own ends but nobody else’s. Of course we all want to make sure that content — or as Mike puts it, the service level — stays open and free from regulation. But that doesn’t mean that the monopoly or near-monopoly ISPs should be “free” to discriminate against whomever they wish on their common carrier service. But that’s the kind of freedom that Verizon was fighting for when it sued the FCC. It’s right there in the brief for the court case decided in January. Verizon said: “broadband providers possess ‘editorial discretion.’ Just as a newspaper is entitled to decide which content to publish and where, broadband providers may feature some content over others.”
Doomed to repeat history...
Right, Rep, Latta. And what was it that caused all those nasty rules to be implemented on the “monopoly era” telephone companies? It was abusive, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, monopolistic behavior on the the part of the telcos that created the need for the government to step in and put a stop to it. And who exactly where those companies that were exhibiting such behavior? Yup, AT&T and Verizon (which grew out of one of the companies from the AT&T breakup). So we have the same old dogs trying to get away with the same old tricks in a new space requiring the same sort of response to put a stop to it.
Re: Doomed to repeat history...
Bingo. This is the same old song and dance being played on a new station. Competition is good for the marketplace, right? Unless you are one of the big boys who could lose some precious market share to some little upstart service provider. We can’t have that now, can we? (end sarcasm)
Another lying POS Republican…………and he is one of those tea baggers.What he means is keep your liberal hands off our conservative Internet.
Guys like him get in charge of House.Senate, and Pres and we can kiss our Nation goodnight.
Just to be fair about his issue watch closely for any Democrats who take the big Telco Money and then come Election time Vote the creep out.
What happens when this becomes law?
So, me hearties, what happens when this filthy, heathen, internally-contradictory dog’s breakfast becomes law?
We're not fooled by the doublethink
These RINOs are not for smaller government. If anything, they are even more supportive of big government than Democrats. They want to give more control to corporations.