This is the seventh installment in our series on the proposed Net Neutrality regulations. If you haven’t followed “Neutrality’s Reality” from the beginning, the introduction is in the Arizona Daily Independent at here.
“Again, sayeth the Great Leader, in all things, trust in thine Leaders, your benefactors.” [I Barack 1:6]
Three arbitrary, unreasonable rules underpin the entirety of the regulation, or so the Commission would have us believe. Having trumpeted the far-fetched wonders of these three bright-line rules, the Commission now begins extolling the virtuous considerations that will quell any questions you might have about the new rules.
Except that every one of the Commission’s statements begs another question:
“[T]here must be a known standard by which to address any concerns that arise with new practices.”
●In other words, “We could never have foreseen the growth of the internet, so we could never have legislated or taxed it correctly; these rules ensure that Government always wins.”
● In absolutely no way could the Commission, a bureaucratic sloth in a lumbering government, have anticipated the current state of broadband connectivity fifteen years ago. In absolutely no way can rules they set today safely, securely, and correctly govern the internet to come. This supposition is absurd. Once the rambling press release treats Title II later, the abject inability of regulations to anticipate technological changes shows clearly. Here, they prime your mind to gloss over that fact later.
“The Order establishes that ISPs cannot ‘unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage’ the ability of consumers to select, access, and use the lawful content, applications, services, or devices of their choosing; or of edge providers to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to consumers.”
● Except that “the Order” also ensures that a consumer whose budget cannot afford a higher service level must pay for the same service as every other consumer, even the most demanding. And the Commission has yet to address any of the blocks it imposes on businesses, preventing them from competing in the ISP marketplace to allow consumers more choices.
“The rules described above will restore the tools necessary to address specific conduct by broadband providers that might harm the Open Internet.”
● This wordsmithing cuts an idea out of whole cloth, the idea that the FCC has ever had the authority to regulate the internet. Restore tools? What tools? And who took them away? The tools never existed for anybody to take them away from the FCC. This is reprehensible fiction.
“[T]he Order recognizes the critical role of transparency in a well-functioning broadband ecosystem.”
● Ostensibly, this translates to: “We won’t show you what the regulations will do, but we’ll make a lot of noise about writing them, so you feel like we’re being open, even though we are as closed as ever. And, we’ll compel the internet providers to be open and transparent, holding them to a higher standard than that to which we hold ourselves in the hallowed halls of our bureaucracy.”
● They may recognize the role of transparency, but the Commissioners undeniably flaunt transparency in withholding the regulations from the public.
“[T]he Order requires that broadband providers disclose, in a consistent format, promotional rates, fees and surcharges and data caps.”
● Frankly, there is not a single thing wrong with this statement, especially due to the confounding jargon that pervades internet technologies. I agree, standardized billing would benefit consumers. But that takes one sentence, not 325 pages. And in today’s connected world, a whiff of a consideration of a threat of a boycott via Facebook or Twitter would be enough to get major carriers to agree on a consistent format amongst themselves.
The majority of the Commission, in writing this release, has put great effort into inflating and whitewashing their work. By now, there is no question they are in the midst of a hard-sell. The pitch continues tomorrow…
Related articles:
Neutrality’s Reality: Depends on what the Meaning of “Transparent” Is
Neutrality’s Reality: Painfully Slow is Healthy for You(r Government)
Neutrality’s Reality: Can You Hear Me Now?
Neutrality’s Reality: Wrong, All Wrong!