[The Final Dakar]

Meant to post this here:
FCC Republicans refused to give Congress net neutrality documents | Ars Technica

The two Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission have refused to give Congress documents needed to complete an investigation into the FCC's net neutrality rulemaking process, according to a lawmaker.
…
Despite Cummings' concerns, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigation was started mostly to investigate the Democratic members of the FCC. It began in February 2015, led by Republican lawmakers who opposed the FCC's decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers and impose net neutrality rules.

The Republican lawmakers claimed that President Obama had "an improper influence" over the FCC's decision and demanded documentation of all communication between FCC personnel and the White House, as well as calendar appointments, visitor logs, and meeting minutes related to meetings with the White House, plus all internal documents discussing the views and recommendations of the White House. They also asked for all documents and e-mails related to views of FCC personnel about the net neutrality proceeding.

But when it came to providing documents requested by Congress, Wheeler and other Democrats obliged. "Although Democratic Members of the Commission have cooperated fully with our request, neither of you has produced a single responsive document to date, and even more concerning, your staff informed the Oversight Committee that you had not even begun to collect them," Cummings wrote to Pai and O'Rielly.
…
But Pai and O'Rielly stonewalled the requests in the months that followed, Cummings wrote. In May 2015, the FCC's Office of General Counsel told lawmakers that Pai's senior staff would not permit the General Counsel office to collect any documents "that are in his custody or in the custody of his staff."

Commissioner O'Rielly's Chief of Staff informed our staff that although his office did conduct a preliminary search for documents with the letters "NN" (for "net neutrality"), they discontinued this search when it resulted in a large number of documents because a member of his staff has those initials. Commissioner O'Rielly's Chief of Staff conceded that they did not use any other search terms, such as "net neutrality" or "open Internet," to identify documents responsive to the Committee's request.

When your witch hunt backfires

[The Final Dakar]

Legislation would eliminate state laws that restrict city Internet services | Ars Technica

US Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) yesterday proposed legislation that would allow cities and towns to build their own Internet services even in states that have laws restricting municipal broadband.

Eshoo said she modeled her bill after one introduced by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2005. Eshoo's Community Broadband Act says that states may not prohibit "any public provider from providing [advanced telecommunications capability] to any person or any public or private entity." The Eshoo bill would also protect private ISPs from discriminatory regulations. Local governments that offer their own Internet service would not be allowed to make rules that favor the public broadband service over private ones.

[P]

I think that it is corruption plain and simple when big ISPs pay state legislatures to block community broadband, but can Congress make such a law? What enabling clause? Because interstate commerce doesn't seem to apply.

[reader50]

Since the FCC lost their case to override state laws against muni broadband, one provider in North Carolina now has to pull the plug. Greenlight fiber serving Wilson, NC can no longer provide gigabit to nearby Pinetops, NC.

About 200 home Internet customers in Pinetops will thus lose their Internet service on October 28, Agner said. The nearby Vick Family Farms that employs about 250 people will also lose its service, she said.

"We must comply with our state law," Agner said. But city council members were very vocal in their opposition to the law and regret having to disconnect the service, she said.
...
Greenlight's fiber network provides speeds of 40Mbps to 1Gbps at prices ranging from $40 to $100 a month.

Come October 29, everyone can go back to CenturyLink DSL, which hasn't been upgraded.

I read the article at least three times. What's missing? Apparently no one in the NC legislature even bothered to comment. They protected the big telecoms' law successfully, so the campaign contributions will continue.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Since the FCC lost their case to override state laws against muni broadband, one provider in North Carolina now has to pull the plug. Greenlight fiber serving Wilson, NC can no longer provide gigabit to nearby Pinetops, NC.

Come October 29, everyone can go back to CenturyLink DSL, which hasn't been upgraded.

I read the article at least three times. What's missing? Apparently no one in the NC legislature even bothered to comment. They protected the big telecoms' law successfully, so the campaign contributions will continue.

Well, some newspaper should be asking them how they've helped their constituents.

[The Final Dakar]

Mandatory arbitration restricts rights of ISP customers, says FCC Democrat | Ars Technica

Yes, please. Some genius in the comments said the govt should ban forced arbitration as part of approval for the Att/time warner merger

[Snow-i]

Donald Trump rips into possible AT&T-Time Warner deal - Oct. 22, 2016


lol

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Mandatory arbitration restricts rights of ISP customers, says FCC Democrat | Ars Technica

Yes, please. Some genius in the comments said the govt should ban forced arbitration as part of approval for the Att/time warner merger

I don't think the merger should be approved at all. Forced arbitration is small potatoes against another major ISP owning major portions of the mainstream content market.

Content owners should have no hand in the connection, and vice versa. It's a conflict of interest for the public, especially when the "connection" part was largely built by taxpayers and local governments.

[The Final Dakar]

I agree there's nothing to be gained from the merger, just being pessimistic.

[reader50]

Forced arbitration is a major concern, I've read they decide in favor of the company over 90% of the time. Since the companies pay them, there's an incentive for favorable resolutions.

It's using contracts to remove citizens judicial rights, and it's spread ever since the supreme court gave a supporting decision. There's no obvious reason why it can't spread to most businesses, removing citizen judicial rights from most commerce. It needs to be banned. At the very least, it should be banned with regard to class actions.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Donald Trump rips into possible AT&T-Time Warner deal - Oct. 22, 2016


lol

Trump team reassures AT&T over Time Warner merger review | Ars Technica

"lol"

[The Final Dakar]

Bye, bye Net Neutrality. Bye, bye Title II

Trump hires two net neutrality opponents to oversee FCC transition | Ars Technica
Trump’s latest FCC advisor opposes Title II, supports data cap exemptions | Ars Technica

[reader50]

I've been reading these stories with concern. It looks like we're going to get it stuck to us for the next few years. Open pass for ISP monopolies. Bill 'em for all they've got. If you aren't drawing blood yet, you aren't squeezing the customer hard enough.

[P]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Bye, bye Net Neutrality. Bye, bye Title II

Trump hires two net neutrality opponents to oversee FCC transition | Ars Technica
Trump’s latest FCC advisor opposes Title II, supports data cap exemptions | Ars Technica

As a counterpoint to that, though:

Exclusive: Team Trump's net neutrality guru talks to El Reg • The Register

(yes, consider the source, but The Reg isn't usually anti-NN).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

As a counterpoint to that, though:

Exclusive: Team Trump's net neutrality guru talks to El Reg • The Register

(yes, consider the source, but The Reg isn't usually anti-NN).

She seems to be talking about apps instead of ISPs. That's kind of worrying because it misses the point.

[P]

She seems to think that there should be regulation, just not a lot of it. I take that as a step in the right direction, considering who appointed her, and a sign that the Overton window has shifted a little bit on this issue.

[The Final Dakar]

I think that's being overly generous. At no point does she mention ISPs or caps or throttling which all HAVE Happened and which the NN debate is about.

[The Final Dakar]

But hey, if Tom Wheeler can do a heel turn on the industry I suppose she can.

[The Final Dakar]

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position | Ars Technica

Just keeps getting better.

[The Final Dakar]

This guy has been a Lord of horrible arguments and logic the past four years. I THINK we can agree this is terrible.

FCC to be led by Ajit Pai, staunch opponent of consumer protection rules | Ars Technica

[OAW]

Oh but wait it gets worse!!

Comcast has brought a beta version of its Xfinity TV app to Roku streaming devices, but customers who use the app after the beta trial ends will have to pay an extra fee.

Using the app is free during the beta trial, but for now the app can only be used if you're also paying for a Comcast set-top box. That limitation will eventually go away, but initially that means the Roku app won't be able to completely replace a traditional TV box.

Roku announced the Xfinity TV beta app yesterday, and Comcast posted an FAQ with more information. The Comcast FAQ explains that "additional outlet" charges are being waived during the beta trial, but that won't be the case after the beta ends: "Customers will not pay equipment charges with respect to their use of Roku devices," Comcast wrote. "All other fees associated with a customer's service will apply, except that, during the Beta trial, additional outlet charges for services to outlets connected to Roku devices are being waived. On conclusion of the trial, you will be informed of the charges that will apply for connecting this device with your Xfinity TV service and will have the opportunity to opt in."

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler tried to push through rules that would require pay-TV companies to provide free apps that can replace rented set-top boxes. But he wasn't able to get enough votes, and current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has taken the proposal off the table.

Variety points out that "Comcast's additional outlet service fees per set-top box are $9.95 per month; customers using their own substitute equipment, such as a TiVo, receive a $2.50 credit (resulting in a net charge of $7.45 per month)." That might give an indication of what Comcast will charge for Roku use, though Variety quoted a Comcast rep as saying that the company is "evaluating our additional outlet policies."

Comcast will charge extra fee for watching TV on Roku boxes | ArsTechnica.com

Or to put it another way ...

Originally Posted by Comcast

Don't want to pay a monthly "rental fee" for the set top box we provide indefinitely? No problem! We'll just charge you an monthly "outlet fee" to use your own.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...zed-broadband/

The Federal Communications Commission has told nine companies that they can no longer provide broadband using a federal assistance program. The program gives low-income people a $9.25 monthly household subsidy to purchase home Internet or mobile broadband service.

Today's FCC Wireline Competition Bureau order said the commission is seeking to eliminate fraud in the Lifeline program. The order said that rescinding the Lifeline broadband provider designations "would promote program integrity by providing the Bureau with additional time to consider measures that might be necessary to prevent further waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program."

None of the nine providers (Spot On, Boomerang Wireless, KonaTel, FreedomPop, AR Designs, Kajeet, Liberty, Northland Cable, and Wabash Independent Networks) appear to be suspected of any financial fraud. The FCC order pointed out that Total Call Mobile recently paid a settlement of $30 million after it claimed reimbursement for duplicate and ineligible customers. But Total Call wasn't one of the nine providers that lost their Lifeline designations today.

We asked an FCC spokesperson why the commission didn't let the nine providers keep offering service as long as they're not committing fraud, but the spokesperson said the commission "will let the order speak for itself."

Populist.

[reader50]

Actual reason probably runs like this: We can't have sources of lower-cost broadband out there. It causes competitive pressure to lower prices.

[The Final Dakar]

I think it's more that subsidies are only for mega corporations, not small upstarts.

[The Final Dakar]

FCC chair wants to replace net neutrality with “voluntary” commitments
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...y-commitments/

“To preserve the basic tenets of net neutrality, the plans would require broadband providers to pledge to abide by net neutrality principles such as no blocking or paid prioritization of Internet traffic,” the Journal wrote. “That would allow the FTC to go after violators for deceptive or unfair trade practices.”

Of course, there's no reason to do this unless the companies gain something out of it. Oh wait, they do:

Even if these commitments are legally binding, enforcing net neutrality guidelines could become more complicated under the FTC. With the current rules, customers or companies can file a complaint with the FCC and get a decision from the government's expert agency on communications networks, potentially putting a stop to abusive behavior. The FTC uses a different process for enforcing rules. Instead of writing extensive rules and deciding whether an ISP has violated them, the FTC files lawsuits against companies over unfair or deceptive acts or practices, letting a court make the decision.

I wonder if they could somehow use fine print to send them to arbitration, too.

[andi*pandi]

not sure if this goes here or in privacy thread, but I found this a well written comparison:

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/26/f...et-neutrality/

[The Final Dakar]

This thread was started in the build up to possibly implementing Title II. I was toying with the idea of starting a new one for the build up to its possible demise.

[subego]