Favorite

Not net neutral 

The Washington swamp that Donald Trump was going to drain gets deeper and wider every week.

In a few weeks, if not days — as soon as the courts settle the squabble over who appoints the interim director of the agency — the president will redeem his promise to the financial industry to eliminate the consumer protections enacted by Congress after the 2008 banking collapse and recession. He will have someone in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who will have in mind the best interests not of consumers and clients, but of the financial industry, which he tweeted this week had been "devastated" by the bureau's efforts to protect consumers. He promised to bring Wall Street — too-big-to-fail banks perhaps — "back to life."

But that's not the deregulation that consumers — all of you — ought to be worried about this week. Trump's choice to chair the Federal Communications Commission, Agit Pai, the former general counsel at Verizon Communications, announced that the FCC would vote next month to scrap net neutrality, the Obama-era rule that prevents Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and other big internet providers from discriminating against certain online content and services while favoring their own. Pai's rule also will block state and local governments from adopting their own rules requiring internet providers — commonly called ISPs — to be fair and nondiscriminatory.

Does that sound like draining the swamp?

The net neutrality debate, like every dispute these days, became a party argument, especially after Barack Obama campaigned on guaranteeing neutrality on the internet and then got it implemented in 2015. Perversely, it was Obama who first appointed Pai to the FCC, on the recommendation of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. It was a Republican slot. Trump reappointed him and made him chairman.

The idea behind net neutrality was that neutrality encouraged entrepreneurs and innovators, which everyone agreed was right. But Republicans thought the government should not have a hand in enforcing something that the free market would take care of.

Your internet provider controls your gate to the internet and also the gate of all the content providers like Google, Netflix and Amazon to you. It can limit your choices and, of course, affect your costs. There is a little issue of freedom of speech involved here, but let's leave the arcane First Amendment debate for another day.

Everyone with a keen interest in the internet disputes everyone else's characterization of Pai's purposes in scrapping the neutrality rule and the effect it will have.

Let's let the financial magazine Fortune describe what happened:

"The nation's largest internet service providers, led by AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, stand to reap the greatest gains. They should easily be able to start favoring online content and services they own over others. In fact, the FCC under Obama-appointed chairman Tom Wheeler had already concluded that Verizon and AT&T were improperly favoring content they owned in likely violation of the 2015 net neutrality rules.

"The prior favoritism took the form of allowing wireless customers to access carrier-owned video services without the usage counting against monthly wireless limits. Accessing all other video services did count against the limits unless the content provider paid extra. Known as zero-rating, the practice was more carrot than stick for wireless customers. But with the rules removed, carriers would be free to adopt more punitive forms of favoritism, like tacking on extra fees for some content or indirectly raising the cost to customers on extra fees for some content or indirectly raising the cost to customers by charging the fees to the content providers. For some internet users, the elimination of the rules gives ISPs a big incentive to continue adding monthly data caps to create a way to favor their own content over wired connections."

Pai's defenders said the government was not needed to guarantee neutrality. They say AT&T, Verizon and Comcast won't shut out content services or discriminate against them because they would lose their customers. That's how the free market always works. This is just a fight between the provider giants and other online behemoths like Amazon and Google, and consumers out there need not worry. Services like Netflix that depend on fast connections oppose Pai's rule because they say consumers will see their costs go up if they want access to streaming videos.

The net-neutrality rule, which declared that internet providers were utilities, came about when providers, starting with a North Carolina telephone company 15 years ago and later Comcast, throttled a service that they thought competed with their own services.

But don't worry. Like financial customers everywhere, you will be enveloped in the tender mercies of the market.

Favorite

Speaking of Net Neutrality

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Ernest Dumas

  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • Prelude to war

    President Trump's casual disinterest in the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia's leaders, a crime he once abhorred, may be only the final repudiation of America's ancient obedience to human rights, but what if it is much more? What if it is a prelude to war?
    • Nov 29, 2018
  • More »

Readers also liked…

  • Along the civil rights trail

    A convergence of events in recent days signaled again how far we have come and how far we have yet to go in civil rights.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • The Oval outhouse

    One thing all Americans finally can agree upon is that public discourse has coarsened irretrievably in the era of Donald Trump and largely at his instance.
    • Jan 18, 2018
  • Shrugging off sulfides

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported a shocker on its front page Sunday. The rotten-egg odor from the Koch brothers' sprawling paper plant at Crossett is still making people sick, but the state's pollution control agency is unaware of the problem.
    • Mar 29, 2018

Latest in Ernest Dumas

  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
    • Dec 13, 2018
  • A decent man

    The beatification of George H.W. Bush, which even the current president signaled was OK, would have surprised the 41st president, who seemed to have accepted the public's verdict that, although a waffler, he was a decent man who did his best and didn't do any harm to the people of the country or the world with whose well-being he was entrusted for a time.
    • Dec 6, 2018
  • Prelude to war

    President Trump's casual disinterest in the murder of Jamaal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia's leaders, a crime he once abhorred, may be only the final repudiation of America's ancient obedience to human rights, but what if it is much more? What if it is a prelude to war?
    • Nov 29, 2018
  • More »

Most Viewed

  • Hope and change LR

    While I was away, Frank Scott Jr. won a historic victory in a runoff with Baker Kurrus to succeed Mark Stodola as Little Rock mayor.
  • Sex and Trump

    No one, least of all Donald Trump, should be surprised when sex puts him in mortal jeopardy, which seemed to be the case last week when his personal lawyer pleaded guilty to violating the law by arranging $280,000 in hush payments to a porn actress and a Playboy model who were prepared to tell voters about having sex with him.
  • No leash

    Living as I do in the remote provinces, I often find myself fascinated by the cultural advances of America's great metropolises. Last week, for example, The New York Times featured an entertaining column urging people to walk cats on leashes. If I tried that, I'd definitely have a fight on my hands.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Herd shifts

    • Answer: The Russian hacking story was the basis for the whole "Russians are on Trump's…

    • on December 12, 2018
  • Re: Herd shifts

    • Tra-la, indeed. And no answer to the question. Why would the DNC alter evidence of…

    • on December 12, 2018
  • Re: Herd shifts

    • And I quote, "Actually, no, I can't think why anybody would suspect that the DNC…

    • on December 12, 2018
 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation