Why Would DOJ Oppose Net Neutrality … Now?
Mcjoan has a post on how the DOJ intervened all of a sudden into the FCC’s consideration of Net Neutrality. As she points out, there’s something unusual about DOJ’s intervention: it came after the comment period had closed.
It was a curious filing, as IP Democracy’s Cynthia Brumfield describes:
What’s curious about the filing is that, first, it’s an ex parte, orlate, submission in the FCC’s Inquiry on Broadband Practices, mostcommonly known as the FCC’s net neutrality proceeding. DOJ could havefiled comments along with the rest of the world by July 16, thedeadline for all submissions, but it didn’t. Why DOJ waited until nowis an interesting, probably unanswerable question.
A number of people in the comments suggest DOJ intervened as pay-off for the telecoms’ help on our NSA spying program. But I don’t think that can explain why DOJ missed the deadline. I can understand not wanting to file anti-net neutrality comments right before Congress debates whether or not to give the telecoms retroactive immunity for helping our government to spy on us illegally. So that might explain why DOJ wouldn’t submit its comments in mid-July, when Congress was busy discussing amendments to FISA.
Except that Congress is again about to discuss amendments to FISA, specifically immunity for the telecoms. And a lot of people in Congress are probably rethinking their vote, having been chewed out by constituents for it while marching in the Labor Day parade. Having the telecoms made out to be worse players right now, just before the debate, isn’t going to help telecom get their immunity and their private Internets.
In other words, the FISA amendment probably doesn’t explain the timing.
I can’t say I can explain the timing, mind you. But there are two events that have happened between July 16 and yesterday which might explain the timing. First, Gonzales resigned (though he’s still making trouble at DOJ). Also, Ed Gillespie, the big telecom lobbyist, just assumed most of Karl Rove’s portfolio on Monday morning.
Did the Lobbyist-in-Chief–who until June was working for the US Telecom Association–have any say over whether DOJ supports Net Neutrality?
Why do you think the sputnik is in your back yard? They are trying to restrict, limit and negate the snowballing chain reaction of the â€EW Effectâ€. Seriously, I think it could be a combination of the Gillespie move and the hollow chaos that is, and has been, the DOJ and White House Administration for some time now. As big and important as the net neutrality issue is, they were to busy with the bigger frauds, schemes ann wrongs that portend criminal exposure for them.
bmaz
Or it may be something entirely different, a different strategy on the FISA stuff. Who knows? But it sucks.
Gillespie again!
Have to give the Repubs credit for having a pretty strong player to bring in off the bench. Repub (criminal) depth has been impressive, especially the way that Fielding looks so natural sitting beside Addington in the team photo, like they had been together all along.
zhiv
I’m going to be on a Gillespie kick for a while. It amazes me how much power he has accrued with little notice, and with little inspection of how his client ties are going to affect Administration policy.
I barely had time to follow yKos this year. I imagine it hosted a good net neutrality panel. Google has been taciturn about its internal policy development in this matter, though I just found one of the Google corporate blogs that talks about this area of comms. There is a lot of history, even globally, I studied, but I am busy on other things at the moment. Ask Kagro X about the 1st and 4th amendment cases that are moving along; there is a concatenation among them in the offing, and DoJ, such as its remnants are, likely sees now as opportune for waxing Republican profiteering aggressive in a way that also suppresses open speech fora such as internet fosters; this was part of the risk of Patriot which Congress accepted, but needs to revisit timely.
Oh, yeah, the Google site, I believe.
Ew, could it be that they are trying to limit the netroots from being effective in the elections? Seems like that would be one of their motives to keep telecoms in power, to insure that rep stay in power.
Another way to look at it is, why do they need to make their opposition to net neutrality public just now? Given Bushco’s slavish devotion to the interests of big business and disregard for media that’s not controlled by the Right Wing Noise Machine, no one, I’m sure, is surprised by this position. Undoubtedly the FCC commissioners have heard quietly and informally what Bushco’s druthers on the matter are. Was there a need to make a public commitment just now? Could there be a debt to be paid that had to be paid in a way that was irrevocable? Or maybe a whiff of an indication that the FCC wasn’t inclined to be as helpful as they’d assumed it would be?
Probably a mix of Gillespie, plus blaming the blogs for the growing contempt they encounter. Unfortunately for Bu$hCo, the Internet is the cart, not the horse. But trust them to confuse the two.
This NN stance puts Bu$hCo sidewise of a lot of ’traditional Republican interests’, including small businesses, realtors, mega-church members (and ministers), dentists, and pharma. Big Telecom’s claims rest on Robber Baron Economics (from the 1880s) for their basic rationale. Asking the FCC to weigh in signals desparation — they’re needing to call in the Big Guns, methinks. Nice of Gillespie to oblige.
This is an economic disaster for the US, but I don’t expect Bu$hCo to grasp why.
Bill Moyers has some superb video clips online, if anyone is interested in more detailed analysis.
Sorry for the double-post, but after leaving this site, I remembered that last week’s Economist cover story was, â€Who’s Afraid of Google?†Interesting timing. Hmmm… who does Gillespie know at the Economist…?
Scary thought 8-
Not just small business – look how much people buy via websites like Amazon, Ebay, etc. And my company does a lot of stuff via intranet – it’s half a state, there are wires involved somewhere. I doubt that the suits would like paying more for it.
I’m paying my phone co for wires and time, and my ISP for access (if I had DSL they’d be getting paid too); the sites I go to pay their ISPs and hosts: the telcos are making money from both ends on this already, so this has the smell of Time-Warner amd Zombie Bell (recreated Ma Bell) all over it.
PJ — Actually, Amazon isn’t raking up gold on the Internet, but — like eBay, or Craigslist — it’s built an economic food chain that didn’t exist in the past. For small and marginal businesses, this has become quite important.
The telecoms argue that ’others’ (i.e., Big Bad Google, eBay, Craigslist) are raking up millions, and that the telecoms have invested in new wires and cable and are now ’missing out on money owed’ on those ’infrastructure investments’. If the Internet were only a bunch of toobz and wires, they might have a case. But they’re wrong.
The Internet is NOT just ’a bunch of toobz’. Without software to tag, track, monitor, deliver, confirm, and display content, the toobz don’t mean jack sh*t. But you’ll never hear that from the self-pitying telecoms.
Telecom claims are an updated version of the 1880s Railroad Baron mindset: â€if it moves on our rails (or wires, or cables), then we’ll extract as much profit as possible on every molecule that moves.†It’s the mindset of a monopoly, with the veneer and patina of the Internet to make it sexy. It’s bogus.
India, China, and even Iran should be sending Gillespie bouquets. His work on behalf of the telecoms is helping other nations be more competitive than the U.S. Good to know we’re in such capable hands.