GOP Busted Using Cable Lobbyist Net Neutrality Talking Points

Authored by dslreports.com and submitted by maxwellhill

GOP Busted Using Cable Lobbyist Net Neutrality Talking Points

The GOP has been caught using talking points provided by the cable industry in their ongoing assault against net neutrality. Last week, as the FCC majority was voting to begin dismantling popular net neutrality protections, House Republican lawmakers received an email from GOP leadership on how to defend the decision. That e-mail included a "toolkit" (pdf) of misleading or outright false talking points that, among other things, attempt to portray net neutrality as "anti-consumer."

"All major internet providers strongly support a free and open internet," the packet falsely claims at one point. "Market and finance experts unanimously predict a massive drop off in investment under utility regulation," it incorrectly states in another section. "In practice, these regulations have proven to be anti-consumer," the authors bizarrely conclude.

The packet then comically cites a rotating crop of telecom-funded think tank studies and telecom-written op-eds as supporting evidence for these repeatedly-debunked positions.

"Want more information on the net neutrality discussion?" asked Washington state Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chair of the House Republican Conference in the e-mail pushing the talking points. "Here is a nifty toolkit with news resources, myth vs reality information, what others are saying, and free market comments."

Rodgers failed to mention that the "nifty" package of pre-formulated ideas came directly from the cable industry.

According to analysis of packet metadata by the Intercept, the package was put together by Kerry Landon, the assistant director of industry grassroots at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association -- the cable industry's biggest lobbying and policy organization. The package was also circulated by Broadband for America, a lobbying coalition funded by most of the biggest broadband providers.

While everybody knows (or should know) that this is how pay-to-play government works, it doesn't make the episode any less grotesque. For its part, the NCTA was quick to insist in a statement that politicians parroting pre-scripted talking points while they ignore the desires of consumer constituents is just how this stuff works.

"NCTA is one of hundreds of organizations engaged in public policy on communications, technology and media and it is common practice to provide policymakers with information and background on key issues," said Joy Sims, a spokesperson for NCTA. "We are always happy to provide briefings, materials and other information to the media, policymakers and others."

HarlanCedeno on May 25th, 2017 at 16:23 UTC »

I know for a fact my GOP rep has copied and pasted talking points. Especially that bullshit one about the FCC "putting their thumb on the scale" against ISPs.

preludeoflight on May 25th, 2017 at 16:08 UTC »

Holy shit, this PDF is disgusting.

Myth: Internet providers oppose open internet regulation. Fact: All major internet providers strongly support a free and open internet – the idea that no one should block, throttle or unreasonably discriminate against internet content in any way.

Right, they just want to "reasonably discriminate". But of course, it's only that darn Title II that's literally the only thing stopping them.

Myth: “Title II” utility regulation is the only way to keep the internet open and free. Fact: “Congress on its own could take away the gaps in the FCC[‘s] authority” and pass a simple law that keeps the internet free and open without the destructive baggage of utility regulation,

Yeah, because Title II has some seriously huge baggage! I mean, it's the one thing the court said without, the FCC would hold no authority to enforce the Open Internet Order. Stupid classification actually letting orders get enforced!

The FCC and FTC also have their own authority to enact or enforce open internet protections without utility

Wait -- Didn't we just see that without title II, the FCC doesn't have that authority? I mean, I know 2014 was a long time ago, but surely the FCC must remember that giant blow that caused them to take action.

Myth: Only internet providers oppose utility regulation. Fact: This is false.

Well, you've got me on that one. I've met a whole slew of people who think any government oversight is bad, consequences be damned. Let's go ahead and get rid of those pesky bank regulations too, because 2008 was such a fun time for the economy.

Myth: Open internet legislation is uncertain to pass. Fact: There is no reason that legislation should not pass Congress. The open internet has broad, bipartisan support – only utility regulation is controversial. Congress has clear constitutional authority to permanently protect the open internet

Oh, okay. So until someone figures out how to pass a country wide speed limit for the roads, we'll just take down all the speed limit signs, because don't worry, they'll get around to fixing it.

Myth: Utility regulation protects consumers from monopoly internet providers. Fact: Between wired, wireless, and satellite service, consumers have more options for internet service than ever. In 2015, 95% of consumers had three or more choices for service at 13-20 Mbps and even even under the critics’ most skewed definition counting only wired service exceeding 25 Mbps as “internet” nearly 40% of consumers have two or more choices of provider.

I don't even understand the argument they're trying to make here, because I'm pretty sure they made my point for me. Literally more than half of the consumers in the country has one (or fewer...) choices for broadband internet. Yes, we do make the choice to cut it off at 25Mbps, because that's literally your fucking definition. But hey, senators think we don't need that much bandwidth anyways. Anyways, this argument is a moot point anyways: we can all switch to 13Mbps dsl as an alternative to the other single option or maybe 2 that we can pick? Is that really supposed to be the kind of competition that is going to help consumers? No, no it's not. It's still pretty damn close to an effective natural monopoly. You know how we treat other natural monopolies like water, electricity? We treat them like a fucking utility. Why? Because (and to quote wikipedia:) "Natural monopolies were discussed as a potential source of market failure by John Stuart Mill, who advocated government regulation to make them serve the public good."

But hey, maybe we don't need the internet to serve the public good. It's not like it's become a pillar of fucking commerce or anything.

Jesus Christ. I'm three fucking pages into this document and I'm completely disgusted that some human being put this all together.

The direction of the leadership in this country makes me fucking embarrassed.

Justicles13 on May 25th, 2017 at 15:47 UTC »

They're not even trying to hide it anymore. This is such horseshit