back to article FCC's Wheeler gives passionate defense of net neutrality rules

Tom Wheeler, chairman of America's comms watchdog the FCC, has given a passionate defense of net neutrality rules in his last public speech – and warned his fellow commissioners not to go backwards by removing them. He called the rules "rooted in reality, not ideology" – a clear poke at the Republican leadership that will take …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not unless he comes up with a lot of bribes, sorry "campaign contributions", for the corrupt on-the-take criminals, sorry "members of Congress", in DC.

  2. bombastic bob Silver badge
    FAIL

    "going forward"... over a cliff!

    As far as I'm concerned, the FCC has _NO_ business regulating ANYTHING on the internet that's related to content. That includes how ISPs process packets. As long as there's choice from who your ISP is and how much filtering or prioritizing goes on, it shouldn't become a problem. If it does, _THEN_ regulators can step in and do something about it. But _NOT_ before.

    So these lefty-liberal "control freak" types can just GO POUND SAND. *THEY* lost the election, *THEY* need to shut the *BLANK* up and watch their legacies DIE. That includes OBAKA-care, as well as the FAIL from the FCC that pretends to be "net neutrality". To quote Lcdr Warf, when he replied to Q's griping about being human: "TOO! BAD!!!"

    Hey lefties: Don't let the door hit you in the ARSE on the way out, k?

    now if only we could get MICRO-SHAFT to turn THEIR barge around, before it goes over the falls or hits the rocks [whichever]. same *kinds* of thinking behind Win-10-nic and 'Ape' I bet!

    1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

      Locally we have COX with 70-100Mbs service at $80/month) or AT&T with 1.2Mbs service for $60/month - I guess that's "choice" to you?

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

        "Locally we have COX with 70-100Mbs service at $80/month) or AT&T with 1.2Mbs service for $60/month - I guess that's "choice" to you?"

        I think you'll find that there are other (DSL, 4G, etc.) alternatives already, each with their own disadvantages as well as advantages. I don't have nearly that kind of bandwidth, but if I wanted to get cable for business (rather than DSL) it would cost considerably more. What they do NOT do (on my existing connection) is filter things, so I can run a servers on it, etc. and of course I pay extra for the fixed IP address that goes with it.

        The point is, you have choices. And you could STILL create your OWN ISP if you wanted. If I had unlimited cash, I could have a mega-bandwidth fiber line run to my house, for example.

        In any case, MY point is MOSTLY about getting gummint out of the way. If they want to regulate ANYTHING, they could do what they did for long distance providers for phone service, i.e. require that the cable companies 'sell bandwidth' to competitors to prevent service monopolies. THAT would be an improvement, for sure! [this is, to some extent, what has already been done for DSL, but I don't know of any specific instance where non-Cox providers can provide cable service over Cox's cables, either TV or internet or IP-phone or any OTHER service for that matter, as one example]

        But THAT is NOT what they (the FCC) actually DID in THIS case, now is it? I have never been happy with the FCC's attempt at 'net neutrality', and it's really too much to pick over the details on it. But, I'll be VERY happy to see it GONE, and replaced with something better, starting with a level playing field for PROVIDERS to sell service to you, and not the actual CONTENT.

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

          Bob, I understand your position (I have many friends with similar views) but the entire point of the FCC neutrality regulations is to keep the playing field level for everyone. If the net neutrality dies (which seems likely) then you will find that we have swapped Government Regulation for Corporate Regulation.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

            We don't need an FCC at all. The market will compete and decide a winner.

            If I want to broadcast a 3G signal I can just buy a transmitter, if somebody else wants to use the same bit of spectrum they can compete by buying a bigger transmitter - not have to pay $Bn to some gubermint for the right to use.

            1. BreeBree

              Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

              yup.. just like here. we got compat..io..n.. wait no just att.. no other services.. i got 3g but from att.. i got uverse.. yup att..

              Now i would agree IF and that's a big IF there was real competition.. till then Net Neutrality needs to be in

        2. Twilight

          Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

          Bombastic bob, you seriously think getting government "out of the way" will make things better?!?! The whole reason the FCC stepped in is because things were bad and getting worse.

          Like other posters, I have the choice of Comcast (up to 2 Gbps if I was willing to pay $300+ per month) or CenturyLink (MUCH slower). Both have horrible customer service. Both had or were working on deals to force customers to pay more to get "competing" services (eg Netflix and the like) at a reasonable speed. I could get business service from either for substantially more money but there's no guarantee with those that they wouldn't do the same filtering/prioritising if not for the FCC rules.

        3. strum

          Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

          Bob, you are falling for the libertarian fallacy - that removing power from the gummint automatically 'returns' it to the populace. Not so. Removing power from the gummint hands it to the powerful (the rich, the strong, the ruthless). The populace don't get a look in, unless the gummint acts on their behalf (whether they always do or not is a separate issue).

    2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      Re: "Hey lefties"

      I've noticed that Republicans love using labels - I guess it save them having to think."

    3. Ilsa Loving

      Re: "going forward"... over a cliff!

      > As long as there's choice from who your ISP is

      You just wiped out your entire argument. That is PRECISELY the problem. An extremely large number of people don't have a choice in ISPs. ISPs have actively gone out of their way to stifle competition through whatever means at their disposal (including lawsuits). That's why the FCC jumped in. The US internet industry is almost as much of a clusterfuck as it's healthcare system is, and now the republicans are going to dial back the little gains that have been achieved in granting equality to everyone.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    On the Ball

    They need to get on the ball! Companies still have a monopoly and nothing has changed here. I pay $75 for 50/50 internet from FIOS. That's a big price for slow access while the rest of the world is cheaper and twice as fast. I'm one of the lucky few to have the FIOS option, Comcast controls everything else and that is the only choice. Options need to open up and hopefully compete against each other which hasn't happened. All Comcast and Verizon do is match each other and you end up back and fourth between them or go to satellite which is what I have for cable. If I had a better option I would go with them, but none so far. Pay $75 for Dish.

    Another thing the FCC needs to get ahead of is unlimited downloads for our internet before they start tiering it! As streaming becomes more popular instead of cable they are going to tier that to nickel and dime us on that as well like they do cell phones. They need to force the hand on cell phones too and allow unlimited again!

    These companies have a monopoly and they need their hands slapped!

    1. GrapeBunch
      Meh

      Re: On the Ball

      "rest of the world" is not necessarily cheaper. Canada, for example, has a small number of providers, each with a geographical area of dominance. Typical complaint is that it's too expensive and the service is lousy. I opted to go with a provider that is even more expensive, but the service is good. The equivalent of $us 50+ per month for 300 GB bandwidth. Canada is frozen wasteland of course, but I'm talking about the urban areas hunkered down over that 4,000 mile undefended border. We'd like to be like Korea for internet, Scotland for Whisky, France for cheese, Italy for God (whether it's of the Abraham and Isaac variety or the pasta flavour), and so on, but izznt--so we have some goal to occupy the otherwise idle hours.

      1. GrapeBunch

        Re: On the Ball

        I opted to go with a provider that is even more expensive, but the service is good.

        ... then later the same day I discovered that shaw.ca in March is discontinuing offering web space, which up to then had been included in the monthly bill. This is not separate billing, it is simply discontinuation of the service. Thank goodness for the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, but shaw.ca has abandoned its faithful customers, left us high and dry. I thought the sentence was modest enough, but it is hubris. Well at least, that makes Canada's broadband services easier to categorize: too expensive, lousy service, please find an exception.

    2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

      Re: On the Ball

      It sounds like you actually have competition between Comcast and Verizon - this probably accounts for your low costs each month. My bill from COX increases by 5% every year because they have no real competition (AT&T DSL gets ~6Mb if it isn't raining).

  4. Terry Cloth
    Facepalm

    Such an inspirational example

    So, he's resigning before the end of his term, but urging us to fight fiercely in the battle that he runs away from just when it gets tough. Thanks, guy; now we get a Trump FCC voting 4-1 rather than 3-2, as it would be for a year and a half if he stuck it out.

    1. Ilsa Loving

      Re: Such an inspirational example

      If you were sitting in a car that the driver was driving full-tilt into a wall, wouldn't you jump out too? If there's nothing he can do in his position, then it's not "fighting the good fight" anymore. It's "becoming the target and the scapegoat", and the only thing he'll get out of it will be a new prescription to anti-stroke medication from all the frustration.

      I've been in a similar situation, and the only sane decision was to throw my hands in the air and walk away cause to stay would have accomplished nothing beyond raising my stress levels through the roof.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like