back to article FCC douses America's net neutrality in gas, tosses over a lit match

Despite the clearly stated and serious concerns of a broad cross-section of industry and society, on Thursday morning a mocking, preening excuse of a regulatory chairman tore down US rules that ensured content over the internet was kept free from manipulation by companies that sell access to the global network. As expected, it …

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Black arm bands for everyone

        "Next question?"

        you actually BELIEVE that? *sigh*

      2. aelfheld

        Re: Black arm bands for everyone

        Does the phrase 'bollocks on stilts' mean anything to you?

        Before 'net neutrality' investments were being made in the internet, both the physical infrastructure & the software driving it.

        Since? Not so much.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Black arm bands for everyone

      I was going to insult you but I'm better than that so I'll ask you a question.

      Who does net neutrality benefit?

      Does it benefit the people who don't have connections to services slowed down?

      Does it benefit cable companies who can't charge extra dollar?

      and finally here's the fun final question I know you won't answer because you is chicken boy like that big white rooster in them cartoons.I say, I say, Big John Chicken cracking that corn.

      If net neutrality didn't exist two years ago and nothing changed then why remove it now if nothing is going to change? Seems a waste of money and time to me.

      Boom, I lied chicken boy.

    2. MrDamage Silver badge

      Re: Black arm bands for everyone

      OK Johnny boy, lets show you what will happen with the end of net neutrality, because the scum sucking corporate overlords have done it before. Its all public record, and available for you to research for yourself.

      2005: Madison River Communications blocked VOIP services as they were competing with traditional voice services.

      2005: Comcast blocked p2p services.

      2007-2009: AT&T blocked Skype and other VOIP services because again, it was competing with their own voice services.

      2011: MetroPCS tried to block all video streaming except for Youtube, and then tried to sue the FCC when they were told to stop.

      2011-2013: AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked access t oGoogle Wallet as it competed with their own products.

      2012: Verizon was demanding Google block tethering apps on Android, as it would allow people to avoid using Verizon's $20 tethering app.

      2012: AT&T tried to block Facetime unless customers paid more for their plan to "allow" Facetime.

      2013: Verizon stated that it was only the Net Neutrality rules that was preventing it from offering teired services.

      So go ahead Little John, be a cheeto cheerleader and welcome your corporate overloards to charge you extra for varying services that, until now, were protected and treated as equal goods.

      Perhaps a car analogy would help you wrap your mind around it.

      Government does deal with a road building company, and a car manufacturer. From this day on, only Ford are allowed to do the maximum speed limit of 65mph, with all other manufacturers relegated to only 35mph, unless the car owner pays extra to be "allowed" to travel at 65mph.

      1. Bob Dole (tm)

        Re: Black arm bands for everyone

        @MrDamage: Good write up. You obviously missed quite a few, like AT&T blocking all VPN ports in the entire state of Washington in order to force people to use AT&T's VPN software.

        People must seriously have a short term memory.

    3. InNY

      Re: Black arm bands for everyone

      How's it going in Olgino? Still looking forward to trumping everyone in the golden showers, when you get to Lyudmila?

  1. philthane

    Take Back Control

    Sorry for Americans. I suspect once our home-grown right wing 'take back control (tm) and we stop bothering with pesky rules from Brussels our own telecos will adopt rules here.

    1. Adrian 4

      Re: Take Back Control

      Sadly, you may be right.

      It will be interesting to see how they paint 2017 american politics as something to copy, though. Most people shake their heads, pass the popcorn and wait to see what the looneys will do next.

    2. AdamWill

      Re: Take Back Control

      You...er...know there is an EU regulation mandating net neutrality, right?

      Here. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120&rid=2 . It's Article 3.

  2. Someone Else Silver badge
    Trollface

    The Reg sez:

    Ajit Pai is the Martin Shkreli of technology policy

    Wow! That is a serious diss...to Martin Shkreli!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Happiest people of the day....

    Goes to anyone involved in the cost-justification of lobbying expenditures at major U.S. cable companies. Those guys are looking like geniuses right now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Happiest people of the day....

      As opposed to Google, Facebook and Twitter, who squandered all their lobbying millions.

  4. vir

    YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON NET NEUTRALITY!

    YOU WILL REGRET THIS!

  5. Haku

    I remember from my early internet days some 20 years ago there was a joke going around about someone being worried their internet bill would skyrocket because they were browsing websites from far away countries.

    Doesn't seem so funny now.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Next up...

      Charging you more for the distance the radio/sound/light waves travel!

      1. hplasm
        Facepalm

        Re: Next up...

        Thank you for choosing Comcast long Distance Internet...

  6. JohnFen
    Alert

    The clearest example

    Since this administration and congress has taken control, we have seen nothing but a constant stream of decisions which throw ordinary people under the bus in order to boost the power and profitability of the largest corporations and richest citizens.

    This is perhaps the clearest example yet. In all my life, I have never before seriously feared for the future of the US. I do now, every single day.

    1. 2Nick3

      Re: The clearest example

      The last Administration was perfectly happy trying to give everything possible to people who didn't do anything for it (example: free college educations to illegal immigrants, but doing nothing to try to control the cost of higher education for those who pay for it themselves). And now we skirt toward the other extreme.

      The problem is those who are caught in the middle - the 'ordinary people' you reference. The lesson that's being taught is that if you work hard what you get will be taken away and given away - either to those who have more than they need or to those who aren't working for it. When people start deciding to move down that ladder (because you can't move up) is when things are going to get bad.

      1. Schultz
        Boffin

        "... give everything possible to people who didn't do anything for it ..."

        Sometimes giving something away will make you richer. Your example is perfect: "free college educations to illegal immigrants" creates a more productive workforce, GDP growth, richer society, ... everybody wins.

        Well, except if you want to define your well-being through your status compared to the rest of society. Suddenly some of those l̶a̶z̶y̶ hardworking immigrants will move up the ladder and make you look bad. Think of Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, or George Soros. They didn't deserve their success, because their ancestors were not on the first boat making it to American shores, right? But your alternative is a static society where the Haves keep what they have and the Have Nots stay in their place. I bet the Egyptian Pharao felt really good -- a god at the top of the world -- until he died of those ringworms. I'll take that socialized medicine instead, TYVM.

        1. 2Nick3

          Re: "... give everything possible to people who didn't do anything for it ..."

          Great examples with Brin, Musk and Soros. All three were legal immigrants. Exactly how the system should work. They followed the law, took full advantage of the opportunity and look at how well it worked out for them.

          That's really what it comes down to - should you reward someone for breaking the law? Laws as they are on the books at that time, not how they might be some day, or even how they should be, but as they are. Do the police hand out money to speeders? Do we promote people who steal from their employer? Give houses to people who assault others? Which laws do we enforce, or ignore, or reward for breaking? Who gets to decide? "A government of laws, not of men" was the original idea, but when you start disregarding laws it falls apart real quick. Like what is happening to this country.

          1. AdamWill

            Re: "... give everything possible to people who didn't do anything for it ..."

            People ignore laws *all the time*. You put a great, giant, whacking example right there in your post:

            "Do the police hand out money to speeders?"

            No, but they sure don't arrest or even give a ticket to everyone who speeds, because just about everyone everywhere speeds *all the time*.

            There is a sort of tacit agreement that you only get arrested for speeding if you're going really fast. Or the cop really needs to meet a quota. Or the cop didn't like the look of your (probably black) face. You know how it goes.

            There are zillions of other examples, of course. There's lots of non-enforcement of drug laws, of laws on public alcohol consumption in various places, tax laws, tons and tons of examples. People have written entire *books* about obscure laws that are still technically on the book but are never enforced.

            The US (and most countries, in fact) has never rigorously enforced its immigration laws to the extent of sending out thousands of enforcement personnel to find and deport every 'illegal immigrant' on the spot, and this has been pretty widely understood for a long time. If it *did* so, in fact, it's been fairly reasonably argued that there would be a substantial degree of economic chaos, especially in border states (several economic sectors depend heavily on undocumented migrant labor, including such minor ones as, you know, *farming*, aka 'where you get all your food').

            1. 2Nick3

              Re: "... give everything possible to people who didn't do anything for it ..."

              @AdamWill - You make good points about how laws aren't enforced, but I'm talking about rewarding people for breaking the law. Like Chicago giving financial aide specifically to illegal immigrants - meaning if you are legally here you're not eligible for those funds!

              To me that's crazy on the level of Disney catching people using forged tickets to get into the park and letting them cut to the front of every line!

      2. AdamWill

        Re: The clearest example

        "example: free college educations to illegal immigrants"

        um. This is quite clearly utter and total bullshit. Do you have the slightest shred of factual evidence that this actually happened?

        1. 2Nick3

          Re: The clearest example

          @AdamWill: "um. This is quite clearly utter and total bullshit. Do you have the slightest shred of factual evidence that this actually happened?"

          Here's one:

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-immigration-california/california-allows-college-aid-to-illegal-immigrants-idUSTRE7971SK20111008

          What the heck, here's another, because that's California, after all:

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/24/cash-strapped-undocumented-immigrants-chicago-flock-free-community-college/794428001/

          So yeah, free college for illegal (or "undocumented" as you may prefer" immigrants. Both sources considered very Center bias.

          1. AdamWill

            Re: The clearest example

            "Here's one:

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-immigration-california/california-allows-college-aid-to-illegal-immigrants-idUSTRE7971SK20111008"

            That's a *state* decision. What does that have to do with, as you phrased it, "the last administration"?

            "What the heck, here's another, because that's California, after all:

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/24/cash-strapped-undocumented-immigrants-chicago-flock-free-community-college/794428001/"

            That's a *city* decision - the city of Chicago. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with federal policy. In fact, it explicitly makes clear that the affected people weren't eligible for *federal* funds:

            "more than one out of five of the 3,015 Star Scholarship winners who enrolled at the city colleges this fall were directed to fill out an alternative to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) because they were ineligible to apply for federal aid"

            So no, neither of those links proves that "the last administration" - by which you clearly meant *federal* administration, i.e. Obama's government - did this. The second one, in fact, explicitly states that it didn't.

          2. JCDenton

            Re: The clearest example

            Not seeing where it says "free". Only seeing where it says "aid". Aid does not equal free, FYI. I have received financial aid from the state as citizen of America, it helps, but it does not pay for everything. If you are quite poor it can make college feel free, for how much you end up paying. Scholarships do not always include the entire tuition from start to finish, they are also earned via academic or extra curricular performance. Nobody is giving away college education, they are making it more accessible.

            Also, those were passed by local governments, not the Fed. It has nothing to do with the last administration.

            Maybe read your sources next time.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The clearest example, helping illegals

            The idea that open boarders (illegal immigrants) is good for citizens has been shown to be false many times in history. IMO if you need a study to be told that borders, rules, and regulations, are a good thing you haven't been paying attention.

            Legal, controlled, managed, and paid for immigration can have many benefits but those do not apply to illegal uncontrolled and unmanaged immigration which is the result of illegal immigration and now increasingly refugees.

            A controlled system of immigration ensures citizens, those whose interest the Nation should be acting in, do not have to compete with the world for jobs in their own country. Controlled immigration ensures citizens are not paying taxes to support the needs of billions while millions of their fellow citizens go wanting. Citizens paying ever higher taxes while their standard of living falls should not be required to give ever more. Managed systems ensure that valued social programs do not fall apart due to overuse or under-funding.

            A post on immigration seems off topic in a discussion about net neutrality but the relationship becomes clearer when the source of these issues are considered. They are the result of the same politics, playing played by every side wanting power, every side that sees citizens as little more than products to be sold or voting blocks to be deceived and manipulated.

      3. JohnFen

        Re: The clearest example

        "The last Administration was perfectly happy trying to give everything possible to people who didn't do anything for it"

        That's a different discussion, but I will note that it seems less harmful to give benefits to citizens who are without power than to give them to people and companies who already have far too much power and that they use to abuse citizens.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    One thing that I don't get...

    ...why do people assume that Netflix and Google are going to pay ComCast and AT&T?

    Surely, as the primary value providers, Netflix and Google should be charging ISPs for allowing their customer access to the content they actually want?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Bob Dole (tm)
      Mushroom

      Re: One thing that I don't get...

      why do people assume that Netflix and Google are going to pay ComCast and AT&T?

      In the case of Netflix, Comcast owns stock in Hulu. It is in Comcast's interest to throttle, or even flat out ban, Netflix from their pipes.

      In the case of Google, imagine if AT&T teamed up with Microsoft and decided to force everyone to use Bing (yeah, it's still around). Or if AT&T decided to buy Yahoo.

      For those that bring up the idea that consumers will change providers - often there are service contracts signed which make it prohibitively expensive to change ISPs. I think I had to pay something like $700 to cancel Fios when I sold my house and moved - absolutely nuts. When those fees don't exist, often there simply isn't another option as a lot of areas are only serviced by one provider.

      What's more likely to happen is that the providers will come up a set of packages allowing access to particular content. For example, the Google Package might give you access to google.com, youtube.com, and a few other sites. The Netflix Package might give you 20 hours of Netflix a week...

      Essentially you can bet that they will try and monetize content providers in a way that will make google news and apple itunes look saintly.

      Net Neutrality made that illegal. Pai's actions, however, have made it a sure thing.

    3. kain preacher

      Re: One thing that I don't get...

      and you would be wrong. As it sits now service like you tube and netflix houses their servers inside of ATT's private internet farms so the service gets to the end user faster. So as it sits if you are on a major ISP netflix and you tube will run faster as you never need to leave your ISP network to get to them.THis help latency.

    4. captain_solo

      Re: One thing that I don't get...

      Its called peering and its as old as the internet.

      Such a complete lack of understanding how the internet has actually worked goes into the rabid panic about #NotNeutrality. Many of these problems are already solved by the business relationships between the providers, people freaking out because Netflix has to pay for peering is one of the significant reasons it doesn't matter that 83% of the public wanted to keep the rules in place, because a larger percentage than that don't understand the issues involved from either a technical or business standpoint.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re: One thing that I don't get...

      But Netflix and Google WON'T be paying Comcast and AT&T. Instead, they will serve as a conduit of money coming from subscribers through Netflix and Google to the cable companies, thanks to a pass-through of higher prices/more advertising that are targeted at end-users.

  8. jake Silver badge

    Steady on, folks.

    This "ruling" doesn't take affect until it is entered into the Federal Registry, which might take a year or more. Plenty of time to reverse Idjit Pai's bone-headed exercise in bureaucratic masturbation. Let's get on with it ... Hot air won't help. Dead Tree letters to your elected officials are the most effective method of getting through to Capitol Hill ... if you don't have the tens of millions of dollars of a high-end lobbyist, that is.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Steady on, folks.

      A quick scan of recent Federal Register entries suggests the delay between agency action and Federal Register publication is much nearer a month than a year (or more). That said, the Congress can override (subject to presidential veto) within the 60 days after it receives the agency report and the Federal Register rule publication. I would look for the rule to become effective around the middle of March, 2018.

    2. AdamWill

      Re: Steady on, folks.

      Well, no, technically it doesn't "take effect", no. But you get one guess as to exactly how enthusiastic Pai's FCC is going to be about enforcing the NN regulation that is still technically on the books.

      In other words, if Comcast sets up paid prioritization tomorrow, who do you think is going to do something about it?

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Steady on, folks.

        " if Comcast sets up paid prioritization tomorrow, who do you think is going to do something about it?"

        hopefully, nobody. because the end result will either be better equipment [bought with additional revenue] or lower prices for people with basic service. Either that, or someone will come along and COMPETE with them. And stopping the competition would be an anti-trust issue, where the FTC has domain.

        And then competition will ensure we all get what we want and what we CAN AFFORD, without others paying for it, without slowing everyone else down just because we serve up torrents, yotta yotta yotta.

        1. JimboSmith Silver badge

          Re: Steady on, folks.

          because the end result will either be better equipment [bought with additional revenue] or lower prices for people with basic service.

          Do you seriously believe that? Much more likely bosses use the extra money as profits and that then triggers bonuses.

        2. patrick tyrus

          Re: Steady on, folks.

          Want basic service, but the slower service.

          The beauty of net neutrality is that if you need 100 megs per second, you get that, and it doesn't matter where it goes.

          Only need 5megs a second? But that.

          Most of the differences will most likely be service and latency issies to places the provider doesn't like.

          1. patrick tyrus

            Re: Steady on, folks.

            Sorry, the buts were auto corrected from buy.

            Same thing with amount of data.

            Currently, the isp's in America only charge for speed. Unless you are on a phone.

            Anyway on the volume side, if you need a 20gig plan buy that. If you only need 5 gigs buy that.

            hey, isp if want to keep more data in house, and a product is popular with customers? Then you can work out a deal with the provider. It will improve both of your networks and won't mean prioritizing.

  9. Lysenko

    Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

    ... but does this matter outside the USA? I guess it allows them to throttle a foreign video streaming site and make the American market a de facto YouTube monopoly, but essentially it already is and anyone working at scale would likely use local AWS anyway. Am I missing something, besides the symbolism of the precedent?

    1. Haku

      Re: Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

      I think there's a worry along the lines of "Well, if they're doing it and getting away with it, why can't we?"

      1. Terry 6 Silver badge

        Re: Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

        Yes, as I and others have said on parallel threads this is yet one more egregious example of a public regulatory body turning against the public it is supposed to be protecting to support the big corporations it is supposed to be protecting us from. It matters outside the USA because it emboldens like minded super-bureaucrats like Batistelli in Europe to to adopt the same strategy.

      2. AdamWill

        Re: Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

        Well there's that, but there's also: the US is one of the biggest sources of and markets for internet services. It's not like only Americans use Netflix or Amazon video, is it? So if America screws up its market conditions sufficiently that it, e.g., heavily discriminates against new market entrants, that affects everyone else too.

        Of course, it won't be long before America is done fking everything up so badly it'll be about as relevant to the rest of the world as the UK is today, so there is *that* silver lining.

        1. Lysenko

          Re: Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

          Well there's that, but there's also: the US is one of the biggest sources of and markets for internet services. It's not like only Americans use Netflix or Amazon video, is it?

          True, but it's not like they've got the population of Europe either (let alone China and India) and they're not likely to close that gap given that all US discussion of immigration revolves around limiting it rather than promoting it. That places a hard upper limit on the extent to which America influences global decision making.

          I agree that Google and Amazon etc. have the sort of reach that makes their decisions relevant on a global scale, but American cable companies? They'll doubtless use their de facto regional monopolies to fleece customers via packages and premium services, but as one of the ACs pointed out - elections have consequences.

          Replicating that here would take primary legislation rather than regulatory tweaks and the only beneficiary would be OpenReach so they would be opposed by literally everyone else in the industry, not just the public.

    2. joemostowey

      Re: Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

      Maybe. If the help of a foreign government to get the ISPs what they wanted turns out to be true, then it certainly will matter outside of the USA. Just think if the price turns out to be a backdoor through America's ISP for access into the secure systems of Europe?

      No one would even think twice of a request from a USA network coming from an ally to maybe run a security check and drop off a few harmless packets into their system, as networks send out security packets all the time.

      Feeling a little paranoid today for some reason, perhaps because I just saw something that the public overwhelmingly commented negatively about pushed out and made real with no regard for the niceties of agency protocol. Strange.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sorry to be parochial (or perhaps actually 'cosmopolitan')...

      It matters when it comes to trade deals where the US demand their corporations are not discriminated against by having to follow different rules than they do when operating in the US.

    4. Richard Barnes

      It also serves as an excellent example of what happens when the legislature is captured by corporate lobbyists.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Making the Internet Great Again

    Elections have consequences. Get over it. Silicon Valley lost this last election. They bet on the wrong horse. Do a Google search. If you see "neutrality", that's because you lack self awareness. Try "American Inventors" and click on "images". Neutral, or carefully curated with a bias? You want neutrality? Let's nationalize Google, AWS, and Facebook. Make sure they are "fair and neutral". LOL.

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