back to article FCC Republicans slam brakes on net neutrality, but this wagon ain't slowing

The two Republican commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have formally called for this week's vote on net neutrality to be delayed. The US watchdog's panel of commissioners are due to approve or reject FCC chairman Tom Wheeler's secret proposals to regulate internet access in America as if it is a phone …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the United States, the Republicans are always on the side of big money.

    1. Mark 85

      Actually, both sides are. Just different money spenders (lobbyists). They both use the same tactics.. blame the other side, shovel fear at the public that if their way is not followed doom will follow. They both quote former leaders. The good thing is that they haven't realized that screwing the American (and the rest of the world's) people is easy... just unite and tell everyone that what they're doing is for the greater good. We'll all pat ourselves on the back for voting in these fine fellows and all will be warm and fuzzy.

      Now where's that grumpy old cynic icon....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Paris Hilton

        Title 69

        "...both sides."

        Leaving the "Independents" out on their own :-(. Come on, they too desperately try to be corrupt, but corruption won't let them.

        BTW, don't forget about the "Green" party. I don't know what that is, but Paris Hilton is supposedly "Green". So at least with their corruption you might get a literal blow job!

        This coming election, vote 'YES' on title 69.

      2. Dan Paul

        Democrats & Telcos

        One thing about the telcos is they will take lobbying money from anyone. Equal opportunity grifters, one and all. The Republicans haven't quite spent as much as the the Democrats have on the FCC though. They have been working to plan their new careers after the administration changes.

      3. Mark 85
        Devil

        Ah... downvotes. Thanks. My sense is that they're from those who think "My political party isn't like that at all." I think I found the grumpy old cynic icon.....

      4. Swarthy
        Big Brother

        "...just unite and tell everyone that what they're doing is for the greater good."

        They do.

        The truly nasty part that most people overlook is that we are often provided an A/B choice in a problem with a [0-255] solution set. On top of that, when two parties which are so often yelling at each other, calling each other names, and disagreeing to be disagreeable do sing from the same page, no-one questions it: "It must be the only way, because if there were any room for argument, they would argue".

        There is also a blending of these tactics wherein a policy is set (for example, anti-"piracy" legislation) one side says that the legislation should carry criminal sanctions, the other says that it should place limits on infringers' available bandwidth, without jail time. Neither side mentions that the method for policing the piracy violates search & seizure limitations, screws privacy, and is selectively enforceable making it easy to target people you don't like.

        The populous will argue jail time vs. bandwidth throttling; but 90% will not think to question logging, warrentless searches, etc. (Okay 75% won't think, full stop)

        You are not quite cynical enough.

  2. elDog

    I always expect a lot of noise from the Hill (flatulence, mainly)

    Whenever an issue is brought up that the out-of-office (executive) party can latch on to.

    I'll hazard a guess that 90% of these critters don't even know how to set up a router and get onto the tubes. Yeah, they have their minions who'll do it, and take dictation, and correct their spelling errors, and issue blandishments when the message wasn't on target.

    How can they possibly understand the complex niceties of net neutrality when they need to spend 4+ hours begging for $s and the other posturing or ordering drinks?

    All they know is that someone they don't like is in the White House.

    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Childcatcher

      Re: I always expect a lot of noise from the Hill (flatulence, mainly)

      My prediction on the upcoming vote: no matter which side "wins" they will manage to FUBAR the whole thing. The only difference between the parties is the manner in which things will be screwed.

  3. unitron

    Can't read all of story

    Google had an ad that covered right hand side of 2nd and 3rd paragraphs--scrolling didn't help.

    Clicked the X to close it, it offered the choice of reporting that the ad covered the page, and when I did that I got this

    Thanks for the feedback! Undo

    We’ll use your feedback to review ads on this site.

    Help us show you better ads by updating your ads settings.

    covering the exact same area.

    Aren't they smart enough to find white space?

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      WTF?

      @unitron -- Re: Can't read all of story

      Aren't they smart enough to find white space?

      Of course they aren't...they're a Corporation, whose job is to get you to look at them, not at the source you seek.

      The real question is: Aren't you smart enough to use AdBlock, NoScript, etc.?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @unitron -- Can't read all of story

        We are, but the ad companies are getting smarter and starting to block the blockers.

  4. Number6

    Who's in charge?

    Isn't the debate here about whether it's controlled by the government or by large corporations? The American people have very little say in practice.

  5. Brew

    No need to worry about the FCC. In the mid 90's they decided that allowing pharmecuetical companies and lawyers to advertise on television would be a great idea, we've since been treated to 20 years of viagra and ambulance chaser ads. Somewhere along the line they realized that limiting the amount of commercials per hour was suppressing the freedom of advertisers so now that amount is unlimited. American television programs are advertising wonderlands complete with ads crawling across the screen as you watch your program. If I gotta be regulated, and I sincerely wish to be, I'm voting for big fat happy daddy FCC, accept no substitute.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      @Brew

      Somewhere along the line they realized that limiting the amount of commercials per hour was suppressing the freedom of advertisers so now that amount is unlimited.

      Actually, you cam blame the Reactionary's Messiah, Ronald McDonald Reagan for that one...and it happened in the middle 80's, not the mid 90's

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Go

    "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people.

    Well, in this case I think that the American people have spoken. What with something like 3 million comments to the FCC on net neutrality--so many comments that the FCC website couldn't handle them all and broke down under the strain.

    I'm not anxious for government regulation, I'm sure there will be unintended consequences. However, I view the risk of those consequences as being preferable to allowing ISPs to overtly throttle various content in favor of either their own content (because the big U.S. ISPs all own TV networks and magazines and such.) or big content providers who are happy to pay for the right to knee-cap their smaller competitors.

    1. Keven E.

      Re: "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people.

      "...technologists invent ever more life-enhancing applications..."

      It makes me think of the Borg every time someone uses this *justification.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people.

      I don't think there's been a single market where consumers have favored the idea of tiered service. We've tried this a few times. Every time a business decides that it would work better to sell the customer a cheap service and then tack on loads of additional fees to get the quality of service the customer actually wants, the business ends up taking a major hit until they give up the idea. People hate paying a lot for a service, but they really hate being nickeled and dimed. Discovering that you have to pay a bunch of tiny fees to "improve" the quality of your service just annoys people. Especially when you discover that those fees add up to more than you saved to begin with.

      So, I'm inclined to think that we'll end up in the same place (in 20-50 years) whether we get the regulation or not. Though, without the regulation, we might get lucky enough to run an AT&T or Comcast out of business before they figure out why they're bleeding customers to Google or municipal services.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people.

        Didn't airlines like Southwest and JetBlue get their start by being "no-frills" airlines?

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people.

        That's true if you have a choice, something like 40% of cable customers don't.

        And the others have a choice between two cable companies that both throttle Netflix and Amazon in favor of their own shows

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people.

      "What with something like 3 million comments to the FCC on net neutrality--so many comments that the FCC website couldn't handle them all and broke down under the strain."

      Only a handful of those 3 million comments were not generated by spambots or deranged lunatics. I like the guy who sent in entire movie scripts.

      http://io9.com/the-weirdest-angriest-and-most-heartfelt-comments-on-1628389996

      http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/4/5776202/net-neutrality-comments

      75% Americans have never heard of "net neutrality" only a few Silicon Valley shills do.

  7. William Donelson
    Pirate

    Republican poodles: "We're against it because we're PAID to be against it"

    Republican poodles: "We're against it because we're PAID to be against it"

    So, Repuglican business as usual, money rules, not citizens.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Republican poodles: "We're against it because we're PAID to be against it"

      Democrats are the same - they're all politicians and have no interest in serving the people like their jobs were originally envisioned. Democrats are just for and against different things than Republicans. And both parties spend way more money on their pet projects than American taxpayers can sustain, and have for decades - that also has nothing to do with the current Administration/Congressional balance.

      Not defending Republicans, here - they all suck - just trying to balance the commentardy.

  8. dan1980

    Conflating regulation of the provision of services to access the Internet with government control of the information available on the Internet is deliberately misleading but, given the partisan nature of this debate, entirely in character.

    I do not believe that treating ISPs exactly the same as phone carriers is the right move but then I don't think that's exactly what's being proposed. Of course, it's hard to know what is being proposed as that has been kept under wraps. I think it's not only reasonable but necessary to make this all available to the public so we can see for ourselves, rather than have this back-and-forward "yes it is; no it isn't" carry-on from the two sides.

    The general idea, however, is to regulate the ability of ISPs to restrict and prioritise different content and/or content from different sources. Preventing ISPs from doing this actually ensures more freedom of access to the content the public wants, rather than the content their ISPs want them to access.

    In a way, this argument can be seen in terms of - or at least with reference to - discrimination. The claim that regulation of the provision of access to content is unnecessary government control over the Internet is similar to the claim that regulation of hiring practices or access to 'public accommodations' is unnecessary government control.

    Essentially, the 'freedom' that this Republican duo is trying to protect is the freedom of big companies (the ISPs) to discriminate for or against (and the two go hand-in-hand) certain content.

    This is somewhat similar to saying that companies should have the freedom to preferentially hire people of a certain gender or race or nationality if they want. (And of course there are plenty who advocate for exactly this.)

    Of course I am not saying that these two commissioners are of that mindset, but the idea that government regulation of private companies is inherently a bad thing is very much a party line for Republicans, certainly in this era of Tea Party influence. The freedoms they most advocate is the freedoms for companies to conduct their business however they want, regardless of how that impacts the public.

    1. Charles 9

      I think the main reason they won't make the text public is that, should it be made public, the GOP lawmakers will find SOMETHING in the text that will give them enough gristle to either (a) invoke some part of the Telecommunications Act that DOESN'T require a presidential signature or (b) pass it along to big Telecom so they can start suing in in half the Federal Circuit Courts, thus giving precedence to get the vote blocked indefinitely. Once the vote takes place, momentum favors the FCC instead because Congress then can't overrule the FCC without a full Act: requiring Obama's signature, plus even if the telecoms sue, the odds of an injunction are now unlikely unless there is a full ruling which isn't a certainty since the FCC can easily argue (especially thanks to VoIP) that the Internet can and must be treated like a telephone company.

  9. Hud Dunlap
    Boffin

    @Kieren McCarthy

    It is interesting that you are saying how great this will be but you haven't read it. The only credible things I can find on the subject is that five people had read it and it is 330 pages long.

    As far as the element of fear I suggest you start following the discussions on the various Campaign finance laws. You might want to start with the Swift boaters vs. Kerry. The courts have already ruled that freedom of Speech is restricted with 180 days of a Federal election.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth

    I don't normally like Wikepedia but it will get you started.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: @Kieren McCarthy

      Furthermore, while you are certainly entitled to continue pushing the Progressive/Democrat agenda under the guise of unvarnished journalism here at El Reg, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

      Ultimately, the FEC decides not to extend rules, and from that Pai draws his connection.

      The FEC decided no such thing. They were deadlocked on the vote so the 0bama appointed commissioner was not able to change them at the time.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/26/fec-deadlock-keeps-internet-free-from-broadcast-ca/?page=all

      And it's not like they abandoned the attempt:

      http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rudy-takala/fec-urged-push-limit-expanding-oversight-youtube-facebook-instagram#sthash.hDlOcv6o.dpuf

      While Karen Getman's (Democrat) testimony in front of the FEC should frighten anyone, it's chilling effect ought to scare the crap out of anybody whose livelihood depends on freedom of speech:

      It's okay to get it wrong and do it again. It's okay to be brave. It is okay to push the limit.

      That's the kind of lie every dictator since time began has used to silence their opponents.

      1. cybersaur
        FAIL

        Re: @Kieren McCarthy

        CNS "News" and the Washingtimes?!? No wonder you're so clueless. Both of those sites traffic in outright lies.

  10. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    I forget

    Is it net neutrality that funds terrorism and government regulation that will allow child porn - or was it the other way round ?

  11. WonkoTheSane
    Facepalm

    Is it just me?

    Or does the article read as if the ISPs are claiming that doing nothing is "unworkable"?

    1. WonkoTheSane

      Re: Is it just me?

      People, please!

      If you're going to downvote, at least have the courtesy to say WHY!

  12. PoliTecs

    The writing is on the wall!

    The last vestige of Freedom is a free and open internet. Something the Linux crowd has allays stood for but I guess it only takes one generation of public schooling to propagandize the ignorance of demonizing one group for a other group promising they are saints... No really, trust us this time, we can regulate benevolently. (fools!)

    Anyone that doesn't understand government and ALL those in bed with them has nothing but control on their mind is an absolute fool and deserves to lose this greatest experiment in Capitalism ever. And to forever be subject to the governments heavy hand of control. I feel sorry for this absolutely ignorant generation of public educated statist's, government oriented shill's, and I hope you all lose what you have been ignorantly building - an open internet is about to be extinguished by a non elected body and none of you know or even understand it.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder!

    1. Keven E.

      Re: The writing is on the wall!

      "...greatest experiment in Capitalism ever."

      Well, as long as you realize we are still experimenting with it. When it comes to people, society demands more support and civility than an individual's or collective's ability to capitalize on *something.

      "Liberalism is a mental disorder!".

      Please realize that "Liberalism" (apparently) means different things on the opposing sides of the pond.

  13. Herby

    When will they understand...

    If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it!!

    If some vendor does something with the traffic we customers get, I'm sure that there will be another vendor that won't do it. The internet has grown BECAUSE it hasn't been regulated. We have reasonable standards body (IETF) and contributions by even the "little people" if they have something to contribute. Even there is some lightheartedness (wait till April 1). Does anyone believe that if some UN organization was in charge of the internet we would have gotten this far? this soon? We would probably be stuck with X.25 at 56k bps circuit switched.

    Let me repeat:

    If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it

    1. Kanhef

      Re: When will they understand...

      You're forgetting that for a large percentage of the US, "another vendor" doesn't exist. I've lived in places where Comcast was the ISP; there was no choice. If ISPs decided to be evil, most people would put up with it, not because they want to, but because the only alternative is to give up internet access entirely.

      Also, the notion that 'if one company is bad, they'll be forced to back down when all their customers leave for competitors' doesn't really hold up when you look at historical precedents. For example, commercial airlines started cutting services and adding fees for everything in the late '90s. None of them went bankrupt or had to reverse course over it, because in short order all of the airlines were doing the same thing.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: When will they understand...

        "Also, the notion that 'if one company is bad, they'll be forced to back down when all their customers leave for competitors' doesn't really hold up when you look at historical precedents."

        Just remember: competition can't be expected with cartel behavior.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: When will they understand...

        I'm familiar with those places as well as the ones where there is competition. The simple fact of the matter is, the people living there voted for it to be that way. They elected the corrupt LOCAL government which used its power to create a local monopoly.

        Furthermore, monopoly issues are not the purview of the FCC, they fall under either the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) or the (Interstate Commerce Commission). You'll find all kinds of conservative support for breaking up government created monopolies. You just won't find any for the Executive branch corruptly seizing legislative powers.

        1. Someone Else Silver badge
          Coffee/keyboard

          @Tom 13 -- Re: When will they understand...

          You'll find all kinds of conservative support for breaking up government created monopolies.

          That's the most hysterical load of bullshit I've read or heard all month. You owe me a new keyboard!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: When will they understand...

      "If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it!!"

      NEWS FLASH: The Internet IS broke!

      And if nothing is done RIGHT DAMN NOW, it'll be broken beyond repair.

      NEWS FLASH: The Internet IS broke!

    3. Someone Else Silver badge
      WTF?

      @Herby -- Re: When will they understand...

      If some vendor does something with the traffic we customers get, I'm sure that there will be another vendor that won't do it.

      Really? I suppose that's why gasoline prices tend to fluctuate at gas/petrol stations that are across the street from each other, and never go up or down in unison...uhhh, wait a minute....

      1. Charles 9

        Re: @Herby -- When will they understand...

        "Really? I suppose that's why gasoline prices tend to fluctuate at gas/petrol stations that are across the street from each other, and never go up or down in unison...uhhh, wait a minute...."

        That's mostly down to "gentlemen's agreements" between gas stations that sit on corners of the same intersection. Otherwise, you end up with one loss leading incident turning into a price war which can ruin ALL the gas stations.

  14. Malcolm Boura

    Strange how the republicans are so keen to censor the Internet when it is something that they disaprove of like body honesty and sex education but put such high value on freedom of expression when the principle can be hijacked to help their corporate sponsors.

  15. Tom 38

    For whom is the internet?

    giving consumers better broadband choices.

    We're consumers now. Brainless sheep waiting to consume whatever is pushed to us. Make sure that we can consume or we might start thinking.

  16. Jeffrey Nonken

    "The ISPs say the plans are unworkable."

    Which ISPs? The major incumbents who hold monopolies or duopolies in most places in the US?

  17. Bcraig

    330 pages

    Does anyone really believe this is about Net Neutrality? That could be done in 2 pages....what's in the other 228 is what should concern people. We have to pass it to see what's in it Ms Pelosi?

  18. dormaj

    IT IS BROKE

    Hey... IT IS BROKE. Example - Netflix has to pay gateway hostage fees just because customers request more content, or big ISPs will throttle them. FIX IT.

    And the statement "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people." is about as disingenuous as it gets. Should have read "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people" because that is the real intent of Pai's message.

    American consumers pay more for internet access (and slower access at that) than virtually any industrialized and many non-industrialized countries. Just like our healthcare system. Why, because big business pushes back on any anti-monopolistic or regulatory controls in their search for the greater profit.

    If you stand for the consumer, support the FCCs proposal. If you are a tool of big corporate America, stand with the Republicans and their lobbyists.

    In comment to the FCC the people have spoken, hopefully louder than the corporations.

    1. dormaj

      Re: IT IS BROKE

      Opps. paragraph 2 should have read:

      And the statement "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people." is about as disingenuous as it gets. Should have read "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the For Profit Corporation" because that is the real intent of Pai's message.

      Bad pasting and proofing. Always a recipe for dumbness.

    2. Charles 9

      Re: IT IS BROKE

      "American consumers pay more for internet access (and slower access at that) than virtually any industrialized and many non-industrialized countries."

      The thing about Internet access is that it costs money to lay down cable. Therefore, geography matters. In case you haven't noticed, the US not only has hundreds of millions of people but is also pretty damn big: near the top of the list in terms of sheer land area. Off the top of my head, only Canada and Russia are bigger, and I don't hold their internet standards as paragons of quality, either.

  19. Compression Artifact
    WTF?

    Gasoline/petrol onto the fire

    "Unfortunately the issue of the rules designed to protect consumers from cable companies abusing their position as gatekeepers to millions of internet users has become increasingly partisan – and hence unreasonable – in recent weeks."

    In the last ten minutes Rush Limbaugh threatened that net neutrality will mean:

    1) Owners of web sites will have to be licensed and prove they are operating in the public interest.

    2) Customers paying $15/month for internet service will be entitled to the same level of service as customers paying $1000/month.

    Is there any indication that this stuff is actually in the secret rulings about to be revealed?

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Alert

      How can you tell Rush Limbaugh is lying?

      A: His puppeteers are manipulating the strings that move his mouth.

      Is there any indication that this stuff is actually in the secret rulings about to be revealed?

      Since Rush said it, it's virtually guaranteed that nothing like that is in the document, or in any way, shape or form implied by anything in the document.

  20. Dave Walker

    Republicans and DoubleSpeek "Freedom"

    Net Neutrality = Government tells ("regulates") ISPs that all traffic has to be treated equally.

    Not "Micromanaging" the ISPs business.

    "Freedom" of the small up and starting business to have the same access to customers as large established companies.

    Certain vocal Republicans seem to equate the enforcement of equal treatment as a threat to "Freedom"; be it access to the internet, marriage, or lunch counters.

    1. Someone Else Silver badge

      Re: Republicans and DoubleSpeek "Freedom"

      But it is a threat to Republicans, Dave. It's a direct threat to their ability and desire to monopolize, gouge, and line their pockets at the expense of the hoi polloi. In other words, it is a threat to their idea of "Business as Usual".

  21. Keven E.

    The coin needs flipping

    dormaj

    We know you lost your chance to fix this... yet, I can guess what you wanted to type.

    And the statement "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people." is about as disingenuous as it gets. Should have read "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the American people" because that is the real intent of Pai's message.

    **********

    Please don't quote anything Rush Limbaugh says here. I'm not saying ignore him (cause he ain't gonna just go away) but some places should be sacred.

    1. dormaj

      Re: The coin needs flipping

      yes thanks.... I saw the error of my ways too late.

      Should have read "Let’s leave the power where it belongs - with the For Profit Corporations" because that is the real intent of Pai's message.

  22. martinusher Silver badge

    We've only had 25 years to ponder net neutrality

    Its not like its a new or radical idea. What is new, radical and generally bad news is that the big money people want to further monetize our internet connections, using paywalls to drive us towards services and material that they want to sell us rather than allowing us to get at what we actually want to use.

    So net neutrality really is a no-brainer.

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