back to article Take that! FCC will hand net neut to FTC – reports

Americans may get a less Google-friendly and less-politicised regulatory regime if America's trade watchdog, the FTC, adopts responsibility for "net neutrality provisions", as reports today suggest. But under Trump, will the FTC have any teeth? Both Politico and The Wall Street Journal report that Ajit Pai – chairman of the US …

Bronze badge

FCC Reaction

Seems to me the FCC is saying: "If google gets to sell people's data, then the only logical response is to let everyone sell everyone's data".

So if one person is buddy-buddy with the DA and gets off on murder, there's no sense in making murder illegal anymore? That's the FCC's reasoning here?

For the most part, data is GIVEN to Google. You log into Gmail, perform searches on Google.com, watch videos on YouTube, or browse the internet without an Ad Blocker/Private Browser. You can have a mostly Google-free experience if you wish.

ISPs, by their very nature, are inseparable from the internet. They aren't providing a service in exchange for collecting your data, they get PAID DIRECTLY! There's no argument for why an ISP gets to make a profit off of YOUR data when they already get paid to provide internet access. You're paying them for the privilege of giving them the ability to record your data. Imagine if Nielsen made you pay for the set top box to give them data on what you watch on TV. Why, exactly, would anyone want to do that (oh, you already pay your TV provider for their set-top box? yeah, guess it isn't that implausible after all).

You don't like Google, fine. No Android, no Chrome, no Docs, etc... If you don't like or trust your ISP, you have to do without the entire internet. Good luck. VPNs only work so long as your ISP doesn't de-prioritize VPN traffic (and what, exactly, will stop them now, the FTC?). And many sites arbitrarily block VPN Access (Netflix, banks, Target [somehow, and only with my profile, but not my wife's]).

I'll admit the old FCC looked to be pretty far up Google's ass, but when has Congress in general never appeared to be cleaning the backside of Big Cable and Big Telecom's tonsil's with their noses? You can't ride the wave of splitting up Ma-Bell forever, not when AT&T is right back where they were before.

8
0

Re: FCC Reaction

I live 18 miles from the White House. I'm luckier than many americans in that I have the choice of two broadband providers. Sadly, it's Verizon and Comcast.

If I don't like Google, I have the choice of quite a number of search engines, including DuckDuckGo. Using things like Adblock, Noscript, and Ghostery, I can reduce the amount of "data leakage" to 3rd parties. But short of getting a VPN, my ISP has access to all of my internet activities.

How long before someone using a VPN will be considered a possible terrorist?

2
0
Silver badge

Is there a style book that suggests that abbreviations such as 'FTC' are spelled out for the benefit of readers?

I know what the FCC is - Eric Idle write a song about them.

0
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: Dave 126

FCC = US comms regulator. FTC = US trade regulator.

(Federal Communications Commission v Federal Trade Commission).

C.

2
0
Silver badge

My recollection is that in US federal government documents and correspondence the first use of an acronym is to be in parentheses, immediately following the fully spelled out name of whatever the acronym is for. It is not always done, especially in documents intended for internal use for acronyms well known within an agency.

I suggest it, respectfully, for general use. It will add considerable clarity for those who do not recognize an acronym immediately without unduly annoying those who do.

0
0

No.

The logical response isn't "Let everyone"... it's arrest Google's entire board of directors, break google up like they did AT&T, and then begin carpet bombing silicon valley and eradicating the rampant age discrimination and the idea that "young people are smarter"... because clearly, they aren't. Only absolute dimwits would think that algorithms can solve social problems. These guys are far, far below even creationist-levels of stupidity.

But I mean, this should surprise nobody over the age of 30: The young are not wise. They will happily bring back the dinosaurs, without bothering to think if that's a good idea first. And they also forget that for every 'success' story in tech, there's another *ten* (at least!) that fail spectacularly. This is an industry rife with failure, poor launches, rampant quality control issues, and more -- and you can thank it all on Silicon Valley. The real kicker? The kids actually believe the propaganda, when the truth is... they're being sold on the idea they're "smart" to work for pennies for a tech company creating "the future".

Older workers know better: They want paychecks, not stock options and the promise of a "bright new world". The bright new world always winds up looking more or less like the one you're living in now. Stop screwing around: Hire competent engineers, who will tell you slurping up all this data is not only worthless, but a serious ethical problem.

4
5
Gold badge

Re: No.

Old people aren't wise either, though clearly they retain the arrogance of youth.

Here's a shocker: the percentage of people who are actually smart is pretty small, and doesn't correlate with age.

6
1
Silver badge

Re: No.

To those who think breaking up the likes of Google is going to be any big help, look at where AT&T is today. It's once again one of the biggest telecom companies in America. The problem is that telecoms is a utility, and utilities have a natural tendency to consolidate due to a number of issues such as infrastructure issues.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Google - bulletproof by blackmail?

My brain finally connected the dots on a scary possibility. Consider that Google has spent years grabbing everything they can learn about everyone and compiling it into personal dossiers. Yeah, they say they're not, bwahaha tell another one.

Given all they know about us and our interactions with other people, can you imagine a better source of blackmail material? And given that little tidbit, what idiot in his right mind would take them on? Google and Faceborg have demonstrated many times the sociopathic screw-you nature of their companies and business strategies. Why would they balk at a little untraceable information release here and there to get what they want?

There was a Sherlock episode like this, with a publisher who knew peoples' personal secrets. He was a complete a-hole to everyone and got away with it because nobody dared risk the exposure. It's plausible, and that worries me.

0
1

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

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017