back to article FCC boss slams new Californian net neutrality law, brands it illegal

The head of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai, has slammed a net neutrality bill approved by California earlier this month, calling it "radical, anti-consumer" and "illegal." Speaking at the right-wing think tank Heritage Policy Center in Portland, Maine, Pai painted California's effort as seeking " …

Page:

  1. JLV Silver badge

    States' rights! States' rights!

    except when it doesn't suit us.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: States' rights! States' rights!

      the U.S. Constitution is clear when it comes to interstate commerce. Long ago the decision was made that communications networks are (by definition) a form of 'interstate commerce', beginning with telegraph and telephone services. Even 'last mile' is under FCC jurisdiction, and this is where Cali-fornicate-you law would be superseded by Federal law. That's generally how it's done.

      Besides, "net neutrality" is such a MISNOMER anyway, it doesn't describe what 'they' are really trying to do with it. The single biggest thing seems to be prioritization of some packets over others, particularly when it's paid prioritization. The end result is that everyone ends up having the same mediocre level of service, despite what you can afford to get. And so the "everyone is just another brick in the wall" militant-gummint-control-freak-socialist-types, who *FEEL* that *NOBODY* should *EVER* be able to "get something better for more money", want to PUNISH achievers by essentially DENYING them "the better level of service" that THEY can afford!

      That's all it is. ENVY, and 'equalizing outcomes' on the backs of the achievers... with the notable exception, of course, of EXEMPTING those who MAKE the laws and their crony friends and contributors, because *THEY* will *ALWAYS* have *THEIRS* through special favors and exceptions, whereas 'the rest of us' must LIVE with that crap. It's _ALWAYS_ "the masses" aka "just another brick in the wall" minions, regular folk, who will pay for it somehow.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: States' rights! States' rights!

        I would much rather have mediocre service because everyone is using versus someone paying to hog all the bandwidth and squelch me. At least with the former there's potential for an upstart to offer better service and steal customers.

      2. SImon Hobson Silver badge

        Re: States' rights! States' rights!

        The end result is that everyone ends up having the same mediocre level of service, despite what you can afford to get.

        I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

        Under Pai's view of things, your ISP is free to throttle traffic from a competing service - for example, they might throttle Netflix to make it rubbish compared to their own video streaming service. So effectively, the "internet" you get starts looking more like the walled gardens epitomised by the AOL of the olden days - where what you get to see is only what the provider wants you to see, and that is driven by what the providers are prepared to pay. An obvious danger there is that if some small startup comes up with a great new idea, the ISPs are in a position to kill it by simply throttling it's traffic so users will find that it's crap.

        Under the Californian rules, your ISP cannot screw around with what you get to use - if you want to use (for example) Neflix rather than the ISP's service, then you can. And the startup with the great idea is free to get it going without being nobbled by vested interests.

        None of this is about limiting what YOU can pay for. If you want a little pipe for little money then that's your choice, if you want a bigger pipe for more money then you can. But if the ISP simply doesn't deploy enough bandwidth within it's own networks, then that's a different issue - in a healthy market* you'd simply choose a different (better) ISP.

        * Which it seems doesn't exist for many users in the US.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        That's all it is. ENVY, and 'equalizing outcomes'

        So you mean when in the Declaration of Independence they wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" etc etc they made if just because the envy they had for their richer and noble English overlords?

        Do you believe those who have more money should have more rights, like Trump does? That rights should be sold to those who offer more? My packets are better than yours, so they should be prioritized? And what will happen when you'll find you're not among the elite, and someone else is denying your rights?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That's all it is. ENVY, and 'equalizing outcomes'

          Four words: Law of the Jungle.

          With enough power, you can ignore everyone else. No amount of "laws" is going to change that.

  2. DougS Silver badge

    That's irony for you

    Speaking at the right-wing think tank Heritage Policy Center, [Pai said] "It's a useful reminder that we’re not as divided as cable news and Twitter suggest". I suppose speaking to an audience of yes-men would tend to make you think "hey we aren't as divided as I thought".

    I guess that must be what Trump likes about his rallies, where henchmen will eject anyone who isn't cheering with the rest!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. NBCanuck

      Re: That's irony for you

      "I guess that must be what Trump likes about his rallies, where henchmen will eject anyone who isn't cheering with the rest!"

      He hasn't yet taken to having his thugs threaten to have nay-sayers taken out and shot like another narcissist did about 70 years ago, but would he if he could?

  3. cornetman

    If Pai doesn't like it, then they must be doing something right.

    1. goldcd

      But what about his mansion?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCTlWKzQIuo

  4. Someone Else Silver badge

    Gee, what a surprise!

    Pai's speech mirrors the same language that has been used by large cable companies to argue why any such state net neutrality bill would be illegal.

    And why shouldn't it? I mean, he has to get his talking points from somewhere; it's not like he can come up with this garbage himself. Why not have them come from his patron?

    The shit doesn't fall far from the anus.

    1. DJV Silver badge

      Re: Gee, what a surprise!

      "The shit doesn't fall far from the anus."

      Oh, definitely a candidate for comment of the week! Upvoted!

  5. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Pai said "If individual states like California regulate the Internet, this will directly impact citizens in other states."

    And this is a bad thing? The other states might just follow suit and some are in the process. A bit of revolution by the States would be good thing in this case.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I understand why people like net neutrality, but I still think ISPs should discriminate against large services like Netflix, if such providers require high traffic prioritisation and are taking up a large enough proportion of it.

    1. redpawn Silver badge

      Just supply the bandwidth you advertise regardless of the source. Promising a good data stream only to your own speed test servers and a few paying partners is not good enough.

    2. mr.K

      Free market = regulations

      For any market to function all participants has to make informed choices, otherwise competition simply will not work. This is why a functioning free market needs to be well regulated. The downside of regulation is that in impedes on freedom of choice. Thus the more professional a participant can be said to be, the less protection the regulation has to offer. Consumers are not however, and needs simple well established regulations that lets them make informed choices.

      The simple market is that an ISP provide access at a certain speed, and possibly a certain amount, at a certain cost. In this type of market, Netflix does not use up any of the bandwith, the consumer does. No matter how you put it, it is the consumers that end up paying anyway. If they pay Netflix more since they have to pay the ISP or they simply pay the ISP directly does not matter. It will simply muddy the water, prevent informed choice and thus preventing the free market.

      1. LDS Silver badge

        "The downside of regulation is that in impedes on freedom of choice"

        How? Actually well done regulation usually improve the freedom of choice - i.e. antitrust ones. Net neutrality actually improves it - denying the ISPs to choose from you as they look for what is more remunerative for them.

        Unless you mean you would like to choose more pollution, unsafe devices, dangerous pharmaceuticals and food, etc. etc.

        Even standards are a kind of regulation, and it is true they could limit choice, but in this case interoperability may be more important than pure choice. There would be no Internet without its standards. Would have been "The Microsoft Network", "AppleNet", "Google Collective" (probably no Google, though), each incompatible with the others, better? Is "choice" always better?

        Just look at how USA lagged behind Europe in mobile phones adoption in the 1990s and early 2000s because having different incompatible networks slowed down adoption.

        1. Eddy Ito Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: "The downside of regulation is that in impedes on freedom of choice"

          How? Actually well done regulation usually improve the freedom of choice - i.e. antitrust ones. Net neutrality actually improves it - denying the ISPs to choose from you as they look for what is more remunerative for them.

          But those are regulations that likely wouldn't be necessary if companies weren't granted local monopolies in the first place. The problem is that there are too many barriers to enter the market both with adding the needed infrastructure and the regulations for getting permission that limit a free market.

          Unless you mean you would like to choose more pollution, unsafe devices, dangerous pharmaceuticals and food, etc. etc.

          Really? This antiquated trope again. You do realize it's actually possible to be for less regulation without being for all those other things and it isn't a zero sum game where you can only have one or the other. Why are you for preventing ex-convicts from becoming productive members of society like firefighters? Do we really need protection from rogue hair braiders? Thank goodness the smart folk in Cali won't allow people without a high school diploma become a farrier, think of the foals!

          LOL, more pollution (smoke 'em if you got 'em), unsafe devices, dangerous pharmaceuticals and food, good one!

          1. LDS Silver badge

            "if companies weren't granted local monopolies"

            And who's banning competition, and allowing local monopolies if not Pai & Friends? Who blocked states and cities wanting to deploy their own infrastructure?

            "This antiquated trope again."

            No, It isn't. Before authorities were created to oversee companies and set regulations, it was a Far West were even killing people was OK unless it got too expensive.

            Regulation will not remove each and every risk. Some Apple and Samsung phones will still get fire, but why Samsung had to recall them all?

            "Why are you for preventing ex-convicts from becoming productive"

            I don't deny there are some wrong regulations - but just wait for an ex-convict made firefighter to commit a crime, and the same anti-regulation people would mount a big campaign about enforcing "law and order" and jail everybody forever. Just look at Oklahoma in the same article you posted....

            Still, it's not a good reason to assert everything must be deregulated because "the market knows better". The market knows better how to make a few people rich at the expenses of everybody else - up to destroying their health and lives, if lucrative.

            We saw what happened as the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. The worst financial crisis since 1929.

            And we see how lobbies are trying to remove checks and consumer protections especially in the financial sector enacted after the crisis. Good luck...

            1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

              Re: "if companies weren't granted local monopolies"

              The FCC didn't grant local monopolies. Most are instituted at the state, county, or city level. Just like LA's brilliant scheme to carve up the city into local garbage monopolies.

              Who blocked states and cities wanting to deploy their own infrastructure?

              The courts? Or are you referring to the feet draggers in Frisco.

              No, It isn't. Before authorities were created to oversee companies and set regulations, it was a Far West were even killing people was OK unless it got too expensive.

              Yes it is. You seem to think that there actually are people who are for pollution, unsafe food, etc. They're aren't so stop pretending there are. What you confuse as those people are simply people wanting to be free to choose to drink raw milk and eat raw cheese or whatever else they want to put into their own bodies. It's of no potential harm to anyone else so why make it difficult or impossible to get?

              As far as killing people goes, it's often the "authorities" who are doing the killing since it's cheaper that way. See Ponce Massacre, Ludlow Massacre, Columbine Mine Massacre, Bloody Island Massacre, etc.

              I don't deny there are some wrong regulations - but just wait for an ex-convict made firefighter to commit a crime... Just look at Oklahoma in the same article you posted....

              Now ask yourself why they would commit a crime. Could it be because they couldn't get a job? Did you read the full article? "states with the heaviest burdens of occupational licensing saw an average increase in reoffending within three years of release of over 9%. The states with the lightest burdens saw a decrease of 2.5% over the same period."

              Still, it's not a good reason to assert everything must be deregulated because "the market knows better".

              I haven't seen anybody assert any such thing. I merely pointed out that adding more regulation to offset the negative externalities of other poor regulations is pretty stupid and that instead of piling on it might be better to get rid of the junk first especially as it could allow for even lower costs. Keeping the status quo just means the existing companies will just keep raising their rates without any benefit for the consumer.

              1. LDS Silver badge

                Re: "if companies weren't granted local monopolies"

                "You seem to think that there actually are people who are for pollution, unsafe food, etc."

                Sure, it they can make a lot of money from it. They won't be, of course, those living in polluted areas and eating unsafe food. Why Scott Pruitt (now gone) & C. are tasked to kill the EPA?

                "those people are simply people wanting to be free to choose to drink raw milk and eat raw cheese"

                Nobody forbids you if you own a cow, or know someone who owns one. But selling them becomes quickly too dangerous. You can put your life at danger, not others'. Pasteur didn't become famous for nothing... people today forget how easy was to die in the past.

                "it's often the "authorities" who are doing the killing"

                Yes, that happens when a government allies with a few rich, powerful companies against its citizens. The pre-war, pre Great Depression USA was a bad place for workers, with the Supreme Court often ruling against them as it's going to do now again - guess supported by whom?

                Like it's doing now to "deregulate" and put citizens at the mercy of a few powerful companies.

                "Could it be because they couldn't get a job?"

                I did mean an ex-convict which got a job previously denied to him, not one without a job. One thousand may be good firefighters for a life, but as soon one does a bad thing there would be the same people starting to question loudly why he was ever allowed to be a firefighter. I know that people.

                "it might be better to get rid of the junk first especially as it could allow for even lower costs."

                Which is equivalent to what I said - the "market will self regulate!".

                There are no evidences less or no regulations will lead always to lower costs. Actually, it could lead to higher costs, for customers especially, and for new companies trying to enter the market.

                Denying net neutrality is an example. They could sell you a cheap basic packet. But soon you soon discover you need to buy more expensive options for your needs. It has already been done in phone, cable contracts and the like. And they could up prices later.

                I agree that there are instances when old regulations must be wiped and wholly replaced by new ones, instead of piling them up. Just, in toxic political environments it could become very difficult, it could be easier to slip in little changes - it's a mistake, but sometimes there are no other ways.

      2. P. Lee Silver badge

        Re: Free market = regulations

        >No matter how you put it, it is the consumers that end up paying anyway. If they pay Netflix more since they have to pay the ISP or they simply pay the ISP directly does not matter.

        The problem is not so much the payments as the market distortion. The payment may be the same, but the benefit goes to Netflix alone. The problem is that it makes the large content providers the ISPs' customers and they own the bandwidth instead of the internet users. That means new content providers will be locked out of bandwidth availability. Internet users will have no choice but to pick the streaming providers which have agreements with their ISP because no-one else (or at least new providers) will not be able to compete. It locks in the big incumbants.

        That is unacceptable and it gets even worse when there is a lack of competition in the ISP market.

        I understand Trump's desire for deregulation, but that really needs to be predicated on the availability of competitive markets, not just making markets "free."

    3. tin 2

      Not at all, because the end user is paying the ISP for the internet connection. That's been the model since whenever and I don't think there's a better one.

      What the ISPs are trying to do is charge the end user for the connection, then charge someone else again for delivering the data to that internet connection.

      1. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

        What the ISPs are trying to do is charge the end user for the connection, then charge someone else again for delivering the data to that internet connection.

        No, the consumer still has to pay for it, just twice as Netflix, et al., will pass it along in the monthly bill. Actually, unless Netflix is billing by the amount of data passed to each consumer, it's not that inefficient save the costs of administering the billing process modified that way. However, Netflix and other providers do not pro-rate the bill for traffic so you end up with a "Tragedy of the Commons" problem. Those that use Netflix most are subsidized by those that use Netflix less, or least.

        It's back to the ye olde "companies don't pay taxes, customers do." With increased market friction introducing inefficiencies in both cases.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          It's back to the ye olde "companies don't pay taxes, customers do."

          Sorry, it's just like saying "employees don't pay taxes, companies do" because when you contract your salary you also take how much taxes will take into account. While obviously prices and wages take it into account (and all other costs), there are other constraint that are effective, so you may not be able to pass everything along.

          If you're Apple you can set a phone price at $1500 and still find people who will buy it, regardless of how much taxes your're paying (or not paying). Other industries may not be that lucky.

        2. shaunhw

          @jack of shadows:

          "Tragedy of the Commons" problem. Those that use Netflix most are subsidized by those that use Netflix less, or least."

          That applies whether or not it's from Netflix or anywhere else. Lower use users subsidise those who use the internet more.

          The user pays for a certain amount of data allowance perhaps "unlimited" in nature as is now very common on landlines, and it should not matter where that data comes from, be-it Netflix or anywhere else, such as YouTube or indeed the pron sites.

          As far as I know Netflix actively assist (especially larger) operators to minimise their off network bandwidth use, by supplying them servers free of charge for the use of the customers of such operators.

          1. LDS Silver badge

            Net neutrality doesn't forbid to sell different bandwidths ("speeds") at different prices. So if you pay for 10Mb only that's what you get, and you can't stream several movies at once. If you pay (more) for 1Gb maybe you can.

            But if I buy 1Gb and while I'm backing up movies I took (or any other large files) to a remote system I'm throttled down because the remote system didn't pay them so they give precedence to i.e. Netflix because it paid them, well, I'm really subsidizing Netflix users then, as I 'm paying for a bandwidth I'm not allowed to use - while maybe the prioritized users paid for less.

            Let's remember it's not only YouTube vs. Netflix, or the like, many people use the internet for their own needs, not just to consume data from some big corporation.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      But isn't the argument against net neutrality that the amount of data sent at any one time is limited. So if there is a lot of prioritised data from a single source then they shouldn't be treated equal to a source that sends a lot of low priority data?

  7. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    I love Weiner

    (Sorry, I had to go there.) In any case, I'm increasingly a fan of Scott Weiner's no-nonsense practical policy-making efforts, and I hope he goes far.

  8. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
    Facepalm

    This guy would argue that black is white

    1. LDS Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Actually, it's a very Communist approach to communication. Like an agit-prop, he's trained to assert what he's proposing will lead to exactly the opposite outcome of what is really planned.

      There's a reason why Orwell in '1984' used the famous 'Freedom is slavery', etc. etc. And that's how Napoleon in 'Animals Farm' acts.

  9. Boohoo4u

    Sorry

    CA sign the thing into law already! So, the rest of the States can follow.

    Sorry Pai. It looks like you’ll miss out on that cushy “consultant” job after leaving public office.

  10. Kev99 Bronze badge

    Well, if you loved the society portrayed by the movies Rollerball and The Running, keep watching Pai & Co. Otherwise...

    1. JLV Silver badge

      Rollerball I get. but did you mean Silent Running?

      1. james 68

        Silent Running is an excellent movie, but I believe he may have meant The Running Man.

        1. JLV Silver badge

          Awww dont the last natural plants on Earth in a soon to be decom'd orbiting USS Valley Forge Korean war aircraft carrier, due to budget restrictions, beat a fairly run of the mill King adaptation? Really?

          As someone who loves a lot of King's books.

          Raising you an Altered Carbon

          1. james 68

            @JLV The plants.... Meh. Huey Dewey and Louie were the stars of that movie, still brings a tear to the eye when one of them gets taken out and all that's left is his foot. Bloody good storytelling to give the feels for a box on legs.

  11. DCFusor Silver badge

    On track to get fired

    If I read the law right, it's anything but illegal. CA can refuse to use any contractor for anything, the feds can't force contract terms. And Pai is supposedly a lawyer? His spiel looks like alternate facts to me.

    And he's so universally unpopular - and I hang with a wide group of viewpoints - I know zero people, even the most "right wing" who think Pai should be in his job even 1 more minute. Most would assign a time in the past when he should have been booted. Doesn't matter what partisan religion one is, they are unanimous that this guy needs to go.

    Now if Trump can get up the "you're fired" thing on this - which he evidently liked to do once - then he'd be a heck of a lot more popular. And that seems important to him. Hope he gets the same kind of info on Pai's lack of popularity I get. I doubt he'd miss an easy chance to be a hero - maybe he's waiting for the telecom checks to clear first, but man, what a political slam-dunk that'd be.

    1. JLV Silver badge

      Re: On track to get fired

      it’s pretty harsh when one’s cheering for Trump to fire someone as a clever move.

      as opposed to gloating at another example of El Trumpo’s “management style”.

      +1+1

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: On track to get fired

      "I know zero people, even the most "right wing" who think Pai should be in his job even 1 more minute"

      Not any more. I think Pai is doing _JUST_ fine!

  12. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    I'm glad the states are looking at net neutrality

    I have no idea what the courts will ultimately decide, but I am glad that some states are pushing back. I am definitely pro-neutrality, and anti-anything that might entrench monied vested interests at the expense of innovation, or anything that might tend to restrict the information and viewpoints that people may receive.

    I prefer a wild west internet to a potemkin village internet.

    1. LDS Silver badge

      "I prefer a wild west internet to a potemkin village internet."

      It's not that choice - "net neutrality" doesn't mean DDosS are allowed, or spam - that was actually allowed by the CAN-SPAM act, another law that preempted states to make stricter rules -, or ransomware, etc. Nor it doesn't mean that no rules are applied - just, the rules needs to be fair for everybody. For example prioritizing emergency calls and emergency response traffic is fair, and could not be objected to (of course abuse should be persecuted). But priority given just because of ISP deals doesn't look fair at all.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: "I prefer a wild west internet to a potemkin village internet."

        "priority given just because of ISP deals doesn't look fair at all."

        SEE? SEE? SEE? It _IS_ about "envy" of "they get that and I do not" (even though they paid for it).

        So why don't YOU make a deal yourself? Oh you don't have the money? Well I guess there's an actual BENEFIT to working hard and doing the right things so that you can AFFORD better!

        And that's been my point all along. "net neutrality" (which is nothing about 'neutrality' but about "equalizing outcomes") is about, well, EQUALIZING OUTCOMES and _PREVENTING_ one party [whether individual or corporation] from BUYING BETTER SERVICE LEVEL, because it's - *ahem* - **NOT** **FAIR** [waaaah, waaaah, I'm a snowflake, waaaah waaaah].

        OK that last part was uncalled for but I did it anyway, because it was *FUNNY*.

        icon, because, facepalm

        "Life _is_ pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." - Dread Pirate Roberts, 'Princess Bride'

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "I prefer a wild west internet to a potemkin village internet."

          "So why don't YOU make a deal yourself? Oh you don't have the money? Well I guess there's an actual BENEFIT to working hard and doing the right things so that you can AFFORD better!"

          But people work their arses off and STILL can't make even a Spartan living...because all the rich people are cutting the ladders of upward mobility to keep all the wealth to themselves. That kind of attitude as above is basically the attitude that says the weak (read: most of the population) should just FOAD. Let's just say it has the potential to get REALLY ugly if history is any indication.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: I'm glad the states are looking at net neutrality

      "I prefer a wild west internet to a potemkin village internet."

      then you should study what 'Net Neutrality' is REALLY about, because 'potemkin village' is what you'd actually GET.

      'Wild west' is the internet WITHOUT 'net neutrality' [which again, has NOTHING to do with protecting freedom nor free speech, it's about keeping everyone 'the same' when it comes to service level, *AND* setting the precedent of CONTROLLING INTERNET CONTENT - that last part SHOULD frighten you, yes].

      Think about it: What was the internet like BEFORE Obaka's FCC decided to REGULATE it? And is it STILL that now, with Trump DE-regulating it back to what it was? What makes you *FEEL* [not think, obviously] that this will create "a potemkin village" ? It's "wild west" now, and will remain so, as long as it's kept DE-regulated!!!

      Yes. the potemkin village deception is FROM THE LEFT. Liberty = 'wild west' = de-regulation, not MORE regulation. See?

  13. Public Citizen

    Slow Motion Train Wreck

    The Core Problem being that the elected officials in California, from city councils all the way up suffer from the delusion that they are "showing the rest of the nation and the world how it should be done".

    Every one convinced inside his or her head that they are "the greatest statesman to ever walk the planet".

    Meanwhile back on planet earth, the state is virtually bankrupt and it's only some fast pencil-work on the ledgers that keep the fact from becoming apparent to all the punters. When the aging bureaucrats start retiring in larger numbers [projected to start occurring within the next three years] their magic accounting tricks won't be able to paper over the "financial embarrassment".

  14. Byron "Jito463"

    Typical

    It's funny that he accuses Pai of Crony Capitalism, when government regulation is the very definition of that. I'm glad Pai repealed NN, because we do not want unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats deciding the future of the internet.

    I'm not trying to defend everything Pai has done, nor trying to claim his motivations for doing so, simply saying that I agree with this decision.

    1. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

      Re: Typical

      Well bribed legislators tell us that innovation requires deregulation while the sources of their income have lawsuit firehoses aimed at every emerging competitor. There is no free market.

      Some of those "community broadband" plans that Pai & pals want to eliminate are actually EXTREMELY pro-competition. The city hooks up the fiber only for delivery. ISPs compete to deliver bandwidth through it to their customers. It destroys the typical US monopoly/duopoly telco lock-in.

      NN can be repealed when consumers actually have competition from ISPs.

      1. Byron "Jito463"

        Re: Typical

        If Congress wants it to happen, they should write the law themselves, not kick it over to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide. This is why I support the FCC decision to repeal NN. It gave too much power to those unaccountable to We The People.

Page:

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019