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 …

Silver badge
Flame

Re: Making the Internet Great Again

You know, I've decided to take something of a self denying ordinance against commenting on US political issues because increasingly they seem to resemble the impenetrable stuff that came out of the Soviet Union, but with different buzz words. This post, for instance, I find incomprehensible. As far as I can make out, too, "Big John"'s posts are like the articles in Pravda in which everything that was happening had to be referred to the doctrinal errors of the currently out group, so if there was an outbreak of, to take something at random, sexual harassment among leading Republicans it would be OK because they were proper Marxist-Leninists and in any case it was somehow caused by Stalinists.

I'd like to say that I'm beginning to think the Reg should stick to IT issues and then I realise that this stuff is actually related to an article about a major IT issue. Couldn't the Yanks (and the Southerners) start a website called Randian Worker or Orange Banner or some such and have their doctrinal fights there?

17
2
Silver badge

Re: Making the Internet Great Again

Voyna i Mor sez:

"As far as I can make out, too, "Big John"'s posts are like the articles in Pravda in which everything that was happening had to be referred to the doctrinal errors of the currently out group, so if there was an outbreak of, to take something at random, sexual harassment among leading Republicans it would be OK because they were proper Marxist-Leninists and in any case it was somehow caused by Stalinists."

So, you discern much about me, tho the lens be smudged and stained? Are you sure that sneaky biases of your own aren't coloring your murky view as well?

About your example, this outbreak among Reps of which you speak is largely hypothetical and alleged (in most cases) whilst in the case of the Democrats it's anything but hypothetical (you wish!). DOZENS of highly visible liberals have gone down in flames over charges alleging disgusting, sexist, and even rapist behaviours on their part, and that's just in the last month!

So I invite you to take your weak 'Pravda' smears and apply them liberally to your painful neither regions, k? Sooo soothing...

1
26
Silver badge

Re: Making the Internet Great Again

Y'know, John ... I don't know if you are a very, very bad troll, or if you've become so brainwashed that you truly believe the crap you parrot and are incapable of thinking for yourself anymore.

Either way, I feel sorry for you and those around you. Another human brain wasted for no good reason.

24
3
Silver badge

Re: Making the Internet Great Again

As far as I can make out, too, "Big John"'s posts are like the articles in Pravda in which everything that was happening had to be referred to the doctrinal errors of the currently out group

Agreed. It's nostalgic to see such unshakeable ideological partisanship making a comeback. For the resurgent right wing, everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) that carries the taint of Obama must be expunged and his (imagined) cult of personality dismantled. Meanwhile, the fuming left wing is busily rehabilitating GWB since nothing (and I do mean NOTHING) could possibly be worse than the current administration.

What is a bit different is in the Soviet era there was the possibility of error or well-intentioned policy with ultimately negative effects. That doesn't exist on either wing of American politics. Everything and everyone is either "good" or "evil" and anything occurring under an "evil" administration must itself be evil. If the Soviets worked the same way, Kruschev wouldn't just have denounced Stalin - he would have deindustrialised the country to erase his legacy.

12
2
Silver badge

@jake -- Re: Making the Internet Great Again

Another human brain wasted for no good reason.

You assume much, Grasshopper....

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Making the Internet Great Again

Let me help you out a bit: there's this bizarre argument that runs approximately like this. Facebook and Google are the ones who *really* have too much power - apparently, in this worldview, there can only ever be precisely *one* problematic concentration of market-distorting power at a time, all the other monopolists have to line up and take a number - and net neutrality isn't, you know, a perfectly sensible framing of the principles on which the internet was built, it's a cunning plot by Facebook and Google to...I dunno, take over the world or something, hands generally start getting waved pretty hard right around this point.

In this view of the world, by heroically refusing to regulate monopoly-abusing ISPs while - well, no, that's about it, actually, that's all they're doing - Pai's FCC is somehow saving the world from Facebook and Google. Apparently if we could go live to Sergey Brin's house right now he'd be crying into the fifth reserve swimming pool, or something.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: Making the Internet Great Again

"If the Soviets worked the same way, Kruschev wouldn't just have denounced Stalin - he would have deindustrialised the country to erase his legacy."

...and demanded that Germany be allowed to win WW2.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

FCC must not make law,

The Net Neutrality declaration was well beyond the authority of the unelected, unaacountable FCC in the first place, and we may easily surmise it was Wheeler acting as a shill for the Internet Content oligopoly (Google, Facbook, et al.) in exchange for favors.

If you want NN (1) buy service from an ISP that provides it, (2) elect reps and senators who actively support it. Don't pretend raging at the FCC is action.

3
15
Silver badge

Re: FCC must not make law,

Gosh, it's almost as if all this hasn't been discussed ad nauseam before...

You can "easily surmise" whatever you like, but please take account of the fact that Wheeler was against the Title II solution, it was Obama who pressed for that (which is, I believe, the only real reason why Trump is so determined to undo it now - he neither understands nor cares about the issue, but he knows in his gut that the taint of Obama MUST BE CLEANSED from America).

15
3
Silver badge

Re: FCC must not make law,

Also note that the FCC initially introduced NN regulations without using Title II powers *expressly as a sop to the ISPs who didn't want to be regulated under Title II*. At which point the ISPs *sued the FCC*, their argument literally being "you can only impose NN under Title II". In other words...the ISPs literally *dared* the FCC to put them under Title II.

The fact that since then they've been arguing "oh no no no we're not opposed to net neutrality, we're only opposed to Title II!" would be funny if it weren't so astonishingly awful.

6
0

Politics

Politics is now a sport. It's played by those who either have or desire corporate sponsorship.

Running a country is tangential; almost a by-product. They choose a 'play' that they think will win, no matter the short- or long-term effects, and they follow through with all the will and commitment to make sure it does win.

They even have flags, hats, screaming fans, team colours, mascots, chants...

11
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Politics

This ^^^^^^^

4
1

Achievement Unlocked - Capture the FCC

Playing as a telecom provider, regulatory capture the FCC by installing a majority of puppet commissioners.

8
0

He's not there to protect us

Ajit Pai and Trumps other appointees are not there to protect the public. They have one mission - to destroy the departments they are in charge of. Pai does not think the FCC should be in business at all. The same with the head of the Consumer Protection Agency, Mick Mulvaney. Even Rick Perry wanted to eliminate the the Department of Energy he is in charge of, until he found out that they are in charge of our nukes. This government is all about power to the rich and corporations and screw everyone else. Pai has said he wanted to wipe out net neutrality before he even got the job. He did not listen to anyone. He simply hit the kill switch as he always said he would.

14
2
Silver badge

Including the president

"For everyone else, it was a baffling and infuriating sign that American institutions are open to clear and blatant manipulation so long as the person in charge is willing to discard all previous expected standards of behavior."

11
0
Silver badge

Re: Including the president

> "...so long as the person in charge is willing to discard all previous expected standards of behavior."

Those standards being that conservative views will get lip service while actual decisions will generally favour liberal stances, forever. Um, I hate to be the one, but, those days are over. Sorry. Conservatives are tired of having our preferences discarded while having all blame heaped on us by narrow-minded leftists in the media.

IOW: Drop dead, losers.

2
20
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Including the president

Why does your most right wing party have the colours of the Communist era?

As to politics, us the British are going to reclaim the word Conservatives.

Your so called ones are nothing like our main stream ones*.

* Look at ones like Clarke, Soubry, Timpson. Wollaston, Major, Cameron just for starters. Ignore nutters like the minister for the 1800s. I could probably name a lot more with a short search.

Even our most right wing zealots (Gove) want to improve the environment rather then bring back burning of coal.

Can someone think of a better name for the US red team?

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Including the president

"Why does your most right wing party have the colours of the Communist era?"

Because the party that is the most left wing owns the media, and they switched the colors around to avoid the "red" connotation with their own policies, starting with the presidential election of 2000.

When Ronald Reagan won 49 of 50 states in his re-election bid, the resulting electoral map was described by a despairing media as a "sea of blue."

We don't really have a right-wing party in the US. We have one pretend right-wing party that will fight like lions for the things they supposedly believe in as long as they have no chance of prevailing. They like being the minority party with no power, acting as a foil to the Democrats, providing the illusion of a battle of ideas and of a functioning democracy.

This "right wing" party will reliably vote with the leftists if they inadvertently find themselves without the comfortable bulwark of minority to render them powerless. The main difference between Democrats and Republicans is in the rhetoric they spew. If you listen to their words, you'd think they are total opposites, but if you go by their actions, there's no real difference. If you liked Obama, you should have liked Bush too; they were essentially the same, other than the rhetoric.

Trump isn't a real Republican. He ran under that name because in America, unfortunately, one has to pick one or the other party to get anywhere. He's functionally an independent, which can be seen by the derision he gets from both the Democrats whose policies he opposes and the Republicans that claim to support the same policies that Trump supports, but who turn against those policies the first chance they get.

1
1

Another sham appointee of Trump doing what they came to do: destroy any and all regulation, and hand over the keys to the private sector. Your concerns and any adverse impacts need not be considered. All made possible by a system that has been opened up for access to lobbysists and anyone else (yes including foreign actors) who has money and wants to buy policy and law making:

https://youtu.be/1gEz__sMVaY

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Brown paper bags for all involved

It's xmas time!

2
0

Leader of the Free World?

Innovation has always come from the edges, never from the carriers.

The US will slowly slide into internet innovation oblivion.

In 10 years the US will be 9 years behind the rest of the world that continues to require net neutrality. Trump will be running for his 4th term - who cares if it is against the law.

US leadership will be a distant memory, retained only by a few old farts on their rocking chairs in the ghost towns of silicon valley.

6
2

Fill in the blanks! Everyone can play!

“ … something-wing whinge-site Something something … “

0
0

So many people afraid of the change!!! So many very big companies helped by the state afraid. Yest it's time to change and to change more, to more freedom. The next step should be to give more freedom to the internet providers market. So, this step was missing.

Of course, this was bad for comunism/socialism that wants to control everybodies lifes.

2
8
Silver badge

That Video

I am astounded at That Video. This is a commissioner who is supposed to act with dignity and consider all of the angles and implications.

This looked like something that was dreamed up by the writers of House of Cards as a spoof because I am sure that the internet is a little more than taking pictures of food. Or it was the last time that I looked.

Of course, this could be nothing more than a dream inspired by a lump of bad cheese that's....

....Carrier Lost. Please add $5 to your internet meter....

6
1
Silver badge

Re: That Video

House of Cards (US version) is a fantasy series about politicians and lobbyists being more dignified and giving more lip-service to democracy than they actually are and actually do. It's not realistic. Their version of cloak and dagger includes the cloaks.

1
0
IT Angle

Meanwhile , back in the UK...

May I ask a question from you knowledgable guys?

Am I right that this decision only applies in the US?

Or has it any effect elsewhere?

e.g Is it likely to impact the large corporate outposts in the UK (e.g. Netflix) ?

Thanks

1
0
MJI
Silver badge

Re: Meanwhile , back in the UK...

I think we will be OK.

European servers.

Anyway if one ISP dropped it we would all change ISP.

2
0

Judicial review?

Out of interest, is there a mechanism for decisions like this to be examined by the US judiciary?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Judicial review?

At last count there were about 20 state attorneys general lined up to sue the FCC, so apparently at least they think there is.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

It will be the advertisers who will be paying as well to get their message through which makes them the pressure point in any public concerted action. They rely on building up public good will over time more than any specific advertising campaign and they have the biggest levers.

0
0
Silver badge

Seen on Reddit:

Q. What is the difference between Ajit Pai and Hitler?

A. Hitler had one more ball.

5
1

The tip of the iceburg

This coupled with other recent rule changes will make it possible for the communications industry to convert "over the air" television and radio to a subscription model just like cable.

It will be very simple to encrypt the signals and require a set top box in order to watch the advertising you have been watching for free.

1
0

They are chasing Pink Elephants down the street in that country.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Funny how in 2015 you blasted the "Net Neutrality" regulation being voted on by the FCC under an different administration, interesting.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/fcc_faces_increasing_opposition_to_title_ii_plans/

2
0
Silver badge

Well, yes, it is, but possibly not in the way you think: isn't it interesting that *even someone who saw the hands of Google in the previous NN regulations* thinks the current FCC administration is an utter shitshow?

1
0
Silver badge
Pint

Tasty.

I've had enough Eejit Pie for one day.

Staff party day...!

1
1

Net neutrality WAS HERE BEFORE 2015

What about before 2015?

I guess people are forgetting that before 2015 Net neutrality was the rule, but big corp got greedy and sued for its end.

Instead, in addition to making changes, they looked to classifying them as common carriers to keep the net neutrality standard.

1
0
Bronze badge
Happy

Oh dear.

I laughed loudest whilst reading this teeth-gnashing article at the bit about "traitorous" luvvies "betraying us" by looking out for the interests of the music and film industries. So, luvvies making political comments are beloved and wise just as long as they're making the right political comments, such as lining up to make endorsement vids for Hillary Clinton's election campaign or bashing Trump? LOL!

2
4
Silver badge

Re: Oh dear.

There needs to be a new Internet law: any post ending in "LOL" or some variant thereof can be replaced with whitespace without loss of information.

2
1

The video referenced in the article

The video referenced in the article (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg) is "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Mad Decent.".

2
0
Trollface

At least we don't have to worry about this in the UK...

...after all, we're protected by the European Union’s regulation on Open Internet Access.

And it's not like people here voted to leave the Europ-- oh, right...

2
0

Learn basic grammar maybe?

He said comments with profanity were ignored, but others weren't.

And by the way, some of us still believe in rights, such as the right trade freely without thugs like you wanted to force people to sell you what you want at gun point.

1
0

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

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018