back to article 5 reasons why America's Ctrl-Z on net neutrality rules is a GOOD thing

The FCC voted 3-2 Thursday morning to get rid of net neutrality rules. If you listen to the lame-stream press (or tech press, or lawmakers, or attorneys general, or consumer groups, or celebrities, or tech giants), you will have been told this is a terrible thing. But everyone is wrong – EVERYONE!!!!! They are ALL wrong. And …

  1. MNGrrrl
    Thumb Up

    Go FCC Yourself

    The sarcasm here is fatal.

    1. Big John Silver badge

      Re: Go FCC Yourself

      I believe you. Too bad that's basically all it is.

      1. Oh Homer Silver badge
        Terminator

        "will list every service and website you get"

        Sadly, I'm betting El Reg won't make it into our corporate overlords' shortlist.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Go FCC Yourself

      "It's time to unplug and go outside and Play"!

      Just another friendly service provided by the Government.

  2. Palpy

    Well-thought out and well-researched article.

    My best congrats. Excuse me whilst I light a ciggie -- Philip Morris has assured us they cause no harm -- and pop some oxycontin (non-addicting, according to the makers). For after all, corporations always do the right thing, just as you note in your article. Fine work!

    You know, back when I was starting out in the WoW (World of Work, not World of Warcraft) some people thought that the abbreviation "inc" stood for "innit for the cash", and that the only business of business was to make money for owners and investors. Who knew that once the Invisible Hand of Capitalism's self-interest had us tight by the nads, we would ... enjoy the squeeze.

    Because squeeze they will.

    Just as you say, we are going to enjoy it, and smile as the Invisible Hand tightens on our jewels.

    Thank you, Ajit Pai, sir! May yours rupture.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well-thought out and well-researched article.

      Just to be clear the makers of oxycontin do say it is addictive. The leaflet in the box says it (I think they sometimes use the phrase "habit forming") the prescribing doctor should also warn you.

      No, I don't work for them or in that industry but I have had to take strong pain killers.

      1. Alistair Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: Well-thought out and well-researched article.

        @AC

        This will depend *heavily* on where your Oxycontin was packaged and distributed. It however will *never* use the term addictive.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great article but I don't think you understand Snowflakes.

    I grew up without stair gates, socket protectors, harnesses and the like, these days kids never get told "no" because there are things that do it for lazy parents. Try going through life without someone saying "no", there is the problem. I feel sorry for kids these days.

    1. Comments are attributed to your handle
      Childcatcher

      By all means then, uninstall your seat belt, air bags, roll cage, etc. and get back to us.

      1. jake Silver badge

        I'll be happy to, Caatyh ...

        ... as soon as the PTB actually force people like you to learn to drive before allowing them to be in charge of a moving vehicle. Those things don't protect me from myself, they protect me from you.

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        "By all means then, uninstall your seat belt, air bags, roll cage, etc. and get back to us."

        And while you're at it, take out your horn and install a sharp spike in its place and let Date in sort 'em out. And if you happen to get rammer head on by a drunk ghost driver, we'll them's the breaks.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "By all means then, uninstall your seat belt, air bags, roll cage, etc. and get back to us."

        Bravo, you are talking about things that save lives.

        The things I mentioned are there as an extra to stop accidents that didn't occur that often.

        Are any of the things I mentioned enshrined in law? No and ask yourself why.

        Why not teach children from an early age what they can and cannot do? Why rely on some nanny device?

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Because some kids CAN'T learn, yet the parents (their only child and they can't try again) sue.

          1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

            Re: Socket Protectors

            Actually make plug sockets more dangerous (in the UK at least).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Socket Protectors

              They're not "plug sockets", they are "sockets" (or "power sockets" to be more precise).

              Where did this modern fad for calling them "plug sockets" come from? </pedant>

              1. CFtheNonPartisan

                Re: Socket Protectors

                Do you mean they are not really 'power points'? !?!

              2. Sam Therapy

                Re: Socket Protectors

                Same place as "Reverse back", "PIN Number" and "Round circle", the Tautology Fairy.

                It is what it is.

                I'll get me outer garment coat.

            2. Sam Therapy

              Re: Socket Protectors

              Correct. Their use is banned in all NHS Premises. And yet, building inspectors will give a warning to any NHS premises that don't use them, so they put them in until someone complains about it, or points out they're unsafe, so they take them out. Then the building inspectors come in and...

        2. fandom Silver badge

          "Why not teach children from an early age what they can and cannot do? "

          Do you want to guess how I learned it is a bad idea to put your fingers in an electrical socket or that using the clothes to climb up a closet gets you to the floor real fast or that it is better not to drink from the bottles your mother uses to clean the house?

          Thing is I survived childhood by pure luck, despite having caring parents, it's no wonder houses get child proofed nowadays.

          And there is still many an ocassion to say 'no' to children if the parents want to educate them.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

      4. swampdog

        oo! It's Friday and we have a car argument!

        Those of us of a certain age.. managed to live before selt belts, air bags, roll cage, etc and we are getting back to you by virtue of the fact we're still here.

        1. AdamWill

          Re: oo! It's Friday and we have a car argument!

          Unfortunately we are currently lacking a way to include all the people who were killed in crashes involving insanely dangerous cars in the conversation, but we're working on it.

      5. Kiwi

        By all means then, uninstall your seat belt, air bags, roll cage, etc. and get back to us

        My car has no airbag (except the occasional M.I.L) and no roll cage.

        I learnt to drive, and make sure I drive well. I also work at watching the road and things around me to be able to see trouble before I'm in it.

        That way, I don't need things like roll cages.

        My bike doesn't have any seat belts either. They're not needed if you use your brains when you're driving.

        If you really think you need all the things you listed to stay safe while driving, then please GET THE FUCK OFF THE ROAD because if you're scared to drive without them, you've obviously far too dangerous to be allowed behind the wheel.

        (I don't think I've even see a roll cage in a stock road vehicle!)

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          "My bike doesn't have any seat belts either. They're not needed if you use your brains when you're driving."

          Not even when (not if) you get blindsided by a reckless, speeding drunk driver?

          You have to consider that safety features not only protect you from yourself but also from Stupid, who has a tendency to kill others in his/her wake.

          1. Kiwi
            Pint

            Not even when (not if) you get blindsided by a reckless, speeding drunk driver?

            Quite right. I have literally "been there done that".

            And I avoided the crash because, with training, constant practice to reinforce the training and keep me up on how my vehicle handles in extreme situations (means getting out to an empty car park (and gravel and grass etc) and throwing it around), and keeping my eyes and ears open, I was able to notice them coming and NOT be in the same place as them.

            It's not impossible to avoid these things if you have your eyes and ears open, and your brain engaged. And if you practice + know your vehicle you don't have to think about how to react, you don't have to think about how much pressure to apply to the brakes to get the maximum stopping power, you don't have to think about how much to turn the steering to turn suddenly to get out of their path, you've already taught your system exactly how to get where you want to go. Add a positive use of "target fixation" into the mix and there is very little chance you'll ever need to use those safety features.

            I've done a lot of Friday and Saturday night riding through main-road rural New Zealand. I've had plenty of experience at avoiding drunken idiots.

            (actually add watching your food/fluid intake to my list in the previous post - if you're busting for a piss or trying desperately to keep the curry you had for dinner from coming out early, you're not focusing on the world around you - and if you ever do have a "pucker moment", it just got messier...)

            1. dmacleo

              how my vehicle handles in extreme situations

              ******************************************************

              key point. way to many drivers on both sides of the pond have no idea how their vehicle responds in emergency situation.

              while I live in maine I learned how to really drive on the autobahn many decades ago.

              since then with every vehicle I have owned I spent time learning its capabilities.

              while my 2010 mercury marquis will do 155 mph (don't ask but tested on speedo and gps) I KNOW above 130mph the front end capabilities are extremely degraded.

              I know exactly how the rear suspension will handle at a given air pressure (I have rear air bags on suspension for towing) and whenever I get new set of tires I spend many miles testing how they react.

              1. Kiwi
                Pint

                how my vehicle handles in extreme situations

                ******************************************************

                key point. way to many drivers on both sides of the pond have no idea how their vehicle responds in emergency situation.

                [..]

                since then with every vehicle I have owned I spent time learning its capabilities.

                [..]

                I know exactly how the rear suspension will handle at a given air pressure (I have rear air bags on suspension for towing) and whenever I get new set of tires I spend many miles testing how they react.

                I learned much of my driving on farm land, so I got a crash-course in traction control. In that I was privileged but that is something people can learn easily. Of course, that knowledge doesn't translate as well as you'd think because all sorts of factors come into play as you yourself have noted! (motorcyclist per chance?)

                A friend of mine got himself a bike with an odd noise in it, and through finding a US forum for that model he stumbled upon a whole world of safety stuff that we never get in NZ (despite many of us trying to get the governments to improve safety the right way, they insist on stupid measures that at best don't work!). He and I started braking practice1 together and it's a real eye-opener to learn the differences in many vehicles between braking hard at 90kph and braking hard at 100kph, especially when the differences in road seals (tarmac vs volcanic chip vs gravel vs packed sand vs mud) and weather and other things start to come into play.

                It's great to know there are other people around who take their driving seriously, and do a proper job of it! I was beginning to think there were very few of us! (actually, sadly, there are far to few of us but always glad to find another :) )

                1 Braking practice : Find an empty car park or other safe area. In stages, get up to speed and slam on the anchors so-to-speak. So see how it performs at 30kph when you brake hard, and increase the speed in stages till you know it's going to be safe to hit the brakes hard at 100kph. Use an area with lots of room because until you know how things react, you can be in for a nasty surprise eg ABS doesn't work on 1 front wheel at higher speeds, throwing your car way off course. As you learn your vehicles characteristics, add in things like sudden evasive steering and so on. Again work it up SLOWLY. Add in obstacles (cardboard boxes other safe-to-hit stuff) and take it on gravel/wet grass/sand etc.

                Also, practice this every other week or so.

                In doing this, you learn your car's handling quite well, and you learn a lot more about how to handle ANY vehicle in bad conditions (though it doesn't always translate well; a SUV will perform very differently to a sedan) including slippery conditions. And as I've said a couple of times already, you teach your body how to react so you don't have to think about it at all. So-called "muscle memory" makes your feet put the right pressure on the brakes or the gas, makes your hands turn the steering and so on to the right angles to get where you want to go. All you have to think is "Oh shit! where's that gap? Oh there it is, I'm through there and safe!".

        2. Kiwi
          Black Helicopters

          (I don't think I've even see a roll cage in a stock road vehicle!)

          Wow, the crap drivers who think they're hot are out in force today!

          For those less crappy drivers, I'll explain myself a little better (I hope).

          The first thing you must rely on to protect yourself from a crash is YOURSELF. Be alert. See it coming. Take action. Stop to help any other victims (if any). Drive on in the knowledge that you and your passengers are safe and well, and your vehicle also came out unscathed because you didn't drive in a straight line hoping your protection in your car would save you from the truck coming towards you in the wrong lane, you took action and the truck never hit you.

          I've been close to head-on crashes. Close. Through training and maintaining those skills I avoided being in a head-on. Through training I could already see a number of probably escape routes before I saw the truck suddenly veer, through training I knew exactly how my bike would perform under braking (I do the same for cars - PRACTICE often so I know it's actions and it never surprises me), through training I knew how hard I could swerve, and through observance I knew the truck driver was never getting back into the right lane for him and that lane was clear so I could use it.

          Train so you're prepared, practice so you know how to handle your vehicle, plan for your escape routes, and watch the road so you can see what's coming. And always remember your most valuable resource in your car. It's not brakes. It's not skills. It's not an alert driver (though that should always be). It's not air bags. Nor is it roll cages.

          It's TIME. If you have time to react and time to avoid the crash, you'll be fine. Coming up on a line of traffic that might be stopped? Start slowing. Coming up to a tight corner where the oncoming traffic might not be in their lane? Slow down. Passing a line of stopped traffic where some idiot might pull out into your lane without warning or looking? Slow down. Give yourself TIME to react.

          Then you won't ever need air bags, or roll-cages, or even seatbelts.

          Also think of what could happen around you and take steps to minimise any risk. Mostly that means keeping a sane following distance and allowing more if the person behind you is one of those stupid idiots who tailgate.

          (And yes, I do wear mine in the car, same as I always wear my helmet - I've avoided a couple of major events, dozens of other incidents where I could've been killed and would've been hurt, and quite literally thousands of minor incidents where at most I would've had bent metal and bruised body to deal with - but it is possible that something would escape my attention or there would be something I could not avoid)

          1. Truckle The Uncivil

            @Kiwi

            And learn Judo so you know how to fall properly. I have been a rider since 1970 and while much of what you say is true, it is not enough. There are things you cannot forsee and there are fools who will try to kill you.

            Unless you are Superman riding a motorcycle is a dangerous practice. It an be very worthwhile thoug, if you can maintain your luck.

            1. Kiwi
              Pint

              And learn Judo so you know how to fall properly. I have been a rider since 1970 and while much of what you say is true, it is not enough. There are things you cannot forsee and there are fools who will try to kill you.

              Unless you are Superman riding a motorcycle is a dangerous practice. It an be very worthwhile thoug, if you can maintain your luck.

              Luck's not been a part of it since I learned to ride. In the years before I learned to ride I think it was more God's protection than luck because I had some stupid events on the road where I was at fault and should not have come out alive let alone unscathed.

              I know people who've also been riding since the 70's and earlier who've never had a crash. I've been involved in some very hairy incidents yet have only lost rubber and some time (reminds me must do a first-aid refresher). I haven't always been able to accurately predict which car gets hit first, but I have been able to predict who would do the hitting. Keeping your mind on the road and those around you, keeping your exit options open etc, that's what keeps you upright, not luck.

              I'm trying to think what would catch me out. A stalled car or landslip around a blind corner won't - I'm always within my stopping distance (and I keep my bike maintained as well, so I won't have any surprise brake failures etc). A long landslip might (ie I'm in the area covered and don't have time to stop before I reach it nor time to get out of it), someone intending to kill me might (but then if they're intent on killing me all bets are off even if I've got protection of some sort - even the US's SS have failed to protect presidents), a tyre blowout on a truck that doesn't give smoke or other warning might. I've had a person reading the paper at traffic lights who didn't realise his SUV was still moving forward at a decent rate - the car beside me got hit, not me. I was in line but I left myself room and when I saw the SUV coming I pulled up past the car that was in front of me.

              Someone on the wrong side, travelling at speed - not sure on that one. I have avoided it before but that "small voice" that motorcyclists know so well (if they listen to it) gave me the idea to take a wider and slower track on this particular corner. That coupled with a distraction may do, but distractions I tend to ignore until I have a safe place to give them some attention, whether it's stopping straight away or riding slowly to the next town. In the days before I knew how to ride I went off the road by paying more attention to an odd noise from the bike than where the bike was. Huge wide shoulder so I was fine, but I learnt that lesson then.

              It takes effort, but I find the effort worth it. My challenge is to be a good driver always, and that can be very challenging indeed (especially when you're easily distracted!), and every drive I complete with that challenge met is very fulfilling. I also challenge myself to get the perfect line and speed through a corner, and that is just fun.

              I may die in a crash, but it's going to take a sudden medical event without warning or a set of extremely rare circumstances to cause it.

        3. notowenwilson

          @Kiwi

          "I learnt to drive, and make sure I drive well. I also work at watching the road and things around me to be able to see trouble before I'm in it.

          That way, I don't need things like roll cages."

          Your hubris is truly awe inspiring. "I can keep myself safe by my own actions, everything that happens to me is under my control".

          Good luck with that bud!

          1. Kiwi
            WTF?

            @Kiwi

            "I learnt to drive, and make sure I drive well. I also work at watching the road and things around me to be able to see trouble before I'm in it.

            That way, I don't need things like roll cages."

            Your hubris is truly awe inspiring. "I can keep myself safe by my own actions, everything that happens to me is under my control".

            Good luck with that bud!

            So.. You're one of those idiots who drive along without paying attention to the road because "technology and armour" will protect you rather than actually taking actions to do things like watch what is happening on the road around you?

            In New Zealand we have things like "defensive driving" courses, to teach people how to be better drivers. I am sure many other countries have the same things. For a start there's the Motorcycle Safety Foundation in the US, and I'm sure the UK has similar organisations. There's also the entire licensing system in many countries that test drivers to see if they are able to, among other things, spot hazards on the road and react in an appropriate manner to avoid an accident.

            Are you saying that all of these things are wrong? What then, oh enlightened sir, should all of these countries use to replace them?

            "I can keep myself safe by my own actions, everything that happens to me is under my control".

            Close but not quite. I do everything I can to make sure everything possible is under my control and I won't get a nasty surprise. I keep my vehicle maintained - that way a sudden failure is unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely, eg tyres at the correct pressure are less likely to get a puncture than tyres at a low pressure, parts of the drivechain correctly lubricated are unlikely to cease, as is a correctly lubricated and cooled engine. Parts replaced on a schedule or when showing wear (eg wheel bearings) mean they can be relied on to function well rather than failing.

            I take my health into consideration when driving, preferably not while tired or sick but if I have to I allow for slower reaction times etc. And yes, I do consider what I eat and drink so I don't have a situation where I'm desperate for a leak and increasing my speed and decreasing my focus while trying to reach the next stopping point before my bladder decides it's had enough.

            As best as I can I observe drivers around me. There's things about a car that can tell you if you have an arrogant driver or a sane driver. An older person constantly hitting the brakes perhaps has some vision issues and is unsure of themselves. A young person in a car with a loud exhaust (not faulty loud but modified loud) probably has a combination of higher arrogance, desire to show off (if passengers especially teenage male driver and female passenger) and lower experience and skills. A driver with their head craned to one side is quite possible tired, may even be nodding off. A driver weaving around in their lane could be drunk or having a medical event. A driver weaving out of their lane is about to crash - back well off. Window wipers coming on unexpectedly (without washer fluid) show a car the driver isn't entirely familiar with, and they're about to turn off/change lane etc (hit the wrong stalk).

            A smell of diesel can suggest a spill on the road. "Dead rainbows" suggest a slick surface and also that for a little while afterwards your tyres will be slicker than normal. Smells of cattle/sheep manure suggest that there may have been a cattle truck nearby (with waste released) or perhaps a mob has been moved across/along a road. Other smells can tell you a lot about what's potentially coming up.

            It's a matter of paying attention and adjusting your driving to possible risks.

            I'm guessing when there's a pile of bright red lights ahead of you, you don't bother hitting the brakes as 'good luck with keeping yourself safe by your own actions'?

            I seriously hope you don't drive, and if you do I seriously hope you either take some time to learn how to be a safe driver, or end up being stopped from driving until you do.

        4. small and stupid

          Hope you have a donor card

          1. Kiwi

            Hope you have a donor card

            I don't,

            I do have a driver's license with the donor field ticked however.

            But because I take care to drive appropriately, I'm not likely to need it.

        5. Kiwi
          Paris Hilton

          17 downvotes at this point.

          Would any of them care to explain what's wrong with taking care while driving?

          What's wrong with taking extra driving training?

          What's wrong with being observant of the overall road conditions? (including other drivers)?

          Or can you explain what's right about relying on technology to protect you rather than doing your best to protect yourself?

          Honest question. There are a number of downvotes but not one person suggesting what I am actually doing wrong.

    2. Richard 81

      @OP:

      You do realise Goodwin's Law has been extended to include references to "Snowflakes", right?

      1. IT Poser

        Richard 81,

        You do realise Goodwin's Law has been extended to include references to "Snowflakes", right?

        Actually "Snowflakes" is a corollary. AFAIK this particular corollary has not yet been rigorously defined. Feel free to create one. This information will be very useful as our AI develops psychohistory.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Richard 81,

          Goodwin's law already in net neutrality.

        2. Sam Therapy
          Angel

          Re: Richard 81,

          Hitler was a snowflake!

    3. W4YBO

      Re: Great article but I don't think you understand Snowflakes.

      My first experience with electricity was when I took the metal key that went to the plastic car dashboard and stuck it in a wall socket. I was two, and I never did it again, at least not until I figured out the wide side is neutral.

    4. tin 2

      You know of course that having socket protectors is more dangerous than not? You bloody great pansy.

  4. Bob Dole (tm)
    Pint

    Well put

    Beautiful piece of writing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Bob Dole ... WTF? Re: Well put

      Some of us are old enough to know of the time before the internet.

      That understood that the 'net was a cluster of privately owned networks who connected to one another through peering agreements.

      You host our traffic, we'll host yours.

      The issue wasn't about censorship, but that the peering arrangement was out of wack.

      That Company A agreed to carry Company B's traffic, and vice versa, but that Company's upstream traffic that went over Company B's network was a fraction of the traffic traveling downstream from Company B over Company A's network.

      Where everyone is running around in a panic, they forget that businesses will work it out.

      Did you notice how Netflix, the poster child for NN is now silent on the issue? Its because they did deals with the network companies that became a win/win for everyone.

      Why? Because Netflix is feeling competition from HULU and other streaming services.

      The networks? Because with 5G coming around the corner... you can cut the cable and get good broadband speed.

      There's more, but I expect to be down posted by the snowflakes and marching morons who have been listening to MSM and politicians who have been spoon fed dribble from lobbyists.

      1. veti Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        "businesses will work it out"? - Oh, that's all right then, whatever were we worried about.

        "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices" - Adam Smith.

      2. Oengus Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        spoon fed dribble drivel

        FTFY

      3. KSM-AZ

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        Downotes are from the children that think they have a "right" to unlimited bandwidth someone else paid to put in place. They were no around back in the day . . . After all, the gubmint is better at all this.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        Hey guys did you hear?

        Netflix have changed their minds, and that can only mean that actually NN is bad.

        Couldn't just be that Netflix isn't the Patron Saint of NN, but actually also just a corporation which needs a good flogging now and again to be kept in check.

        Now if only we could get around to flogging a few of the banks, multinational tax evaders/avoiders (forget which is the totally legal, but still scummy one), we might wind up with a pretty nifty little society.

      5. dan1980

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        @AC

        "Some of us are old enough to know of the time before the internet. That understood that the 'net was a cluster of privately owned networks who connected to one another through peering agreements.

        Maybe so but then then things evolved; grew.

        The simple fact of the matter is that, like telephone poles, Internet coax and fibre is placed on public land and the right to do this is given based on the central place that Internet services inhabit in modern life.

        Train lines were once 'clusters of privately-owned' networks and then, once they became more than that, the Interstate Commerce Commission was specifically created to regulate the new networks that had become essential for, well, interstate commerce.

        This exactly parallels the creation of the the FCC, which is unsurprising because the latter was modeled on the success of the former and so carries a near identical purpose: to regulate the (then) new communications networks.

      6. Alistair Silver badge
        Windows

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        @AC with the spoon fed dribble.

        I don't need spoon feeding of dribble. The lobbyists in question work for the telecoms companies, all of the *big three(four?)* here in Canada. They all have this one neat trick for making money hand over fist (click here, now to learn it). They have absolutely zero obligation to the consumer, the only obligation is to the stock price/shareholder, and **laws and regulations**

        I recall my first DARPA (9600kb/s modem) connection to a college system. And the attempts to get connected to the "interwebs" in the 90's. And the data costs. At least up here we have the equivalent of LLU, and there *ARE* competitors.

        And I have some little experience with the telecoms industry.

        I sincerely hope that the lawsuits against the FCC steamroller out the issue clearly. I hope that someone sues Pai himself directly into revealing where *EVERY* penny he has ever earned, invested, spent, viewed or been within 10 yards of came from.

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        So please explain to me how having to pay up when Comcast extorted money from them (remember 2014?) is a "win/win" for Netflix or anyone other than Comcast?

        This is the same 'the market will solve everything' bullshit that led to American rivers catching fire due to pollution, there's a reason we have the EPA and it wasn't because 'the market' was making companies do the right thing for anyone except their shareholders.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

          So please explain to me how having to pay up when Comcast extorted money from them (remember 2014?) is a "win/win" for Netflix or anyone other than Comcast?

          Well, obviously it's a win for Comcast, because money. And it's a win for Netflix, because it entrenches their position as the provider of online entertainment, and raises the barrier to anyone who wants to try to contest that position. Ergo, win/win.

          The only people who lose are nobodies - you know, like potential competitors, who being merely potential competitors, don't yet have enough money to be counted. Oh, and customers.

      8. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

        Netflix will have cooled on the subject of net neutrality as several mobile carriers are no longer counting streaming video as something that contributes to their customers bandwidth cap. This is a massive boost to Netflix's business and the mobile customers love it, but it is a complete violation of the principal of net neutrality.

        1. CFtheNonPartisan

          Re: @Bob Dole ... WTF? Well put

          NN is preferencing certain streams, not about data being free in a plan. You can have your free data and I can have my paid data at the same throughput rate. NN is when you throttle my bandwidth to favour yours.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I hope the article is being deeply sarcastic otherwise the author forget to take their medication and thinks Donald Trump is the next Einstein.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Read up on Poe's Law.

      And maybe read one or two other articles by the same author.

    2. Sam Therapy
      Holmes

      I think we can go with the sarcasm thing. You did notice this is El Reg, right?

  6. dan1980

    I really wonder about people like Pai.

    What upbringing - what values instilled as a child - leads someone to be able to stand up in front of the entire nation and make provably false claims - to lie - to them in order to sell out their interests to corporate money and political masters.

    What goes through someone's head when they do that?

    What preparations must one make in order to keep that smarmy face and cock-sure tone when you not only know you are selling out the people you are supposed to be protecting, but you also know that they know you are doing at and know you are lying about it?

    Is it too much to hope that he looses sleep over this?

    I suppose that's why so many politicians and people like Pai come from legal backgrounds.

    1. Chronos Silver badge

      What goes through someone's head when they do that?

      Greed and the good ol' tradition of winner takes all.

      1. Adrian 4 Silver badge

        He's got easter and christmas all mixed up : he's thinking of thirty pieces of silver.

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        What goes through someone's head when they do that?

        I think it's more a case of what went through their bank account

    2. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

      Strange. I see them all over the country and at all background socioeconomic levels to boot. They make up a significant portion of the planet's human population, not just First World, which should tell you volumes about the human condition. I could fix the problem, if I had enough money to pay for the millions of bullets, although for some reason noone thinks this is a good idea. I wonder why?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        " I could fix the problem, if I had enough money to pay for the millions of bullets, [..]"

        They are way ahead of you on that front. In some totalitarian regimes they apparently made people pay for their own execution bullet.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          "They are way ahead of you on that front. In some totalitarian regimes they apparently made people pay for their own execution bullet."

          And if the condemned was penniless...AND a handful to boot so they can't wait?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "And if the condemned was penniless...AND a handful to boot so they can't wait?"

            They invoiced their family afterwards.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              "They invoiced their family afterwards."

              Did they eat the cost if the condemned had no more family or if the rest of the family was on the block. too?

      2. Mark 85 Silver badge

        No enough bullets and you couldn't possibly shoot fast enough to stop them reproducing and making even more. It's a zero sum game, I'm afraid.

    3. DNTP Silver badge

      Re: I really wonder

      I think it has something to do with the banality of neutral evil. That some people simply never develop a connection between their self centered desires and the need to balance their choices against actual human consequences, so they just kind of naturally fall victim to the corruption of power. "Everyone is doing it anyway why shouldn't I", "This is how the system works and I'm ok with that", "The world isn't fair so I don't care"- no desire to actively hurt people, but when it inevitably happens it's not their problem.

      As for what goes through their heads- aneurysms, ideally?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @dan1980

      I'm going to assume that the 1980 is your birth year and not the year you lost your virginity.

      I really wonder about people like you who really don't know anything about the internet or what the real issues are behind this mess.

      Imagine that you created a toll road. A highway that has 4 lanes of traffic in either direction.

      Now imagine that the government has the right to tell you that you can't charge more for tractor trailers than you can for cars. (No charging per axle.)

      They also say you can't restrict tractor trailer traffic or limit any traffic across your network.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @dan1980

        Yeah that's complete BS, the real issue behind this is that the ISP's want to get paid twice for delivering the least viable service they can get away with, have you forgotten Comcast extorting Netflix back in 2014 (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-netflix-pays-comcast-speeds-improve-65/).

        That's what this is about.

        To use your analogy, you own a toll road, can charge what you like (non of what you said is accurate) but you can now charge Ford as well as the car owners and if they don't pay then you stick all Ford cars in the slow lane.

        1. Mike VandeVelde
          Boffin

          Re: @dan1980

          a toll road you own where ford pays you a chunk of money to change the hov lane into a ford only lane to make their cars more attractive. then comes the gm lane and so on until all the regular traffic is using the shoulder and then the ditch. where the car companies are the googles/facebooks/netflixen of the internet. people already pay "by the axle" for internet connectivity.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Megaphone

        Re: @dan1980

        "They also say you can't restrict tractor trailer traffic or limit any traffic across your network."

        Let's take this one step further...

        The government THEN says you must TAX people, but then give rebates "based on their annual income". Not only do you have to go through extra expense of determining what people's annual income is, you THEN have to levy the taxes, deal with customer complaints of "why is the price always going up", be faced with additional regulations under the public utilities commission, get sued ALL of the time over all of this because it's "NOT FAIR", be required to offer MORE EXITS and MORE ENTRANCES because it's not convenient to only enter and exit your road at places that keep the costs down, and NO! MORE! EXPRESS! LANES! because THAT is not fair, either. NOBODY is allowed to exceed the speed of an average YUGO trying to make headway against the wind, and you can't offer contracts to specific fuel vendors in order to make a little extra money on the side [and keep the prices lower so you can compete with the 'free' services].

        just to expand on this, there ARE privately owned toll roads in Southern CA in the L.A. area. The price varies based on time of day and usage. This way, travelling on the toll road is "buying time" to avoid traffic, which is why you'd want to pay extra to use it. Charging MORE when traffic on the 'free' road is heavy is just good business, because it forms a basis upon which the traffic will be truly limited to a sane level on the toll road [making it ALWAYS a good alternative, not a traffic jam that you PAY EXTRA for].

        The intarwebs COULD be like that, too. For people who don't want their traffic stalled, it might be a good alternative. If you don't care about stuttering and delays, then you can us the "el cheapo" version. If you want PREMIUM service, you pay extra. That's the way of CAPITALISM. It's how we end up with luxury vs standard vs "what you can afford" versions of EVERYTHING. And that's MUCH better than "everyone pays the same" or "based on your income" which is what SOCIALISM tries to SHOVE UP OUR ASSES.

        The law of supply and demand. ONLY enough regulations to ensure a level playing field, and THEN let competing service provides do their thing, and customers will be the ones who benefit the MOST. This should apply from gasoline to cars to roads to medical insurance to telephones, internet, electricity, and even the brand of vegetables you buy at the store, or which store you buy them at [from Wal Mart to "Snooty Mart", whatever YOU want].

        but yeah, "they" stopped teaching CAPITALISM and PROPER ECONOMICS decades ago, "indoctrinating" at least one full generation in the WRONG ideas of SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, and making them *FEEL* *SMART* and *FEEL* *SUPERIOR* about it, too...

        1. Eguro
          Meh

          Re: @dan1980

          Just a note for Bombastic Bob.

          I actually got through your entire first post, but I simply could not for the second.

          You do REALIZE that writing LIKE this, just makes READING more annoying, RIGHT?

          IT'S not HELPFUL, and it DOES not actually give emphasis to the WORDS. It's just ANNOYING for any "reader".

          1. Naselus Silver badge

            Re: @dan1980

            "Just a note for Bombastic Bob."

            Don't bother, Bob's not actually a person. He's some weird Russian troll bot which exists purely to harvest El Reg downvotes for an unknown future purpose.

            1. Eguro

              Re: @dan1980

              @Naselus

              You are probably correct - but my comment is for harvesting upvotes for a future, as yet undetermined but most assuredly nefarious, purpose!

              Mua ha ha ha

          2. tfewster Silver badge
            Joke

            @Eguro re: CAPS

            Maybe Not Neutrality will allow ISPs to charge more for POSTING in CAPS? In a way, it does put more strain on the Internet. It could be a good revenue stream, and supported by many of us.

          3. 's water music Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: @dan1980

            You do REALIZE that writing LIKE this, just makes READING more annoying, RIGHT?

            I find it a pretty helpful visual filter when scrolling through the comments. Bob's rate of irregular capitalisation seems to correlate reasonably well with the relative coherence of his posts.

          4. GrumpenKraut Silver badge
            Angel

            Re: @dan1980

            > You do REALIZE that writing LIKE this, just makes READING more annoying, RIGHT?

            Top tip: just imaging Bombastic Bob's comment being in Comic Sans. Helps a lot.

        2. hnwombat

          Re: @dan1980

          The "law of supply and demand" only applies in microeconomics, and only in a perfect world that does not, and can not, exist. It requires:

          * Perfect competition

          * Commodity non-distinguishable goods

          * Perfect information flow

          * No assymetric information

          * No transaction costs

          * Perfect mobility

          * An infinite number of suppliers

          * An infinite number of consumers

          Break any one of these conditions, and it is an approximation, not a "law". Break a couple more, and you have complete market failure.

          Raise it to the macroeconomic level (country wide or world wide), and it's completely useless and does not describe reality at all.

          It is you who does not understand fundamental economics, whether capitalist or otherwise. (Oh, and a small hint: the US system hasn't been capitalist in a long, long time; since at least the 18th century, and quite possibly the 17th. It's actually financialist.)

          1. zb

            Re: @dan1980

            Financialist? Wikipedia, the fount of all wisdom says:

            Did you mean: financials

            The page "Financialist" does not exist.

            And that is one of the more enlightening web sites. Are you making this up?

            1. hnwombat

              Re: @zb

              = And that is one of the more enlightening web sites. Are you making this up?

              I'm a professor in a business school (ex-computer scientist for 20 years prior). It is a term that is used in economic circles. It is not well known outside those circles.

              The very short version is that in a capitalist system, capital is equipment or tools. Not money. Money is just a short form token that allows you to convert one type of capital into another, or exchange capital for labor, or vice versa. It's an accounting trick, and nothing else.

              The current American system has turned that onto its head, giving actual primary value to the money itself, not to the capital it theoretically represents.

              Money doesn't do jack shit. Capital does. And yes, it does make a difference. You do know, for instance, that companies nothing from the stock market, right?

              If that's news to you, then I suggest you do some reading up on real economics. And not just micro.

              (Oh, and since your abiliity to do actual research seems to be wikipedia, go look at "financialism" and "finance capitalism" there.)

        3. PPK
          WTF?

          Re: @dan1980

          Oh dear, Bob's off his meds again...

        4. dan1980

          Re: @dan1980

          @Bombastic Bob

          Just to expand on this, there ARE privately owned toll roads in Southern CA in the L.A. area. The price varies based on time of day and usage. This way, travelling on the toll road is "buying time" to avoid traffic, which is why you'd want to pay extra to use it. Charging MORE when traffic on the 'free' road is heavy is just good business, because it forms a basis upon which the traffic will be truly limited to a sane level on the toll road [making it ALWAYS a good alternative, not a traffic jam that you PAY EXTRA for].

          What the analogy fails to cover is that, when it comes to the Internet, there are no alternatives: it's all toll roads. At best, you may have a choice between two competing roads, but there is no equivalent alternative of the 'free' road for Internet access.

          That is why the analogy of different lanes on the road is by far the better one.

          That said, the even more apt comparison is the one that the whole sticky issue arises from: the telephone service. In short, the FCC was created for the express purpose of regulating the then esssential telephone service so as to facilitate its role in fair interstate commerce. This was done along the same lines as the previous regulation of the rail lines, which were being abused to favour the owning states. (By charging out-of-state groups more to use the lines when passing through than their local groups were being charged to use the same lines.)

          The point is that, like telephone services and train services before them, the Internet infrastructure is an essential utility upon which a great deal of trade is predicated upon and without which the economy would suffer greatly. The FCC's function, as it relates to Internet providers, is no different than it was when it dealt with phones: to ensure that the privately-owned, critical communications infrastructure of commerce is regulated in such a way as to provide fair and equal access.

          Their express remit is to regulate the profit-seeking, 'capitalist' goals of these providers to ensure that those commercial interests are not allowed to run unchecked and thereby create advantages and disadvantages amongst the users of this essential infrastructure.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: @dan1980

            "The point is that, like telephone services and train services before them, the Internet infrastructure is an essential utility upon which a great deal of trade is predicated upon and without which the economy would suffer greatly."

            Some would argue that the Internet isn't THAT essential yet. Essential means lack of service means you run a serious risk of DYING as a result. And for the telephone, that came when police and fire services were hooked to them, meaning you can call them in emergencies. Roads are essential because that's what the emergency services use to get to you. The Interstate Highway System was originally created to facilitate military transport during the Cold War. AFAIK, no Internet service operates in true life-or-death emergency capacity yet.

            1. Kiwi
              Facepalm

              Re: @dan1980

              And for the telephone, that came when police and fire services were hooked to them, meaning you can call them in emergencies.

              Yes, I'm sure calling them was first and foremost in Queen Vic's mind when she and Mr Bell were phoning around the countryside.

              AFAIK, no Internet service operates in true life-or-death emergency capacity yet.

              Actually many do these days. Did you not know that most phone traffic in many countries is carried over POTS only as far as the nearest link to an internet-based backbone? Calls between landlines are now routed over the net at least in most developed areas (rural areas and developing nations may differ). So your calls from your home to the local fire station will most likely go over IP for part of the trip if you live in any reasonably modern city.

              If you call from a cell phone, it could be IP all the way. If your phone service is over fibre now, then it is IP from the box your household phone is plugged into, routed over the internet before it even leaves your home.

      3. dan1980

        Re: @dan1980

        @AC

        Yes, it does - 1980.

        First up, my question/comment is the same whether 'net neutrality' - or this decision to end it - is ultimately a good thing or a bad thing. What I am chiefly referring to is the outright, provable lies about broadband speeds and investments told by Pai and repeated even after this was shown to be incorrect.

        As I said in a previous post: whatever the ultimate benefits or downsides of reversing the net neutrality ruling, it is clear that Pai's professed reasons for doing so are not the actual reasons.

        But second, you analogy just doesn't work.

        On a road, the main reason to charge more for, e.g. a truck is that a truck, by it's physical nature, degrades the road more and thus requires more maintenance. That's why many toll roads charge less for a motorbike than a car - less wear on the road. A truck also takes up more space than a bike.

        What you should understand is that NOTHING in net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging based on the volume of data downloaded/uploaded by a subscriber, which is the equivalent, in your analogy, of the number of axles. Or, perhaps, more simply, the weight of the vehicle.

        The point of net neutrality is not to say that you can't charge more for a truck than you can for a car (i.e charge by the number of wheels/packets) but that you can't charge more per wheel or per unit of weight when the truck belongs to company X or is carrying company Y's widgets in the trailer. You don't get to set a lower speed limit, either.

        THAT is what net neutrality is about.

        It says that, if your network is transporting 100Mb of data, you can't treat that 100Mb any differently than any other 100Mb of data - it doesn't matter whose truck it is, what depot it came out of, what it is hauling or who the end recipient is - 100Mb is 100Mb and you don't get to prioritise company A's cargo of frozen corn over Company B's cargo of toasters.

        You can charge by weight (total data transmitted) but you can't charge two amounts for the same weight. You can, I believe, have peak and off peak rates but, again, you can't go charging more or less (or allowing higher or lower speeds) based on the specific cargo.

        Slowing the whole road down (rate limiting) is also okay but, again, you can't just slow down all the traffic from one supplier while allowing the another supplier to go at full speed, nor can you apply a 'peak' charge to one but not another.

        You can't, in other words, slow down (rate-limit) all the lanes except one but then charge a premium surcharge for traffic on this new, miraculous, 'fast lane'.

        (Sorry for any typos - have to dash.)

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: @dan1980

          "but then charge a premium surcharge for traffic on this new, miraculous, 'fast lane'"

          Yes. It seems a lot of these comments seem to think that internet access is free. It isn't. It is something the subscriber pays for, and as far as I am concerned, a megabyte is a megabyte and a gigabyte is a gigabyte. I expect my payment to transport the data requested without artificial bias because it came from "here" rather than from "there".

        2. Eddy Ito Silver badge

          Re: @dan1980

          It says that, if your network is transporting 100Mb of data, you can't treat that 100Mb any differently than any other 100Mb of data

          I call bullshit. You'd be pretty pissed if they treated your 100Mb of streaming video call the same way as a 100Mb of zipped documents in my email attachment. This is because my email doesn't really care about how long the packets take to arrive or in which order they arrive in. Strictly speaking what you describe forces the network to either bust a nut trying to stream my zipped documents into an account that I won't look at until Monday morning or allow you to sit there staring at a screen while it buffers your video until it finishes.

          Getting back to reality, both sides greatly oversimplify the argument and I'd wager it's largely because most of the folk arguing on both sides only parrot the soundbites they think understand. The net neutrality directive was bad because it removed the impetus for congress to actually put any thought into the problem which some members were actively doing at the time but the attitude of the impatient was to preempt any attempt, largely at the behest of folk like Google. Funny story, Google and Amazon have their little spat about who can stream and sell what on each others devices and ensure certain incompatibilities so content can't flow smoothly, never mind Apple's own little walled garden, yet nobody complains about their infractions against "net neutrality" which they began well before any vote occurred. The bad old days of AOL vs CompuServe aren't coming back and net neutrality didn't make them go away.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @eddy

            Call a duck whatever you like. They can already charge per protocol, port, distance/hops, latency or importance if they wish to. What they cannot charge for or exploit, which for my last attempt at faith in intelligence being left in humanity, is who sends the packets. They may not decide price based on thier opinion of other customers wealth!

          2. Kiwi
            Pint

            Re: @dan1980

            I call bullshit. You'd be pretty pissed if they treated your 100Mb of streaming video call the same way as a 100Mb of zipped documents in my email attachment.

            You're quite right. The documents may well be something of actual importance and should be treated as a very high priority and delivered quickly regardless of the day or time. Your video is most likely idiots filing cats being hurt in what they think are funny ways, so if it takes a week to download who cares? There's much more important things to do in life.

      4. hnwombat
        Boffin

        Re: @dan1980

        Your analogy is wrong.

        What anti-net neutrality want to do is charge you to enter the road AND to leave the road.

        If I am downloading terabytes of stuff from netflix, sure, that implies a lot of data enters my ISPs network from netflix. But in order for me to RECEIVE those bytes, I will have had to pay my ISP to give me a big pipe.

        So they have already been paid to carry those big trucks.

      5. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: @dan1980

        It's rather that Ford built the tollway and will let Ford vehicles through free whole charging exorbitant fees for any other make.

        Think that's far fetched? Remember the Gilded Age when railroads owned mines and timber plots. Recall that Comcast owns NBC and Universal, that Sony owns Columbia and Tri-Star, that Disney is about to buy Fox.

        1. dan1980

          Re: @dan1980

          @Charles9

          Think that's far fetched? Remember the Gilded Age when railroads owned mines and timber plots.

          Regulation of that industry was the template from which the FCC was created when it came time to deal with the phone companies.

      6. PapaD

        Re: @dan1980

        This, however misses the issue

        Its not saying 'tractors' have to pay more to use the road, its saying 'Brand X tractors' have to pay more to use the road, however, 'Brand Y tractors', who, btw the road owner owns, can't travel for free.

        Or, to use a simpler analogy, if Ford owned the roads, they could say 'all cars travel free, all vehicles with more than 4 wheels have to pay extra, unless they are made by ford, then they travel for free'

        Thats a better analogy for roat (net) neutrality.

        The internet is already not equal for types of packets, some things take up more bandwidth, and get higher priority - but the ISPs don't currently differentiate between different flavours of X (where x is a specific type of internet traffic)

        The loss of net neutrality means that they can now discriminate based on the source of X.

    5. Mark 85 Silver badge

      I think your last sentence pretty much sums up the problem. Maybe not entirely legal backgrounds but just being involved in legalistic things. The part that's lacking is where does the greed and stupidity come from? I'm seeing it at all levels of the government, from the very top to the very bottom...

    6. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Megaphone

      " what values instilled as a child - leads someone to be able to stand up in front of the entire nation and make provably false claims"

      **_WHAT_** "provably false claims" are you referring to?

      Sorry, I do not *feel*, I *THINK*, and I also think you're full of crap on this.

      Ajit Pai is RIGHT. De-regulation is CORRECT. it is NOT the business of the FCC to take over internet as if it were a telephone system, using ~80 year old laws to govern it.

      Question: If _YOUR_ ISP was filtering your content or not allowing you access to things, would you STAY with them? Do you not have a CHOICE? If ISPs in *MY* area were doing things like that, not only would I find a boatload of investors to create a NEW ISP, I'd *RUN* the thing myself and make sure that NEVER happens! The customer, not the gummint, not special interests, but THE CUSTOMER, would determine the level of service, and COMPETITION would quickly weed out the 'bad actors'.

      Have you not considered the possibility that those who so loudly claim they want "net neutality" (and Obaka-era FCC regs were NOT 'net neutrality' at ALL) are often those who do not want to PAY FOR what they ACTUALLY USE ??? And the BIG BUSINESSES and CORPORATIONS that "the snowflakes" seem to HATE so much (Google, Facebook, Microsoft) have LOBBYISTS working for them, *CRAFTING* the Obaka-era regs JUST FOR THEM, while SELLING IT as "freedom" (when it's *NOT*), and then YOU ALL REALLY *FEEL* [not think] that THEY are not behaving as you FEAR the other corporations (ISPs) are???

      The snark of the article was disappointing. Well, time will prove *ME* (and Mr. Pai) correct, I'm sure, because the principles of "light touch" regulation, smaller government, lower taxes, and MORE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM *_ALWAYS_* works EVERY time it is tried! And heavy-handed socialistic "equalize outcome" "everyone gets the same" thinking ONLY creates MEDIOCRITY and DIS-SATISFACTION and DISAPPOINTMENT! And the "haves" will STILL ALWAYS have what THEY want [through lobbying and corrupt political maneuvers], but the have-nots will simply NEVER be able to get what the "haves" have, if they cannot BUY it. Heavy-handed regulation, SOCIALISM, and GOVERNMENT CONTROL will _ONLY_ make sure that individuals, YOU, stay IN YOUR PLACE, and *NEVER* advance to the point where you have ANYTHING that resembles what "the elite" get to have. You're not WORTHY of the "elite" life style, because THEY know what is BEST for YOU [so it becomes "shut up and eat your mediocrity"].

      1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge
        Mushroom

        I think Bombastic Bob finally broke

    7. hplasm Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      What goes through someone's head when they do that?

      Sometimes a projectile.

    8. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      "What goes through someone's head when they do that?"

      He's a lawyer.

      Probably what he's going to make from his treachery and what he's going to spend it on.

      1. dan1980

        Re: "What goes through someone's head when they do that?"

        @John Smith

        He's a lawyer.

        To clarify, I didn't mean to imply that lawyers are inherently untrustworthy, money-obsessed folk. At least no more than anyone else.

        What I really meant to imply was that, perhaps, the necessity of putting your personal feelings, scruples and (in some cases) dignity and shame aside in order to do what your client wants enables you to become so desensitised to that compromise that you can reach a point where you stand up - not just before a jury of your peers but an entire country of them - and repeat a party-line that you know to be a false and that has publicly been shown to be false by everyone qualified to know.

        That background must also, presumably, admirably condition you to be able to hear a direct, unambiguous question and respond with carefully-worded irrelevancies or to impugn those who question you as misinformed while still, deliberately, refusing to answer.

        To be able to do that day in and day out with such ease must take a level of practice that I am glad I have not had the occasion to acquire.

    9. CFtheNonPartisan

      He is one with the Donald, the best Donald there is. Need more be written?

  7. Shadow Systems Silver badge

    Hey Kieren, ease off the pipe. =-)p

    I'm not sure what you've packed it with this time but it must be some *Rrrreeeeaaalllly* good shit. Either ease off or share! =-D

  8. Valeyard

    Well The Register made my decision for me, thanks!

    I'm gonna ring up my ISP tomorrow and list the porn sites I'd like to grant priority access to

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well The Register made my decision for me, thanks!

      Welshgrandmothers.com?

      1. Andrew Peake

        Re: Well The Register made my decision for me, thanks!

        If only that site existed

    2. DNTP Silver badge

      Re: list yer porn

      Mine's gonna be that site where cute women in lab coats try to sell me computers and lab equipment. Hold on the boss is hammering my officer door:

      "For the last time, those are sales brochures, not pornography! Keep your damn door open!"

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: list yer porn

        Just ask for a Victoria's Secret or Fredrick's catalog.

        "A free home-delivered catalog of women in their underwear. God Bless America!" - Jeff Foxworthy

  9. J. Cook Bronze badge
    Coffee/keyboard

    You owe me a new chair- I laughed so hard at this article I peed myself and ruined my shiny new office chair.

    (In all seriousness, though- this might just be the end times upon us all.)

    1. inmypjs Silver badge

      "might just be the end times upon us all"

      "In all seriousness" really?

      Like government butting out (as it should because it is generally crap at everything) and letting business provide the service people want to pay for is going to be 'end of times'?

      If you don't like the service from your ISP get a different one, and if there isn't a different one you already had a potential abuse of monopoly issue which net neutrality legislation didn't much fix anyway.

      1. Filippo

        Sorry, you honestly believe that deregulation can *improve* a monopoly scenario? Are you from some alternate dimension where the laws of economics are different? Monopolies are a textbook example of something that requires government intervention.

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        "If you don't like the service from your ISP get a different one, and if there isn't a different one you already had a potential abuse of monopoly issue which net neutrality legislation didn't much fix anyway."

        Problem is, it tends to be hard to police monopolies when they're natural, and ISPs are utilities: an industry notorious for natural monopolies.

  10. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
    Happy

    Admit it, Kieren . . .

    . . . by now you're just trolling Big John and bombastic bob.

    1. kierenmccarthy

      Re: Admit it, Kieren . . .

      I fully expect Bog Jiihn to agree with every word :)

      1. Mephistro Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Admit it, Kieren . . .

        Bog Jiihn? I always thought that the correct way of writing BJ's name was Big Jong Un!

    2. Mephistro Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Admit it, Kieren . . .

      Cue NeofasAlt-Right blogs quoting this article all over the Internets in three, two, ...

    3. bombastic bob Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Admit it, Kieren . . .

      at first I'd thought someone at El Reg had finally "seen the light" on this one. Then it became obvious it was satire. At first it appeared to be GOOD satire, because it was based on truth. Yee Haw! Then it degraded into "getting our digs in" and stopped being an enjoyable read.

      Not so much 'trolling', but nice try, maybe.

      "Pandering to the perception" is *NOT* comedy. It's like a bunch of grade school children making fun of the kid that is different, making up stories about him, and laughing and satirizing at those stories as if they were true. But they're not. And teachers/parents would tell those kids to shut the HELL up and apologize for acting that way [or an equivalent thing].

      Like I mentioned, it started off well, but then degraded into the usual tripe I'd expect from MSNBC or CNN. Too bad, because it could have been a good one, and I'd be laughing, too.

      1. kierenmccarthy

        Re: Admit it, Kieren . . .

        Coming from you Bob, this is high praise.

  11. LateAgain

    America actually can't tell the difference between a television feed/ connection and the Internet. Go figure.

    (Is it still illegal to open a neighbour's mail or has that gone as well?)

    1. Agamemnon
      Coat

      As an American I take Very Serious Offense...that your statement is accurate.

  12. Alowe

    RIP the internet. I can go back to paper money and face to face business.

    1. Long John Brass Silver badge
      Gimp

      RIP the internet

      No worries mate; The rest of the world will be just fine ;)

      Enjoy your hunger climbing for dollars games

  13. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    The plan worked...

    Pai, the EFF secret agent trained by Stallman in a secret mountain lair under CSAIL, has infiltrated the FCC and introduced a plan forcing all Americans onto VPNs. The net will finally be completely secure and private,

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: The plan worked...

      Aren't you forgetting the next step will be for ISPs to throttle all encrypted connections, regardless of the source (so no loopholes) unless you pay bookoo bucks?

  14. J.Smith

    Subservience

    As it happens, I'm studying psychology atm, unfortunately 'subservience to power' isn't in the reading material, so I can't explain why some people are like the author, and Mr Pai.

    1. Naselus Silver badge

      Re: Subservience

      Read up on 'authoritarian personality types'. When outside of leadership positions, they seek out strong leaders and follow them unquestioningly.

      1. Mephistro Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Subservience (@ Naselus)

        As in https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Subservience

      There's a good (free) ebook on the authoritarian & authoritarian follower mindsets here:

      http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

  15. Winkypop Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Murrica!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6WD7B_I_9c

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How will this impact the UK?

    Will the likes of Virginmedia (UK) kill off access to every competing voip offering, forcing users into their overpriced telephone packages?

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: How will this impact the UK?

      No, because the UK telecoms market has been both liberalised and regulation sort of ensures competition.

  17. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Don't you mean $2000/month?

    Right now in Silicon Valley: Comcast Business 75/15 Mbps with static IP addresses and no blocked ports costs $198 a month. Comcast Xfinity does not allow incoming connections and it blocks ports. Competitor Sonic could get me 6/2 Mpbs bonded ADSL2+ for about $120/month but IPv6 remains broken. AT&T's Uverse doesn't allow incoming connections, they block ports, and it costs extra to opt-out of spying.

    1. H in The Hague Silver badge

      Re: Don't you mean $2000/month?

      "Comcast Business 75/15 Mbps with static IP addresses and no blocked ports costs $198 a month."

      Perspective from NL:

      Yikes!!! Here in NL costs are less than half of that. E.g. Ziggo cable TV + 200/20 Mbps Internet EUR 51.50/month = USD 61/month. https://www.ziggo.nl/pakketten/#internet-online-tv 400/40 would be EUR 61. No data cap. Adding a landline phone would cost a euro or two.

      Typically Dutch houses are wired for cable TV, with one operator offering TV/Internet/phone, and with a "phone" line, over which half a dozen or so operators offer TV/Internet/phone. All at prices similar to those above. Some houses have fibre to the premises, again with a number of operators. Also extras thrown in if you take a mobile phone package from the same operator. Typical phone package: unlimited calls/texts (European roaming) + 20 GB data for EUR 25/month https://www.kpn.com/mobiel-abonnement/sim-only.htm

      Here they don't really know what net neutrality is, as they've always had it. Folk only becoming aware of the concept in relation to news from the US. So why is it that there are more telecoms operators offering better and cheaper services (while still making a profit) in a supposedly socialist (but it isn't) country than in the US???

      1. Naselus Silver badge

        Re: Don't you mean $2000/month?

        "Here in NL costs are less than half of that. "

        Even here in the UK, with our own broadband woes, it's a fraction of the cost. I get a 76/15 line for £35 a month. And I can get a static IP for an extra £5.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Don't you mean $2000/month?

          How can this be ? "communist" Europe with cheaper, faster internet - plus more competition and choice of provider !?

          1. DropBear Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Don't you mean $2000/month?

            I'd better not mention then that right here in darkest Eastern Europe, we pay single-digit euros for multi-digit mbps...

        2. AdamWill

          Re: Don't you mean $2000/month?

          Hell, I'm on the Western Canadian direct equivalent of Comcast (Shaw), and I get 150/15 business service with static IP and no transfer cap for C$126/month. That's less than US$100, I think.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Don't you mean $2000/month?

        Because in the US they have Government provided monopolies. The cable companies say they will not build unless they have exclusive access to the territory and that they can only build out with Government help. They are supposed to meet specific coverage by specific dates but never do and say they need more money. The Government gives them more, does nothing when the dont meet targets and stop others from investing in that region giving the consumer no competition.

  18. croc

    If I remember correctly, there is an article in the US Constitution that seems , on its face, to be about revolution. I think that it is the Second Amendment, the Amendment that is also responsible for the fact that there are more weapons in the US than people to fire them....

    Now, I am not (and would never) advocating a new Revolution. And I do not live in the US.

    However, you all know what you should do.....

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      "I think that it is the Second Amendment, the Amendment that is also responsible for the fact that there are more weapons in the US than people to fire them"

      it's more about the right to self defense, including the formation of a private militia (or a state one, like National Guard). It is ALSO based on the idea of individual citizens protecting themselves against an OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT. The basic idea is that when a government disarms its people, they are easier to OPPRESS. And so, to help prevent the U.S. gummint from becoming OPPRESSIVE [as governments are inclined to do] the citizens of the U.S. are *SUPPOSED* to be able to own weapons and NOT have this right "infringed" by regulations, etc.. What's screwed up, however, is that certain states (like California, New York) or cities (Chicago, Detroit) don't respect this, because they *ARE* becoming OPPRESSIVE, which is why they seek to DISARM THE CITIZENS so they can GET AWAY WITH IT.

      besides, how hard is it to make your own guns, ammo, explosives, etc. ANYWAY when "teh intarwebs" exists??? And when you crminalize the ownership of weapons, even for self defense, you turn otherwise law abiding citizens, who ONLY want to PREVENT crime, into CRIMINALS. "The cops" can't be everywhere, except to DRAW A CHALK LINE AROUND THE BODY after you're KILLED by a CRIMINAL [who doesn't CARE about laws, and owns ILLEGAL guns ANYWAY].

      in any case, the NRA has done plenty of studies on conceal/carry permits vs crime rates, and it demonstrates that private citizens carrying weapons is a DETERRENT to gun crimes. It should be EVERYWHERE, and even if conceal/carry requires some kind of a liability insurance policy, that's fine with me. Just let people who are NOT criminals carry weapons if they want to, LEGALLY, so that when some gunman points his insanity at the world, responsible gun owners can KILL HIM TO DEATH and prevent tragedies. And so on.

      1. MisterHappy

        I have to wonder

        I have wondered a few times about this & maybe you can help. Is there such a thing as a pro gun anti vaxxer? Are the NRA studies proof of herd immunity?

        A) Gun carrying citizen = Vaccinated person

        B) Criminal = Un-Vaccinated person

        C) Poor little Timmy can be either immuno compromised or a victim.

        More of A reduces B and protects C.

        Or is it only the NRA that knows the true facts and the WHO are just making up claims.

        Almost forgot... Vaccines can cause side effects = Guns can cause accidental deaths.

      2. Kiwi

        in any case, the NRA has done plenty of studies on conceal/carry permits vs crime rates, and it demonstrates that private citizens carrying weapons is a DETERRENT to gun crimes.

        So why is crime in the US so much higher than places that don't have such laws? Especially areas with comparable if not much higher rates of personal gun ownership?

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Check the ethnic distributions and median incomes of the worst of the lot. Two of the driving forces behind high crime are culture clashes and poverty-fed desperation.

  19. This post has been deleted by its author

  20. Louis Schreurs BEng

    Bombastic Bob

    Let's not vote AT ALL on his comments.

    Let's not COMMENT AT ALL at his posts.

    Let us NOT DO IT>>>>>>>

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bombastic Bob

      She'll just take that as a win; people no longer disagreeing with her.

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Re: Bombastic Bob

        Are you saying that BB is not only a bot, she's a Fembot?

        1. J. Cook Bronze badge

          Re: Bombastic Bob

          "Are you saying that BB is not only a bot, she's a Fembot?"

          Great, now I have Frau Farbissina screaming "SEND IN THE FEMBOTS!" in my head.

          (funny movie series, although the 'coffee' scene in the second one was a little too far over the top for my taste.)

  21. SJA

    If we can't trust corporations....

    If we can't trust corporations that they only act in our best interests, whom else could we trust?

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: If we can't trust corporations....

      "whom else could we trust?"

      Well, the US trust someone called InGod, but I think they might be a corporation that prints dollars?

      1. DropBear Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: If we can't trust corporations....

        I hear the etymology of that is tied to the German form of "God" ("Gott"), which makes the resulting "ingot" much more readily understandable...

  22. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    The elephant in the room…

    is the lack of competition in the US broadband model. My understanding from friends in the US is that most customers don't really have a choice for broadband providers.

    In other advanced economies unbundling legislation prevents monopolies and competition ensures net neutrality: if provider A throttles service B then customers can just switch.

    1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

      Re: The elephant in the room…

      But you should listen to Bombastic Bob! You should start your own internet service provider! With Blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the internet service provider and the blackjack!

    2. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: The elephant in the room…

      The problem behind the problem is geography. The US is very large with large areas of sparse population. They're considered money sinks, which means you either get ONE provider tempted by a sweetheart deal or NO provider because no one will otherwise touch that kind of setup.

      1. AdamWill

        Re: The elephant in the room…

        That doesn't quite work, though, because *even in major metropolitan areas* in the US, choice of providers is very limited. This is mainly because the incumbents fight like hell to prevent it being practical for anyone to compete with them; you can go back a couple of years and read the stories about all the wheezes the incumbent ISPs came up with to make it absolutely as difficult as possible for Google Fiber to enter new markets.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: The elephant in the room…

          How do these "incumbents" get around anti-trust stuff like the Sherman Act?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The elephant in the room…

      Sorry for the downvote but your comment still assumes no regulations are needed because customers can "just switch" is wrong. While less an immediate risk, customers finding out products are life threatening or exploitative usually happens *after* the fact. Thus competition alone cannot be guaranteed to prevent all harm.

      The last couple of years has shown control and power over the net could cause harm, let alone exploitation of consumers.

  23. This post has been deleted by its author

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Comment from the deceased

    I'm going to try to be honest here since I'm sure The Reg will check to see if I'm still alive to post a real comment.

    I think sarcastic articles like this are more detrimental than good. Sarcasm by itself doesn't accomplish any goals besides relieving the author of their angst. It's like watching a horror movie where the cute girl dies. It makes the reader feel even worse than before and with no hope for the future.

    Sarcasm needs to spiced with irony in order to offer a path to change. It's the difference in between a man screaming on the sidewalk and the other urging you to vote.

    1. kierenmccarthy

      Re: Comment from the deceased

      I don't agree, unsurprisingly.

      My thought process with this was: Pai and the cable companies clearly have a wildly different perspective on this to everyone else. I wonder how they make sense of everyone constantly saying the opposite to what they believe to be true.

      Then it occurred to me: why not write the article that they imagine everyone *should* be writing on the day this thing passes? And see how ludicrous it sounds.

      I think there was some value in that.

      1. Stevie Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: Comment from the deceased

        Well, you got me.

        But then, after 12 months of Trumps going's on, I'm an easy mark.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comment from the deceased

        The concept is great, but in my opinion you accomplished it too well and created a monster. You got too close to what they would actually pay for someone to write. A Frankenstein argument is all they need.

        They don't care about making sense or that people don't agree. They're laughing their way to the bank and enjoying as we, the little people, squirmish.

        If all you wanted was to get us upset, you got it. This one was enough to get my ulcer started. But I think that people need more than just get upset. That's just the first step. Where's the rest of the story?

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The best thing about the new Not Neutrality rules is that they only apply to the US.

    Which is a good thing, because all of Trump's other policies are designed to build walls around other countries to stop them exporting anything to the US so surely we should be cheering this one policy that gives the rest of the world an opportunity to catch up and compete with the mighty US of A.

  26. sequester

    Health Insurance

    Because a free market is great and means good things all around☺

    I'll sit here and be all smug in a country where an infected tooth isn't fatal unless you're wealthy or very poor, and where ISPs are sadly still allowed to peer with Telia.

  27. SeanC4S

    Destructuring society is another name for anarchy. Putting structure back and solving problems would be a better idea.

  28. W4YBO

    Oh, the humanity...

    I noticed this morning as I logged on, that my internet is now performing as though it was 2014.

  29. Dr Abner Mality

    Either this is satire or the writer doesn't live in the U.S. and doesn't understand how its publicly held corporations actually behave. Any innovations that result will appear in the accounting accompanying SEC filings, not the patent office.

  30. bobajob12 Bronze badge
    Trollface

    Bring back charging per byte

    Instant death for online ads, and a leaner, cleaner Internet. Goodbye facebook. Goodbye Netflix. Hello actually getting outside and playing.

    Those 16million colors on the screen should be done away with too. Bring back gopher on a green screen, I say.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Bring back charging per byte

      You forget. People WILL pay for porn.

  31. yellowlawn

    Hello, I'm here from the Government. and I'm going to help you with your internet. Honest.

  32. lsatenstein

    INternet businesses that succeeded are to be raped. Google, facebook, twitter, amazon, to name a few, are making a killing, and the ISP is there to only provide the pipe. ISPs, your pipe would be worthless without those companies. They are the reason you are connected to every house.

    And ISPs, are you going to share your networks with IOT devices? Are you going to hit homeowners for IOT access, as extra fees? YOU BET.

    Jealousy and greed have no limits.

  33. G Olson

    Fantasy land

    This article and the previous article on Net Neutrality are so biased they stop being reporting, or even Biting the Hand, to pure personal drivel. I suggest you leave the fantasyland of San Francisco and the Bay Area and actually talk to people who work for a living. Really work for a living, not sitting in a cube or office staring at a monitor rearranging bits all day. Until then, your opinion is just a Shi'ite.

    1. kierenmccarthy

      Re: Fantasy land

      I just wanted to take time out to thank you for this reasoned and rational response.

      Thanks to your guidance I have seen the errors in my reporting and approach.

      It's all too rare these days for someone to lay down a carefully constructed argument that through its sheer inventiveness can cause someone to reevaluate their previous assumptions and preconceptions. But you have done it in this case.

      I thought your Shiite comment in particular was right on the money.

      I take my hat off to you sir. And if you want a job reporting on the tech events of the day, you can rely on me to provide you with a glowing recommendation.

      Best of luck to toy in future travails.

      Kieren

    2. Kiwi
      WTF?

      Re: Fantasy land

      I suggest you leave the fantasyland of San Francisco and the Bay Area and actually talk to people who work for a living.

      How the hell would that make a difference to an article on net neutrality?

      Can you tell me what it is you're taking so I know what to avoid?

  34. Alistair Silver badge
    Windows

    Kieren having a moment.

    And I think in this case it was a well deserved moment, he's been all over this case.

    Net Neutrality. This short two word quip has a whole *lot* of room for interpretation. Sadly, libertarian 'no government' Ayn Rand shruggies tend to (as is *required* by libertarianism) wear fairly large blinders. They ignore history - which has made it abundantly clear that monopoly enterprises will manufacture wealth for the owning cabal, poverty for the employees, and engender illiteracy in order to ensure their existence into perpetuity. They ignore facts (we have a free market!!! there is more than one (Bell!!/ISP!!!/Train company!!!))

    1) when your ISP is *the only* ISP in your area there is no competition at the carrier level -> monopoly

    2) when there are more than one ISPs in an area and they either are a content producer or are owned by content producers, there is no competition at the content level -> monopoly

    3) when there is no competition at some level, the idea (?ideal?) of 'free market solving the problem' is no longer possible. -> monopoly

    4) when the content producers own the ISPs and have access to *all* communications then the content they will produce will be designed to perpetuate the perceptions, concepts and type of the content of the audiences communications.

    What happens *rapidly* at this stage is that information delivered to these end users will become an echo chamber, and will perpetually narrow the perceptions of the end users. This is where extremism comes from, and the inability to rationally decode 'programming' (interesting that the cable companies used that term. Isn't it ironic?) that is being fed to the end users.

    I am *not* an advocate of the 'wild wild west o the intarwebs' where *anything* goes - I am not for 'rules rules rules rules rules', I however *am* inclined to say that the provisioning of internet connections to end users does need some rational regulation. Including that the ISP delivering the packets must treat the connections as dumb pipes. They are, even when they are part of a content provider corporation, providing *infrastructure* to the current modern household.

    The biggest issue that will now ensue in the excited snakes is that the ISPs that are part of content producer corporations (and it will be started in 3 months) will now go out of their way to *kill* torrenting, as fast and as efficiently as possible. How they do this will be variable but it will be done. There will be substantial collateral damage, and there will be much hand waving and ghostlighting on the subject, but it will happen.

    Happily up here in Kanuckistan we have several giant ISPs and dozens and dozens of smaller ones, and (yay!!!) we have local loop unbundling. I may have to *pay* (in my case $4.52/mo) to unbundle and connect to a non standard ISP but it *is* a negligible charge). I know that in at least Ohio, Washington and Virginia you *cannot* unbundle cable connections, and at least in three cities that I'm aware of you only have a choice of *one* ISP, who owns your local loop, your pipe, and apparently owns the poles as well, for both cable and DSL. These circumstances are not a fee market.

    The keystone argument; should the FCC be in charge of this or the FTC? -> the FCC was created in order to regulate the telephone industry, which was providing at the time an infrastructural service. It is *very* hard to see the provisioning of internet pipes as anything *other* than infrastructure. Title II -- probably needs an overhaul and may not have been the correct form, but --- oh right. There was a bit of a lag issue in the second half of that presidency wasn't there -- one party was stalling all over the place to prevent legislation being prepared......

  35. Chronos Silver badge

    Replying this far down...

    ...to preserve the illusion. Thank you, El Reg. Now I have a hardlink to an article I can present whenever anyone asks me "What is a troll?" No, it's not being nasty or insulting, that's just being a complete see you next Tuesday.

    Put simply, a troll is simply a post or article cunningly crafted to get someone, anyone biting and thrashing at the keyboard maniacally. This article and the sarcasm dripping therefrom is a perfect example which, given that this is three or more pages of thrashing, splashing and foaming in, worked magnificently. The keep net¹ must be overflowing.

    ¹ "Trolling" is actually an angling term. Nothing to do with mythical creatures, billy goats or bridges whatsoever.

    ¹½ I remain extremely disappointed that nobody has called out <CTRL><Z> as being the background current process key-press rather than the Windozified "undo" with which everyone now associates it.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Replying this far down...

      "¹½ I remain extremely disappointed that nobody has called out <CTRL><Z> as being the background current process key-press rather than the Windozified "undo" with which everyone now associates it."

      Don't blame Microsoft for that one. Command-Z on the Mac predated Windows.

      1. conscience

        Re: Replying this far down...

        I don't think anyone was blaming Microsoft for this, though the Windows shortcut is probably what most people know it for these days.

        CTRL + Z was a control key to suspend the currently running process to the background in the C shell (csh) in the late 1970s BSD kernel, while CTRL + Z being used for undo was first done at Xerox PARC not Apple.

        1. hnwombat
          Pint

          Re: Replying this far down...

          = CTRL + Z was a control key to suspend the currently running process to the background in the C

          = shell (csh) in the late 1970s BSD kernel, while CTRL + Z being used for undo was first done at

          = Xerox PARC not Apple.

          You know, I think you may be onto something here. Kieran may have been a little sharper than we realized. It is actually a ^Z in this sense; because the FCC obviously did not follow correct procedure, and this idiocy is going to be stop by the courts so fast it will make Pai's head spin. Plus, when the dems take congress back in 2018, it'll be passed in legislation if it is still being foughy over (which it probably will be). So it's just backgrounded for a bit, and the fg is coming soon. :-)

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: Replying this far down...

            Except President Trump will likely veto any such move and there's no way for the Democrats to override the veto (they can at most gain eight seats in the Senate in the 2018 elections--they need closer to 20; fact is, it's the Republicans who hold an actual chance to gain an overriding majority). It'll take until at least 2020 to hope for anything serious, and they'll need good performances in BOTH elections to do so. If not, they won't be able to influence the 2021 redistricting process (since 2020 is the next Census).

            Perhaps some campaign for an Amendment for the People would help to provide such a long-term push.

          2. conscience

            Re: Replying this far down...

            @hnwombat

            My thoughts exactly RE the article headline.

            While I don't know about anything about US politics, you'd have to hope it is a temporary situation and that somebody steps in to resolve this and fixes the mess that the FCC have created.

  36. 2StrokeRider

    Author swinging the no-facts bias whip like a pro. Google-facebook-Netflix grew to be giants before the NN FCC reg.

    I'm personally a big fan of a Capitalist society with much less Federal regulation. I'll vote with my wallet thank you. With several ISPs to choose from, the one that provides the content I desire at the speeds I desire gets my $$s, and I don't give a flying fickle finger if they have a prettier blinken boxen than the other ISP.

    I'd be quite happy to see the FCC shuttered for good and save the American taxpayer the $$s.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      "I'm personally a big fan of a Capitalist society with much less Federal regulation. I'll vote with my wallet thank you. With several ISPs to choose from, the one that provides the content I desire at the speeds I desire gets my $$s, and I don't give a flying fickle finger if they have a prettier blinken boxen than the other ISP."

      And for those communities (and there are A LOT) where there's only ONE provider, meaning the ONLY alternative is to go without (and there's usually a good reason there's only one provider: namely, they got a sweetheart deal that was the ONLY way to get them to wire up the place at all)?

      1. Colabroad

        Or all the ISPs decide to put their prices up, or they all block access to the sites you want.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "I'm personally a big fan of a Capitalist society with much less Federal regulation."

      What about the state regulations which legislate and protect local monopolies?

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Albigensian solution

    Kill them all, Trump knows his own.

  38. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    Utter bollocks from what seems clearly to be a marketing drone. To pick from his list:

    You know how if you're told to do something, you won't, but if you aren't forced to, then you go all-out? The same is true for profit-making companies.

    Coal mining companies.

    Oil exploitation companies.

    Construction companies.

    Car manufacturers.

    Google.

    Facebook.

    All of which have shown time and again if you don't crack the legal whip they show zero inclination to self-regulate.

    Coal mines burning for decades that force the evacuation of entire towns. Lest we consider this an American problem only, let me just say "Aberfan"

    Oil tankers and rigs operated unsafely in pursuit of the almighty dollar (Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon).

    Car manufacturers. Airbags, anyone? Electric cars? Oh, and of course, Volkswagen.

    Google and Facebook each are regularly found to be up to all sorts of shenanigans they don't admit to and sometimes even deny hotly.

    So no, unless this entire article is a troll, I think I'm awarding the Wikipedia Trophy for Unreliable Statements.

    1. AdamWill

      Re: Bah!

      *whooooooooooosh*

  39. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    You may have heard how the United States has fallen behind the rest of the world when it comes to broadband roll out and speeds. Well this net neutrality plan is going to Make America Fast Again.

    Prediction: The only part of America that will speed up will be he part that conveys revues to deep-pocket bonuses for the newly tax-unencumbered.

  40. TVU Silver badge

    "5 reasons why America's Ctrl-Z on net neutrality rules is a GOOD thing"

    ^ To be perfectly frank, those 5 reasons sound just like 5 pure snake oil promises.

  41. DainB Bronze badge

    Did it pass Facebook test ?

    You know that anything Facebook wants is bad for you by definition.

    Facebook wants Net Neutrality.

    (predicting incoming swarms of mental acrobats trying to prove that either one or both of these statements are false).

    1. TechnicalBen Silver badge

      Re: Check and mate

      Facebook wants you to eat food and drink water.

      So either you used a hyperbole and may be wrong. Or you need to stop eating.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: Check and mate

        "Facebook wants you to eat food and drink water."

        Oh, we've got mentally disabled mental acrobat here. That's cute.

  42. Jonathon Green
    Thumb Up

    I like Americans.They’re funny...

  43. cutterman

    A very bad decision for most of us, but the 1% will be happy.

    Can't believe what Trump is doing to America.

  44. Misiu

    Rogue One is actually about internet freedom

    Fun way to look at this :

    https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/15/16779572/rogue-one-internet-freedom-net-neutrality-star-wars

    It is a movie about data transmission as a political act, and one in which unequal access to bands of transmission puts people’s lives at risk

  45. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Net Neutrality isn't needed

    In a free market, with actual competition. Market forces ensure that customers who find themselves in a walled garden will go elsewhere.

    The problem is that across large tracts of the USA, the market isn't free and telcos/cablecos have legally protected monopolies ensuring they're (literallly) the only game in town.

    The "land of the free" is far from it (it's about #38 in the freedom indexes and still falling)

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Net Neutrality isn't needed

      Most of the legal monopolies actually are a result of NATURAL monpolies, due to extreme infrastructure costs on account of geography. In many cases, it's a monopoly or nothing at all.

  46. druck
    Linux

    Ctrl-Z

    Ctrl-Z is better than Ctrl-C, at least we can hope someone does a fg in the future.

  47. Tree
    Big Brother

    Hate Facebutt and Gurgle

    Gurgle and Facebutt want the power to censor our ideas. I don't trust them. They have more monopoly power than Comcast or Time Warner. You can find multiple service providers in most parts of the world.

    Don't oppose freedom. If you do not want to read something, it is your right to delete or just not read it. If you cannot find an article, it may as well not be available. This is what the ChiComs enforce with the Great Firewall of China.

  48. Daniel Hall
    Flame

    Dear ElReg

    Can we please discuss the option of placing the flag of the country a person is commenting from.

    USA and UK are 2 different countries.

    When everyone gets on their high horses and starts talking politics the only way, currently for me to know if they're American or not is if the way they're talking sounds stupid.

    ta.

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Transparency?

    "You will be told EXACTLY what you will get in your new internet access packages and that is going to be mind-blowingly cool."

    TRANSLATION

    Before - you just got EVERYTHING.

    Now - They will need to tell you what little pieces you have subscribed to. They will also tell you how much it will cost you to buy back all the other parts of the internet that used to be included for free.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: Transparency?

      Including access to encrypted connections, meaning no more getting around geo-blocking until you pay more than it would take to get the stuff the "legal" way.

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