back to article US Senators force vote on Ctrl-Z'ing America's net neutrality death

The controversial repeal of net neutrality rules in America will go to a formal vote in Congress after sufficient lawmakers backed an effort to scrap it. There are now more than 30 Senators that have cosponsored a resolution [PDF] under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the effort by the Federal Communications …

  1. The Dogs Meevonks

    The More I read About the US of A....

    The more it appears to be devolving into a 3rd world country.

    1. elDog Silver badge

      Re: The More I read About the US of A....

      Don't understand the downvotes. Unless they take issue with "devolving" - like the USofA hasn't already devolved.

      We served a good purpose for a couple of centuries. Old Europe and much of the rest of the world got to see democracy in all of its tarnished glory. Now it's time for us to generate some real culture instead of the ultimate crassness.

      1. Big John Silver badge

        Re: The More I read About the US of A....

        > "Don't understand the downvotes."

        Let me explain. There happen to be a sizable contingent of people who actually don't despise Western Culture, and think overall it's pretty damn good. I know I know, how bizarre. But it's true!

        Hope that cleared it up for you.

        1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: The More I read About the US of A....

          USA isn't "western culture". It's "western". Hope that cleared it up for you?

          1. Big John Silver badge

            Re: The More I read About the US of A....

            I'm afraid it hasn't. Please elucidate?

            1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge

              Re: The More I read About the US of A....

              Land of the Freemium™.

        2. FrozenShamrock

          Re: The More I read About the US of A....

          The longer I live the more I'm convinced we (the US) are becoming a third-world country. Out life expectancy dropped for the second year in a row: we are below the OECD average and well below countries such as France, Germany, and Britain, in fact, we rank right down there with Costa Rica. Infant mortality, income inequality, educational achievement, the list goes on and on; we have fallen backwards.

          In fact, Big John, it is precisely because people like me like Western Culture that we despair of the drop in standards in our country. Letting our country become a corporate oligarchy is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

    2. Daggerchild Silver badge

      Re: The More I read About the US of A....

      It makes more sense once you realise Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing.

      Identifying, labelling, demonising, and subjugating those not of your tribe, then taking their stuff, while extracting pleasure from their distress, is a Civilisation 101 "get rich quick" method, and it works nicely.

      1. Big John Silver badge

        Re: The More I read About the US of A....

        > "It makes more sense once you realise Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing."

        Funny, I seem to recall it was the the Republicans who took the slaves away from the Democrats. In fact the Republican Party was started specifically to end slavery.

        Sad to see the Democrats' less-educated followers attempting to project that unsavory Democrat past onto the ones who thwarted them in the first place! Tsk.

        1. FrozenShamrock

          Re: The More I read About the US of A....

          You should know about less educated BJ. The party of Lincoln may have freed the slaves; but, ever since the Democrats under Johnson passed civil rights legislation the party playing to the latent racism of the unreconstructed south has been the Republicans. Election after election they play the not too subtle race card in any area of the country they believe poor, dumb whites such as yourself can be whipped into a frenzy about protecting their white heritage. I'm from a working class white background and the only thing threatening my heritage is the destruction of the basic liberties supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution and defended by the blood, sweat, and tears of my ancestors.

      2. ckm5

        Re: The More I read About the US of A....

        Might want to get your facts straight. Republicans were the ones that abolished slavery: https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/politics/cnn-explains-gop-party/index.html

        Democrats were the ones that wanted to keep it going.

        (ninja'd, figures)

        The current crop of Republicans are not about slavery or discrimination, what they are all about is pure, unfettered capitalism in the worst sense of the word. Free from any moral or societal concerns, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting screwed (which is their fault, 'cause they're, well, poor).

        They are also cynically trying to bankrupt the federal government to justify massive cuts to anything than looks like income transfer from the rich to the poor, eg. social security, housing/food support or any sort of health care.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

        The Republicans abolished slavery with their first president. Perhaps you are confusing them with the Democratic party and their offshoot the Ku Klux Klan?

        Or maybe you just don't know what you are talking about.

        1. Big John Silver badge

          Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

          It's because of that scurrilous fable about all the racists moving from the Democrats to the Republicans in the sixties. In reality the Dems just decided to hide their racism behind a mask of self righteousness while accusing the Republicans of their own past crimes. Worked pretty well it appears...

          1. strum Silver badge

            Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

            >It's because of that scurrilous fable about all the racists moving from the Democrats to the Republicans in the sixties.

            That 'scurrilous fable' is established, incontravertable history. Nixon's Southern Strategy is also established history. The Dixiecrats are gone, unmourned.

            The Alt-right's attempts to cozy up to Lincoln (who they'd have cheerfully have shot) leaves a sick taste in the mouth.

          2. FrozenShamrock

            Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

            100 years after the civil war ended the Democratic party passed landmark civil right laws in the face of violent, almost hysterical opposition from the Republicans. yes, BJ, the racists did simply switch parties beginning the 60's. If you were alive during that time, like I was, you would remember it clearly. If you were literate, you could research it.

            1. elDog Silver badge

              Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

              A nice set of ripostes to the troll who goes by teeny john. Hard to argue with someone/thing on automatic denial setting.

              1. The Dogs Meevonks

                Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

                I've been sat here with my popcorn reading all of the replies to my original comment and being highly amused.

                So to pick a few replies to comments made... not going into the trolling side at all.

                1: Don't hate western culture... I'm from the UK... we kinda invented it and then watched as the US perverted it for profit. :P

                2: Brexit... I voted to remain... I think it's the dumbest thing to happen in this country for decades... and the same idiots who voted for it would probably have voted for Trump if they'd been born in the US.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

            You seriously want to rewrite history like this?

            It's on the public record that politicians who had been Democrats switched to be Republicans and their voters went with them. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that this followed the passage of the voting rights act in 1965.

            A short list of some of the national politicians who switched from D to R in the late 1960s / early 1970s

            Jesse Helms

            Bob Barr

            Trent Lott

            Elizabeth Dole

            (the record has hundreds more - in NC, SC, AL, MI, GA ad other southern states)

            Any idiot who claims that the southern Democratic party did not switch wholesale to R affiliation after the Civil Rights era is probably historically uninformed enough to claim that Nazis were socialist too.

            Just because Fox News repeats this lie nightly doesn't make it true. And yes, I had heard that Senator Byrd was in the KKK - yawn. There are many republicans today that make the KK look like amateurs.

        2. Daggerchild Silver badge

          Re: Republicans never *really* gave up on the whole slavery thing

          "Perhaps you are confusing them with the Democratic party and their offshoot the Ku Klux Klan?"

          Depends. Did a democrat just pardon Joe Arpaio's racism conviction? Was Trump's father *not* arrested at a KKK rally? How far do black people get in the Republican party compared to the Democrats?

    3. ckm5

      Re: The More I read About the US of A....

      It's been a third-world country in many ways for some time. And I say that as someone who voluntarily came to live in the USA..... At least there is not much low level corruption and salaries keep you out of starvation.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The More I read About the US of A....

      it appears to be devolving into a 3rd world country

      True, but FWIW we prefer "banana republic."

      With the Trumpublicans in charge, we are becoming more like Russia every day: a nuclear-armed state, run by a cabal that exists to further enrich both itself and the oligarchy that it serves.

    5. fishman

      Re: The More I read About the US of A....

      Brexit.

      Whenever the Brits start looking down on the USA, don't forget that the UK has far more cameras focused on their population than the US. And their politicians are just as capable of doing crazy/irresponsible things.

  2. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Devil

    "The floor of the Senate"

    "The floor of the Senate" (and/or the House of Representatives) is where all of this should have been decided in the FIRST place.

    Having an executive branch LEGISLATE is JUST WRONG. That's effectively what 'net neutrality' was when Obaka's administration's FCC people tried it.

    Bureaucracies are supposed to IMPLEMENT and ENFORCE, not legislate.

    If the Senate and H.R. pass net neutrality, and Trump signs it, it will become law.

    If they do not pass it, it SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED by the F.C.C. or any OTHER agency (thus circumventing the legislature).

    That's how "separation of powers" are SUPPOSED to work. it's why I'm glad Pai SCRAPPED it.

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      Re: "The floor of the Senate"

      ""The floor of the Senate" (and/or the House of Representatives) is where all of this should have been decided in the FIRST place."

      In theory yes, Bob, but the complexity of modern legal systems, taxation and so on is such that your elected representatives don't have time to consider even a tiny fraction of the laws that get passed. If you want them to focus on the "important" laws, someone else is still going to have to fill in the details. Even Appenzell, once the most democratic (and tiniest) State (in the US sense) on Earth unless you were female, delegates a lot of decision making to its executive branch these days.

      1. elDog Silver badge

        Re: "The floor of the Senate"

        Right, they don't even have time to read, let alone consider most of the proposals. When they are actually working, it is to increase their personal coffers.

        And given the breeding stock that most of the new ones came from, most of them have about as much ability to read and comprehend as their Twit-In-Chief.

        The congress is run by lobbyists, only. And many of the lobbyists are foreign agents, many non-registered. The rest are paid for by the plutocrats who have less than zero interest in the welfare of the population.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: "The floor of the Senate"

      They were "IMPLEMENTing and ENFORCing". No need to shout, by the way.

      They were implementing and enforcing the Telecommunicatons Act of 1996, which gives as its aim:

      to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition

      Now, you can quibble about the FCC's interpretation of its duties, and you can certainly argue about the appropriateness and proportionality of its requirements. But to imply that they had no mandate to do it because Congress had not legislated on the subject is just plain false.

    3. DougS Silver badge

      Unfortunately congress is dysfunctional

      They've abdicated their responsibility for dealing with a lot of things due to partisanship, so executive orders or rules/regulations issued by cabinet level bodies are the only way to get some things done. Or would you be OK if Trump's executive orders that weren't simply undoing Obama executive orders be nullified and require legislation to enact?

      I think the executive branch exercises far too much authority and has done so since well before I was born. Laws passed by congress should be required to better spell out the limits of what the executive branch can and can't do. Unfortunately the courts have ruled over and over again that unless something is specifically covered in legislation, the executive branch has the power. Which is why Trump exercises more executive authority than Obama, who exercised more executive authority than Bush, and so forth, continually eroding the power of the legislative branch despite complaints from the out-of-power party about presidential "overreach".

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: Unfortunately congress is dysfunctional

        Currently, the legislative branch is rendered impotent by the bitter factionalism that makes it politically toxic to try to reach any kind of accommodation with "the other side".

        I'm not sure how much of that can be laid at the door of the executive branch. Certainly Trump personally has played a part, but more in his capacity as a media whore and talking head than as president. Opposition polarized pretty badly under Clinton and Bush, then the Republicans went absolutely apeshit against Obama, and the sentiment has been pegged in that position since.

        Whether it would have been this way under a sane Republican president I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to suspect it wouldn't have been that different. Certainly the Reps showed no sign of softening towards Hillary, when they thought she was going to win - and I didn't notice the Dems giving much quarter to Cruz or Rubio either.

        I'm not sure what the cure is, or if there is one. But if there is one, it will definitely involve major campaign finance reform.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Unfortunately congress is dysfunctional

          But because political speech is considered the most sacred form of speech protected by the First Amendment, something like that would take an Amendment. Good luck barring an existential crisis.

    4. ckm5

      Re: "The floor of the Senate"

      Said someone on the internet who has no idea how government actually works in the real world....

    5. strum Silver badge

      Re: "The floor of the Senate"

      >Obaka'

      An entire argument invalidated with a single word.

    6. FrozenShamrock

      Re: "The floor of the Senate"

      As soon as you said Obaka you exposed the truth about the insane opposition to everything and anything Obama did or tried to do. A certain class of people in this country still couldn't stomach having a black man telling white people what to do.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: "The floor of the Senate"

        Which is why, even though I'm not particularly a fan of Oprah and probably wouldn't be particularly a fan of her politics, I'd love to see her decide to run and beat Trump, just because the same moron breed of "oppressed white men" (i.e. the sort of people who refer to Obama as Obaka) who couldn't stomach a black man as president would really be driven over the edge by a black woman as president!

        I wonder how they'd spell her name, if they'd start conspiracy theories about where she was born, or just go full tilt and make up crazy stories like she performed a secret back alley abortion on Gayle when they were kids.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "The floor of the Senate"

          Question. If these "oppressed white men" were so incensed about Obama being elected back in '08, why didn't they start a Second Civil War over it? These sound like the type who would rather destroy the world than bend over.

          1. DougS Silver badge

            Re: "The floor of the Senate"

            They want to, there just aren't nearly enough of them willing to fight over it. The ones that would be willing to fight a war over it are the ones who showed up in Charlottesville chanting Nazi slogans.

            The 49% who voted for Trump, or the 35-ish percent who still support him are not all angry oppressed white men. Most of them are just conservatives who tolerate Trump as a means to an end because they see democrats as worse.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's no surprise that Pai canceled his CES appearance.

    It was said in some stories about why Pai decided not to show up for the "candid conversation" at the CES because of death threats.

    If I'd just done something that millions of people had all commented against, that everybody except my corporate masters had rallied against, & that even members of my own political party were up in arms over, I might decide to hide as well.

    You just know some little old lady will hobble up in her walker, ask to shake his hand, & hit him in the crunchies with a Taser the moment he extends his hand. "What part of NO MEANS NO did you not understand? You wanted to repeal, we said no, you did it anyway, so don't be surprised when the consequences of your actions come back to bite you in the ass!"

    *Cough*

    Dear Mister Pai. I hope they impeach you for treason against the very public you were sworn to protect. Then as a warning to the others I hope they force you to read each & every comment left in the FCC comment submission section... repeatedly. Until the message sinks in.

  4. Tomato42 Silver badge

    Likely won't pass, but...

    Repubs have made it a partisan issue, so they will likely vote exactly along the party lines.

    Still, good to get each and every one of their positions in writing, will make the mid-term elections so much easier.

    1. Big John Silver badge

      Re: Likely won't pass, but...

      > "Repubs have made it a partisan issue..."

      Yes, by not meekly going along with the Socialisation of the Internet. Better get used to it too. We intend to resist the Left's power grabs at every turn and watch the increasingly shrill screams with amusement. ;-/

      1. Someone Else Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Likely won't pass, but...

        Who's 'we', kimosabe?

        1. Big John Silver badge

          Re: Likely won't pass, but...

          Um, "Repubs...?"

          Must I read the words to you? I mean, I know your posts leave a lot to be desired, but I assumed you were at least literate. Jeez...

        2. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: Likely won't pass, but...

          Who's 'we', kimosabe?

          A mouse in his pocket, maybe?

          Disclaimer: I'm not a democrap and I'm thinking Pai should be hung from the nearest yardarm.

          1. Big John Silver badge

            Re: Likely won't pass, but...

            Yes, the mouse that roared. ;-/

            1. James 51 Silver badge
              Headmaster

              Re: Likely won't pass, but...

              Big John, you do realise that the USA lost the war in that movie and gave in to all of the other country's demands?

              1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
                Headmaster

                Re: hung from the nearest yardarm.

                Hanged

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Likely won't pass, but...

                >the USA lost the war

                Hasn't the USA lost every war that they started? Apart from the minor one in the 1776 and they only one that because the French helped them.

            2. FrozenShamrock

              Re: Likely won't pass, but...

              Sorry John, a mouse roar is still a pip squeak.

        3. hplasm Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Likely won't pass, but...

          "Who's 'we', kimosabe?"

          The Cowboys in charge of the 'Western Culture'.

      2. ckm5

        Re: Likely won't pass, but...

        Until, you know, Love Canal*. Then everyone else in the world can point and laugh at your stupidity.

        * "national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations"

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

      3. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Likely won't pass, but...

        "Yes, by not meekly going along with the Socialisation of the Internet."

        OK, I don't get it. Was that some kind of satire?

        You do know that the Internet is like roads, right? You know, those things you can use to go places. Socialist hell holes of snaking tarmac...

      4. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: Likely won't pass, but...

        Socialisation of the Internet

        I'm assuming that you are not talking about the rise of vapid, self-centred abominations like Facebook here..

        (And FYI - what you seem to refer to a 'socialisation', the rest of the free world calls 'essential regulation to stop corporate monopolies breaking the internet'. There is a vast difference between regulation and state ownership..)

      5. FrozenShamrock

        Re: Likely won't pass, but...

        Socialisation of the internet? I didn't see the big cable companies complain about socialization when they were given monopolies and subsidies to build the infrastructures.

    2. 2Nick3 Bronze badge

      Re: Likely won't pass, but...

      "Repubs have made it a partisan issue, so they will likely vote exactly along the party lines."

      What ISN'T a partisan issue anymore? If one party want Charmin in the congressional bathrooms then the other is going to scream for Quilted Northern, and there will be a couple people off in the corner crying out for Angel Soft.

  5. ma1010 Silver badge
    Windows

    Follow the money

    Yeah, Pai just wants to "return the Internet to the pee-ple." Yep. His actions have NOTHING to do with the fact that the big players all sponsor him or the fact that he's a whore for Verizion, Comcast, et al. Naw, he's doing it for the little guy. (Anyone who believes that, please contact me-I have a bridge for sale.)

    Pai makes me sick. (Icon as close as I can find to puking.)

    I doubt Congress will be able to do any good, but at least some in there are trying, which is something.

    1. Big John Silver badge

      Re: Follow the money

      So, Google, Facebook and Twitter are not "big players?" Gotcha.

      1. Gordon 10 Silver badge

        Re: Follow the money

        They are the case of the lesser evil in this. They want you consuming as much cheap bandwidth as possible to target more ads your way, and Concast and Derizon will charge you and them more for the the distracting kitteh videos.

        At least you can ignore or block ads and use privacy filters with the Ad networks. The word Pigopolist that Orlowski used to use was invented for US Big Cable and Telco. Remind me was anyone actually jailed for the bill stuffing debacle?

        Although as a RightPondian the whole furore over NN amuses, it's really just a US thing after all.

        1. Big John Silver badge

          Re: Follow the money

          > "They are the case of the lesser evil in this."

          More precisely, they are the hidden evil, as I see no one but me even mentioning their names.

          Wonder why that is...?

          1. theOtherJT

            Re: Follow the money

            More precisely, they are the hidden evil, as I see no one but me even mentioning their names.

            I'm not really sure why their names matter. Its a massive ad-hominem. Do I like Facebook? No, not really. Do I think they're on the right side of this issue? Yes. Just because they stand to benefit in this situation doesn't make them wrong, any more than the fact that the cable companies stand to benefit if NN is overturned makes them right.

            It's not about what companies benefits from this - it's about how it ultimately affects the people. Handing more power to cable companies, who are already anti-competitive as hell, will do a disservice to their customers, and that's clearly bad for the end user, even if it goes on to benefit Google or Facebook, or any other giant business that I don't like very much.

            Look, this legislation wouldn't even be relevant if there was a healthy market for ISP's in the US, but there's not. If there were we could indeed just let the market sort it out, and have consumers leave en masse from any ISP who tried to stiff them over pay-per-access pricing. We are all well aware however that there is NOT a competitive market for broadband in the US, and given the sheer size of the incumbants and the enormous barrier to entry cost for getting into the market in the first place (laying fibre isn't cheap, and if I own fibre, why the hell would I let a competitor use it without putting up a fight?) there's not going to be a competitive market any time soon.

            Perhaps if something had been done about that problem at some point in the past then we wouldn't be having this fight over this one now.

          2. Aedile

            Re: Follow the money

            Because it's off topic and your post is just shameless whataboutism. We are discussing Pai and his dismantaling of NN. If Google, Facebook, et al are an issue then that is something else that can be discussed later. Their sins (if any) do not excuse what Pai is doing so why bring them up? For more about whataboutism watch John Olivers segment about it.

          3. FrozenShamrock

            Re: Follow the money

            Because it is irrelevant?

      2. ckm5

        Re: Follow the money

        There are somewhere between 4000 and 7000 tech companies in the US, all fighting for survival. Collectively, they are driving roughly 30% of the US economy.

        That's what's at stake.

        China will be perfectly to have said tech companies. They are already taking the lead in clean/green tech and free trade.

        Just keep working at making China great again, because that will make great future for your kids.

  6. elDog Silver badge

    I'd just like to have Pai, twit-in-chief, congress-critters of the repuglican variety

    All subject to the whims of some BUREAUCRAT deciding what you can watch, how much, and have the ability to insert ads.

    Of course these aforementioned individuals are _currently_ in charge and probably have ways to influence the ISPs. But can you imagine if the twit is deposed and only gets 144 characters per week?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    These senators must realise that at some point this is going to bite them in the ass, don't mess with peoples internet as it will harm your votes. Therefore I predict it will be kicked into touch.

    That's my optimistic opinion.

    Disclaimer: I'm not American but I see how we are never far behind with these things.

    Epilogue: Pai is a d*ck.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      "These senators must realise that at some point this is going to bite them in the ass, don't mess with peoples internet as it will harm your votes. Therefore I predict it will be kicked into touch."

      The Internet as we know it is already gone, and people are congregating into easy-to-manage echo chambers where any sort of challenge is quickly shot down. Consider why so many Congressional elections are uncontested.

  8. LDS Silver badge
    Facepalm

    "rather than lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats"

    Which is exactly the exact description of Pai himself.

  9. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    " recent weeks..Republican lawmakers..

    following pressure from their constituents who worry that they will be forced to pay more for the content they want."

    Wow, because realizing this law is f**kbrained stupid isn't a good enough reason to vote against it.

  10. Kev99 Bronze badge

    The one and ONLY reason ISPs want to be able to throttle internet access is money. Data flows via electricity and electricity flow at near light speed. The cost of switches and routers is still dropping and the ISPs pay even less than the general public thru economies of scale. The fact they can throttle internet speeds at will is proof enough there is no economic reason to do so except to squeeze the cajones of a captive market.

  11. DougS Silver badge

    It will be solved by California and NY

    They along with smaller blue states will pass laws saying no state contracts can be given to ISPs that don't abiding by net neutrality within their state. Pai has stated the FCC will try to block such state level laws but it is unclear how he could do that (especially since republicans claim to believe in 'states rights' which this would be completely against) and even if he did I can't see how it would pass muster in court since the FCC can't regulate against states doing this any more than the EPA can block states from adopting more strict pollution laws.

    So one of two things will end up happening. One, ISPs who operate in those states will abide by net neutrality across the US because they deem it not worth operating differently in blue and red/purple states. Two, ISPs will operate one way in blue states that pass such a law and differently everywhere else, and if those differences end up being noticeable and negative for consumers net neutrality advocates will make sure they become well known and public pressure for net neutrality will force congress to act.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: It will be solved by California and NY

      "Pai has stated the FCC will try to block such state level laws but it is unclear how he could do that"

      Simple. Internet traffic is normally interstate if not international in nature. He'll just invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause and cite that since most Internet traffic (like a lot of road traffic) is interstate in nature, the federal government is mandated to step in.

      1. FrozenShamrock

        Re: It will be solved by California and NY

        True; but, the key is how the states go about it. If they try to directly regulate the ISPs within their state boundaries they could be over ruled. However, if, as the original poster suggested, they refuse to do business with companies that do not follow a set of rules they prefer that may pass muster. States are still allowed to choose who they do business with. And, there is always repealing the monopolies many ISPs have to operate.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: It will be solved by California and NY

          So what if they just take the "from the outside in" approach and become interstate businesses by default? Then fed regulations can kick in and trump the state ones. When it comes to loopholing, business are if anything cleverdicks (or as we Americans term them, smartypants).

          1. DougS Silver badge

            Re: It will be solved by California and NY

            Doesn't matter if they are regulated solely by the Feds, the states can still choose what companies to award their contracts to and the federal government has no way of interfering. A company like AT&T or Verizon can't afford to shut itself out of lucrative state government markets like California or New York.

            There's no way Pai could stop that. The only thing that could would be if Congress passed a law making net neutrality or lack of a "protected class" similar to discrimination on the basis of sex or race...good luck with that!

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: It will be solved by California and NY

              New York and California are historically Democratic states. Congress is currently Republican-led with a Republican president. They can easily paint is as a case of the Big Dems trying to take freedom away from the rest of the country. Don't count it out.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So the "Network Neutrality" rules that Google wrote to benefit itself is a good thing?

    And their repeal, which would just roll things back to the original state, is the end of civilization and democracy?

    My guess is that the majority of commenters - and the author of this column - have no clue what was encompassed in those rules, who were "exempt" and who stood to benefit.

    I'm outta here.

    1. ST Silver badge
      Mushroom

      @Etatdame:

      > My guess is that the majority of commenters - and the author of this column - have no clue what was encompassed in those rules [ ... ]

      How true. We did not and do not have a clue what's in those rules. We're all a bunch of unwashed illiterate peasants. Most of us can barely read.

      Fortunately, we have your brilliant mind to guide us towards the light.

      Teach us, O Enlightened One!

  13. fidodogbreath Silver badge
    Flame

    Rule of thumb

    When any part of the US government gives something a name or acronym that purports to guarantee, provide, or restore freedom / liberty / democracy / etc., you can be sure that it is in fact designed to do the opposite.

    c.f. USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism); USA Freedom Act (which codifies indefinite detention, secret searches based on secret "warrants" that are rubber-stamped by a secret kangaroo court, secret and gag-ordered warrantless electronic searches via National Security Letter, etc.).

    Now add the "restoring internet freedom order" to that list; except in this case, it's expanding the censorship and taxation powers of private companies instead of the government.

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      Re: Rule of thumb

      "When any part of the US government gives something a name or acronym that purports to guarantee, provide, or restore freedom / liberty / democracy / etc., you can be sure that it is in fact designed to do the opposite."

      George Orwell's estate will soon be calling you to remind you that 1984 is still in copyright in the US.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Rule of thumb

        Not for much longer. The clock runs out in only 7 years (Orwell died in January 1950, add 75 years).

  14. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    "The controversial repeal of net neutrality rules in America will go to a formal vote in Congress after sufficient lawmakers backed an effort to scrap it."

    Rewrite that.

    Scrap what? The repeal? Or net neutrality rules?

    What is "sufficient lawmakers"? Do you mean "a sufficient number of lawmakers"? (As opposed to sufficiently fat ones, for example.) Also, clarify what "lawmakers" are.

  15. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    USA: Freedom Freedom Freedom !!!

    Pssst: you can make a buck out it.

    Money Money Money !!!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Trump Affect strikes again.

    He has actually got Congress talking about doing their job on this issue. This is something they should have done years ago. If memory serves the current Chairman of the FCC has stated this is something Congress needs to address. I know the Supreme Court has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to take more and more power for the Federal Government, including locking up Hemingways cats, but this really is a Federal issue and not one for the states.

  17. eldakka Silver badge

    > Later, he wrote: "It is time for the Internet once again to be driven by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers, MBAs rather than lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats"

    There, fixed it for him.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Overcompensating?

    Nadella.. Pai? I've seen awful managers like this before: People with self-perceived social inadequacies make the worst tyrants.

    1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

      Re: Overcompensating?

      "Nadella.. Pai? I've seen awful managers like this before: People with self-perceived social inadequacies make the worst tyrants."

      Stalin too.

    2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

      Re: Overcompensating?

      "Nadella.. Pai? I've seen awful managers like this before: People with self-perceived social inadequacies make the worst tyrants."

      Agree. But I'm not sure about the difference between the worst tyrants, and the best tyrants?

      1. Someone Else Silver badge
        Pint

        @anonymous boring coward -- Re: Overcompensating?

        Agree. But I'm not sure about the difference between the worst tyrants, and the best tyrants?

        Nicely done! For you! --->

  19. CFtheNonPartisan

    America, where everything has a price and selling is job 1 through 1,000. Watching commercials on TV is the hard sell. "Medicine One is new. It treats mental illness and stupidity. See your doctor and ask if it is right he/she prescribe it for you!" It is a socially failed experiment no matter how many billionaires it makes through lop sided taxes.

  20. LaeMing
    Megaphone

    It's enough to make you wonder why bother with the hassle expense of maintaining a federal government in this day and age!

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Because SOMEONE has to intervene when two states butt heads. I mean, who gets the call when a New York business gets a call from a client in Delaware? That's why things like the Interstate Commerce Clause exist: to prevent states from trying to dominate one another in interstate matters.

  21. elDog Silver badge

    Oh, dear. The robot that powers Wee John and Tiny Trump must have beddy time.

    Interesting pattern about when the data dumps arrive at the troll headquarters and the WH.

    Their algorithms need to be tweaked a bit to make it appear that the messaging is not coming from the chasm that separates real humans and lots of silicon.

    Maybe the twitchy nature of the US profiteer-in-chief and the scripted/mechanic nature of the entourage suggests that finer tuning is necessary.

  22. unwarranted triumphalism Bronze badge

    The usual hysteria

    No, your ISP is not goiing to charge you an extra £5 a month to use Facebook. It's time these idiotic rumours were finally put to rest.

    1. Charles 9 Silver badge

      Re: The usual hysteria

      Wanna bet? Cable companies STILL won't let you buy third-party converter boxes (like the OLD AT&T days when you couldn't buy a phone, only RENT them). And before you say "Switch ISPs," (1) most places only have ONE ISP due to infrastructure issues, and (2) those with more than one can easily choose to act in cartel.

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