back to article Date engraved onto net neutrality tombstone: June 11, 2018

So we finally have a date: June 11, 2018. That will be the day net neutrality finally dies in the United States following the publication of the full "Restoring Internet Freedom" FCC rules in the Federal Registry on Friday morning. Despite having been formally voted on and approved back in December last year, the order that …

  1. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    Senate Vote

    One vote short of reinstating net neutrality rules. Maybe John McCain will switch sides. Just as a f[censored] you to Trump.

    "I'm not dead. I don't want to go on the cart!"

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: Senate Vote

      Yeah, "good job" Demon-Rats for going against the will of the people. Again. It's what causes a revolt at the ballot box, like 2016. A lot of moldy old Demon-Rats are up for re-election this time around, and they know it. So they make a show, harumph harumph etc. to make "the base" happy. What I'm laughing at is how Franken-Feinstein is doing political ads AGAINST TRUMP along with a handful of OTHER Demon-Rats. I expect the boomerang effect to be severe. It's like "get your popcorn" because you KNOW what the end result will be. They're so convinced that people WANT to be regulated, WANT gummint to tell them what to do and how to do it, etc. etc. and they think OBAKA's record is something to run on.

      Pai has done the right thing. He has support of the American people, particularly those who understand that big nanny gummint regulation isn't the way to do things. Con-Grab can help fix any actual problems that "the regulation overreach 'solution' looking for a problem, ironically known as 'net neutrality'" alleges to fix, but really empowers a small number of politically powerful entities [the very thing that 'net neutrality' is supposed to 'correct'].

      It's like how SOCIALISM ALWAYS WIDENS THE GAP BETWEEN HAVES AND HAVE-NOTS, because when you put "high tax rate" and "high regulation" road blocks in the way of people trying to BECOME the rich, you end up OPPRESSING THEM and KEEPING THEM IN THEIR PLACE, while simultaneously empowering the "we ALREADY have OUR wealth" old-money crowd, and "the lobbyists" that buy the politicians who say "universal health care for all" (or whatever) to manipulate voters into FEELING instead of THINKING so that everybody NOT ALREADY in "the rich boy country club" can have the MEDIOCRITY that gummint "solutions" provide, while THE OLD MONEY RICH (as well as hypocritical lawmakers) still have THEIR "special" elitist versions, so they can feel superior, etc. because THEY got THEIRS. Yeah, tell me that NHS doesn't do that already... g'head g'head!

      I suggest this "net neutrality" thing is THE SAME WAY. EQUALITY (read: MEDIOCRITY) for all, except for those who are MORE equal than others! That's what REALLY happens! Double-speak and double-think, to manipulate voters to FEEL and run off the cliff in a massive stampede of stupidity at the ballot box.

      By comparison, Orwell was an OPTIMIST.

      Fortunately, in 2016, we the voters rebelled. And it "feels" pretty good, so far.

      1. The_Idiot

        Re: Senate Vote

        @Bombastic bob

        OK. I shouldn't - I _really_ shouldn't. But I'll bite...

        ""good job" Demon-Rats for going against the will of the people."

        "Pai... has support of the American people."

        I regret (because, of course, I must have missed it) I don;t recall any US national plebiscite or referendum, properly monitored and recorded, in which such a view was found to be that of a majority of 'the American people', or even those who voted nationally. Um, since, as far as I'm aware, there wasn't one. A vote, I mean. Second, if your standard of judgement is 'the will of the people', can I expect you to spear-head a vote to remove the current President? Since, after all, an opposing candidate in a vote that _did_ happen got more votes from 'the American people' than he did. And if you response is 'that's not how the system works - well, it's not how Congress works either.

        "Pai has... support of the American people, particularly those who understand that big nanny gummint regulation isn't the way to do things."

        Then, with respect, can I expect to see you spear-heading support for States when they pass their own legislation in _support_ of net neutrality? Since, as you say, 'big nanny gummint regulation isn't the way to do things'? Or, if State legislation is still, from your perspective, too close to 'big nanny gummint', when cities pass local ordinances? Or is _that_ somehow 'different' as well?


      2. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

        Re: Senate Vote

        I got as far as the first 'demon-rats' before deciding hes either a troll or mad........ or both

        But as you wave goodbye to net neutrality.

        Remember this...... all those huge internet companies that we use all benefited from net neutrality in getting started.

        Where would netflix be and the shows on it if it had been blocked/throttled/charged an extra $100/month per customer for access to commcasts network....

        while commcast charged $75/month for customers to access its own inferior streaming service....

      3. Hollerithevo

        Re: Senate Vote

        @ B-Bob,

        Unfettered capitalism leads to greater extremes between haves and have-nots, and also leads to fascism. Polanyi's "The Great Transformation" shows how.

        It is in capitalism's interests to say that all evils stem from too much government, but from, say, 1945-1985, Britain and the USA saw a more equal spread of wealth, better lifestyles for all, and yest still healthy business growth.

        When governments are cutailed, or become the running dogs of big business, you see liberty shrink, prosperity shrink, and 'strong men' or oligarchies take over. Look around the world today.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge

          Re: Senate Vote

          "Unfettered capitalism leads to greater extremes between haves and have-nots"

          according to the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. I don't believe that kind of propoganda. You should've been honest and said "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" instead of "haves" and "have nots". I know what you REALLY meant.

          So, when tax rate and regulation reduction happens, the economy DOES BETTER, and the results over the last year and a half have been IMPRESSIVE at the least. How is THAT compared to the OPPOSITE happening (you know, like under OBAKA)?

          I'm quite happy with Trump right now, and look forward to MORE. And that includes the de-regulation of the internet by the FCC, aka no more [ironically named] "net neutrality" [which was just a feely-named power grab to CONTROL communication by bureaucrats].

          1. Kane

            Re: Senate Vote



            FCC, CONTROL

          2. Michael Habel

            Re: Senate Vote

            Forget it Bob, these Londoners, are lost. Probably goes a ways in explainging why they elected Sadiq Khan as their Mayor. Lord knows they got Teresa May over a barrel on maiking sure Brexit is as super soft for them as possible. Instead of taking any real initiative by actually telling that lot in Bruxells how its goona be. Which is what the Plebs voted for her to do. Alas May has never repesented the Plebs (e.g. Working class Fishermen), but, the Banksters just down the Road from here stately palace.

      4. Easy E

        Re: Senate Vote

        "the will of the people" was actually over three million more votes for HRC than Trump. Hardly a mandate. Leave it to the U.S. to have a system designed to protect slavery place an unqualified idiot into a job that the more qualified candidate should have gotten. Doesn't mean that HRC was the best, but she damn sure wouldn't have been Putin's little bee-yotch and she understood how government works, domestically and on the international stage.

        1. Michael Habel

          Re: Senate Vote

          Again... THANK GOD FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! That election is proof positve its working. I have no personal interest in being ruled by the wims of those from the Left Coast, and the North-East Corridor, on such a national level.

          Perhaps what you ment to say was... Had HRC, not forsaken the Rust Belt, in such a way as it weren't in fact very much all to play for. She might have won...

          If HRC was so much better... How come she lost to Obama back in 2008? Nobody but, the Fanboi/girlz would ever want her as the Dog Catcher, let alone President of the USA

      5. Claverhouse Silver badge

        Re: Senate Vote


        >Yeah, "good job" Demon-Rats for going against the will of the people. Again. It's what causes a revolt at the ballot box, like 2016. A lot of moldy old Demon-Rats are up for re-election this time around etc. etc. <

        It is peculiar all these anti-government loons in suits, who get elected by the moronate by demonizing all governing, once in power don't even *try* to diminish the reach of big-nanny gummint.

        F'instance, just one sector: take farming. The Republicans could not only shut down all subsidies to farmers and farming conglomerates for every produce imaginable --- with the full applause of those affected since they hate all welfare like poison --- but they could shut down all the educational resources offered, which are considerable, no doubt allowing private firms to publish such stuff without government contract, and shut down all the government farming agencies and departmental offices, whether federal or state, all over that great land; leaving it to the free market and the unfettered natural brilliance of farmers freed from government restrictions and money, to feed the country.

        The expenditure saved would enable them to cut taxes, getting more votes so they can move on to the next slashing/elimination of a Department. Even if they are not going to cut back on War, the libertarian Republicans could destroy subsidies, kickbacks, porkbarrels etc. to the merchants of death.

        Eventually sweet freedom, the elimination of all government and they could abolish themselves.

      6. Kane

        Re: Senate Vote

        So, I've got an idea for a new game. Anytime bob decides to post, I'm going to cut/paste all of his UPPERCASE text into a single quote, attempting to keep as much of the original punctuation in place as possible (full stops, commas etc). Once I've compiled enough responses, I might run the collection of quotes through some machine learning algorithms and see what it spits out. After a while I should have enough info to be able to generate a reasonable facsimile of a full post that bob would make.




    2. eldakka

      Re: Senate Vote

      > One vote short of reinstating net neutrality rules.

      One vote short of passing the first hurdle to reinstatement..

      To revoke a rule made by an agency, under the CRA a majority vote is needed in both the senate and the house.

      They need 1 more vote to get senate approval for invoking CRA to reinstate. But once they have that, they then need to move onto the house and get a majority vote in there as well. Since the house has a large Republican majority - about 40 seats - it won't pass there.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Senate Vote

      Even if this were to get passed POTUS (aka Trump) would never sign it. He's invested too much in Pai.

      I admire them for trying to stop at least some of the damage El Trumpo and pals are doing. How's that wall coming on then Donald? What? Mexico isn't going to pay for it?

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: Senate Vote

        Trump wouldn't sign a re-instatement of net neutrality (as defined by OBAKA's FCC) because it quite literally OVERSTEPS what the FCC was intended to do. Saying that the internet is now "a phone" based on 1930's era legislation and regulations is just plain stupid. And 'net neutrality' isn't about making your bandwidth better, either. And that's the point. It was nothing more than a regulatory agency POWER GRAB. Trump knows it, Pai knows it, and a majority of people in the USA know it.

        As for states attempting to enact their own 'net neutrality', consider who's doing it: Cali-fornicate-you, for example, where the state legislature has basically gone INSANE from requiring all new houses to have solar panels to banning plastic bags at the grocery store, enacting their OWN version of "cap and trade", and restricting EVERYBODY's lawn watering to twice a week (basically causing it to die), because they have to send the state's drinking water down the Sacramento river to "save the fish" (in particular, delta smelt, more important than humans I guess).

        There are a few leftist enclaves out there, where the 2016 revolt wasn't enough. Hopefully 2018 *WILL* be, at least in Cali-fornicate-you.

        1. Kane

          Re: Senate Vote



  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Congressional Review Act

    Congress has a sixty day countdown timer to reverse the FCC ruling. So, it seems, my mailbox will continue to be stuffed with appeals from various groups. So, which senator are the Democrats hoping to be replaced, ASAP, one way or another?

  3. Florida1920
    Big Brother

    "Restoring Internet Freedom"

    Oldthinkers unbellyfeel FCC.

  4. Nolveys

    Hopefully, if crony scum bag Pai gets his way, all the states will enact their own versions of net neutrality. Hopefully they will all be insanely complex and mutually incompatible. Then the ISP pricks that tried to push this filth through will gain no advantage and will have to implement batshit insane systems in every different state.

    It's sad though, the US used to be the envy of the world for freedom and prosperity. Now they are competing with the other Western nations to see who can be the biggest shitbag...and mostly winning.

    I hope Musk gets his rockets human-ready and cheap soon. It's time to leave.

    1. dave 81

      Yep, and the twats in power in the UK taking copious notes.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "The agency failed to listen to the American public and gave short shrift to their deeply held belief that internet openness should remain the law of the land."

    Ajit Pai wasn't able to listen to the American public because the FCC was under a denial of service attack at the time.

    I for one am looking forward to the end of net neutrality so that the numerous competing ISP's in my area can try and win me over.

    And if one of those ISP's try and throttle my speed or make me pay extra for "Fast Lanes" I will just find a different ISP.

    As Ajit says "let the market dictate".

    I can choose from either COX cable or Centurylink DSL

    Yes, the choices are endless!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The farce is strong...

      The sarcasm was so strong on that one I almost missed it and downvoted you!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward extra for "Fast Lanes" I will just find a different ISP

      That assumes they don't all try to milk that cow dry...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: extra for "Fast Lanes" I will just find a different ISP

        This one has it 20% off this month, that one bundles it with other services, oh free for the first month, bury it in pages of fees, try to convince you the basic thing is cheap but omg the taxes on it, loads of tricks to keep the muggles off their feet. How can you comparison shop when you can't even work out what the actual cost is?

  6. redpawn

    The trickle down effect

    Who would want to deprive the CEOs of ISPs of their pay raises. Think of all the nannies and private schools which will deprived of potential income. Think of the struggling real estate brokers and hedge fund managers and their children too.

    1. kuiash

      Re: The trickle down effect

      Can't remember would said it, but, "Trickle down economics is great... if you liked being pissed on".

  7. Panicnow

    The International element has been ignored in this debate

    How do the US non-neutral networks interact with the rest of the world? or indeed vice versa?

    Do all the Neutral interconnects have to split into multiple policy spaces?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The International element has been ignored in this debate

      In this case the last mile is where they can apply the fees. So if you go through them (the last mile) in or out or within US, they can discriminate fees.

      Where as those outside, can do what they like (or not depending on laws). It's like the Big [Fire] Wall of China (the digital version). Everyone outside is unaffected, with the exception of traffic going through.

      US can still charge a US customer extra for BBC world access, for example, if they wish. They would have full US authority to, and nothing/no one could (legally) challenge them. Currently, the ISP can only charge for access to "data/web" etc.

    2. David Halko

      Re: The International element has been ignored in this debate

      "Net Neutrality" effectively made it illegal to sell a higher Quality of Service Internet connection to a customer willing to pay an uplift while selling a lower QoS to people who wanted to pay less.

      For the Third World, Net Neutrality had the potential to "lock out" the masses from Internet Access, by forcing higher prices, and ensure lower & poorer performance [QoS] for mission critical applications reaching back into the US (such as remote robotic surgeries) for the most vulnerable in societies.

      The lifting of "Net Neutrality" brings opportunity to innovate:

      - IoT can legally use lower reliability & lower cost links for telemetry, advancing science at a lower cost & broader international scope

      - Scientific & Medical applications can use higher reliability flows, from an internet uplift, which is a FAR LOWER COST than dedicated "Fast Lane" international links, without the possibility of those links getting swamped by internet streaming movies

      - prioritization of low bandwidth & latency insensitive flows can be sold with different pricing, to ensure safe & real-time transportation information to vehicles, without getting swamped by regular internet content.

      Overall - the potential for ending Net Neutrality has the potential to bring vast technological change in the Third World, as well as in The First World... by ending the need for parallel networks, for the rich, and enforcing the swamped internet [with no QoS guarantees] for the masses.

      I am glad "Net Neutrality" is being abolished, it will bring an end to the "Fast Lanes" solidified by the former American Administration... that physical fiber can now be consolidated into the rest of The Internet, merging more bandwidth for the masses in the U.S., as well as to the nations who connect to it!

      1. Pier Reviewer

        Re: The International element has been ignored in this debate

        Errr you do realise that USA != world? This changes what ISPs in the USA can charge their customers. It has zero effect on networks across the rest of the world. If you want guaranteed throughput/response time to Africa you still need to pay top dollar for someone to provide that service on their fat MPLS backbone.

        This is purely about big business squeezing their customers. If you think it increases choice you are mistaken. Now you’ll effectively have to bundle your online services with your ISP.

        1. David Halko

          Re: The International element has been ignored in this debate

          "you do realise that USA != world"

          All network links & carriers are not only isolated to individual nations... some cross boundaries and partnerships also exist to provide consistent service.

          "This changes what ISPs in the USA can charge their customers"

          This also restores what international customer can get, as a service, from a US based location (I suspect that people outside of the US uses US based internet locations, right?)

          This is more than what ISP's can change in the US, this is about being legally allowed to use features of the TCP/IP stack, an international standard.

          Ending Net Neutrality merely restores what carriers can legally sell & implement in the USA: capabilities of an international standard!

          As long as other nations do not outlaw using & selling features in international standards [uplifts for QoS & discounts without QoS], there are no boundaries to selling a product that crosses international boundaries, with a little cooperation.

  8. jrd

    Well, at least we'd never elect a government which would do something so stupid here in the UK.


  9. keithpeter Silver badge

    Giggleswick church

    Not my monkeys and not my circus, but is that not Giggleswick Churchyard (St Alkeida's) in the photo? Taken with the church at the back and pointing up the hill?

    Coat: mine's the one with the really expensive UK mobile internet dongle in the pocket. What is this neutrality the cousins speak of?

  10. Emmeran

    It's a moot point in some places

    Many towns that still retain their public power grid and simply becoming their own internet providers and negating the corporate markup all together. Yes I know that is about as Socialistic as public roads and fire hydrants but it works well and costs a lot less.

    Just a reminder that it's good to own your own municipal infrastructure, it's like owning your own house and vehicles - you are beholden to no one but yourself.

  11. DownUndaRob

    "Restoring Internet Freedom" ??

    "Restoring Internet Freedom" ??

    Who comes up with these titles, should be charged with false advertising.

  12. Michael Habel

    Did Pai kick your Dog or something?

    I'm starting to think this site a massive bais shift to the left. You do realize that all Pai has done was to return the Internet back to how it was when 'Ol Billy left it ca. ~2000. So whats the big deal?

    1. Notwork

      Re: Did Pai kick your Dog or something?

      If everyone seems to be shifting to the left then it could be that it's just you shifting to the right. Avoid Fox news and the Daily Mail for a few days and see if the world seems to straighten up a bit.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Did Pai kick your Dog or something?

      So whats the big deal?

      Well, back in the good ole days circa 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River decided to block VoIP services for Vonage customers--because they wanted to force people into purchasing their VoIP service. Harmless, right?! Except that people literally die when their phone mysteriously stops working, and they're unable to dial 911!

      While that's the most egregious case, because it put people's lives in real physical danger, it's just one of many examples you can read about for yourself.

      There's plenty to choose from, and nobody is innocent. I can't even shop around for an ISP or cellphone carrier that hasn't done this crap--because every single one that's available in my area are on those lists!

      Just the other day, I found out that Comcast has started to block users (that don't pay for AMC in their cable package) from even logging into the app, while connected to the Internet they're providing. I'm sure it's probably AMC that's at fault in this case, because HBO Go is still working for the time being, but Comcast is still doing their bidding on this one, and it's bullshit. A member of my immediate family pays for that service, and is allowed to have a specified number of sub-accounts that can access email and all the other member benefits like these VOD apps--but the fact that I can't is insane!

      Netflix and others have figured out how to limit the number of devices, in order to reduce the issues with people sharing accounts--but this is something entirely different, because I'm the only one using those credentials to login anywhere!

      Not that anyone should give a shit that I can't watch The Walking Dead, without having to completely re-configuring my entire network so that I'm not using their DNS servers and everything communicates over a VPN. I'm only bringing it up, because it worked fine up until this past week, and it's just the start of the deluge of sneaky bullshit we're going to be dealing with again!

      These ISPs have proven time after time, that they don't operate well under a light touch and cannot be trusted not to rape and pillage consumers--and they thoroughly deserve to get bashed over the head with regulations and even more Government oversight!

  13. 2Nick3

    Why oh why...

    ... can't the US Congress and Senate just pass legislation on Net Neutrality and end all of this? Take it away from a Committee of 5 people, stop the individual states spending time passing 50 different versions of NN that won't align, and just do their jobs and put this to rest?

    1. Aedile

      Re: Why oh why...

      No one disagrees that Congress should pass a law regarding NN. The issue is that Congress is either

      1. Stuck in an us vs them mindset. Republicans can't/don't care that their constituents also want neutrality rules and are fixated solely on opposing the Democrats.

      2. Thoroughly bought by the big ISPs and will write a bad loop hole filled law. (See Marsha Blackburn's BS "Net Neutrality" law)

      As such everyone is leery of letting Congress try to fix it.

  14. Titus Aduxass

    "Light touch regulation" - where did that get us before?

    It lead directly to the sub-prime mortgage f*** up and subsequent financial crash.

    Will people never learn?

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: "Light touch regulation" - where did that get us before?

      "It lead directly to the sub-prime mortgage f*** up"

      No. that was caused by SPECIFIC regulations that (essentially) told banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford to re-pay them, because, political correctness and affirmative action and other similar feely things.

      Link to Article

      "a federal program that ordered banks to lend money to people that had no way of paying it back, lend money to people that didn’t have to take a credit test and pass it, lend money to people that everybody knew would never pay it back"

      "There was a thing called the Community Reinvestment Act. It was originally proposed by Jimmy Carter, but it sort of languished after Carter proposed it. Bill Clinton in 1998 rejuvenated it, reignited it, as a means of distracting people from the Lewinski scandal."

      "Community Reinvestment Act was a plan designed to get people into houses who had no business being in houses ’cause they couldn’t afford them. " " The banks were under federal orders to do it."

      "most of the beneficiaries in the subprime mortgage were minorities. Racial minorities. So, anyway, millions of people who could not afford bank loans were given them, and they went out and bought houses. This led to the utter crash of the housing market."

      "The banks, working with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, packaged these worthless mortgages into pools of worthless mortgages and called them mortgage-backed securities, and sold them — under false premises, essentially."

      "The banks foisted off worthless paper to people who didn’t know what they were buying until they figured it out."

      "That bunch of people decided to repackage them as something else and sell them again, and all the while they were insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Worthless paper, worthless loans that everybody knew were worthless kept being passed down to other investors until finally there were no more saps left to buy them and that’s when the crash happened and that is the Cliffs Notes version of what happened"

      Rush says it better than I could.

      (I wonder if this one will exceed my current downvote record, near the top of the comments - currently at 70 downvotes! Heh, I must be doing something "right" [wing])

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

Other stories you might like