Net Neutrality

The FCC Just Voted to Roll Back Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules

New rules would require internet providers to be transparent about their services.

|

Ron Sachs/SIPA/Newscom

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on a party line vote today to rescind the net neutrality rules passed by the agency under President Obama. Two Republican-appointed commissioners joined agency Chairman Ajit Pai in a 3-2 vote to rescind the order and return to a standard that closely resembles the way the internet has been regulated for most of its existence. The vote was briefly delayed after security cleared the hearing room in the middle of Pai's remarks in order to conduct a search.

The Obama era rules reclassified internet service from a Title I information service to a more heavily regulated Title II telecommunications service, essentially treating it as an early 20th century utility, like the phone system. (As part of the reclassification process, however, the FCC declined to exert some of its regulatory authority.)

The rules generally required internet service providers to treat most pieces of information that flowed over the internet equally, effectively setting up a non-discrimination standard for network management, content, and pricing. Those requirements will no longer be in force.

Instead, the FCC will require ISPs to be transparent about their services, meaning that bandwidth throttling or other network management practices, which have sometimes been opaque to consumers, would have to be clearly labeled. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.

Pai has framed the move as a return to the sort of "light-touch" regulation that has governed the internet since the Clinton era. "Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet," Pai said in November when details of his plan were released.

In a statement today, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee who voted in favor of undoing the Obama era rules, noted that the internet would still be subject to federal oversight, noting that prior to the Title II reclassification, the FTC brought numerous privacy actions against ISPs and that federal antitrust law would still apply to internet service. "We are not giving ISPs free reign to dictate your online experience," he said. "Our decision today includes powerful legal checks."

The Obama-era regulations came with numerous exceptions and exemptions, and called for the FCC to make many decisions about how ISPs could manage network traffic on a case-by-case basis rather than on clear rules. Supporters argued that the goal was to avoid undesirable rule-driven outcomes, but the effect was to empower federal regulators to decide which internet management innovations would be allowed and which would not.

The regulatory rollback has been the subject of intense criticism from Democrats and activists, and even a small number of Republican lawmakers: In recent days, both Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colorado) requested that the FCC delay the vote. Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota) called on Congress to pass net neutrality legislation, but the idea has so far gained little traction amongst Republicans.

The FCC began its net neutrality push during the Bush administration with a series of policy guidelines supporting the principle of nondiscrimination. But the effort to install stronger rules became a priority under President Obama, who campaigned on setting up internet nondiscrimination regulations. The rules took multiple forms, and were consistently challenged in court. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that today's move will end up the subject of legal challenges as well.

The Obama-era rules focused the FCC's regulatory authority on ISPs over other types of internet companies. Although the net neutrality debate is often framed as one that pits consumers versus large internet providers, it can also be understood as a regulatory tug-of-war between two types of companies on the web. Many of the largest internet content companies — so called "edge providers" like Google, Facebook, and Netflix have supported net neutrality in recent years. Recently, however, Netflix, has backed away from its previous support for net neutrality, having made a number of private connection deals that make net neutrality less useful to its business model. "Where net neutrality is really important is the Netflix of 10 years ago," CEO Reed Hastings said in May. "It's not our primary battle at this point."

The shift in strategy is telling: Netflix favored net neutrality rules as a way to preserve a business advantage. As it has grown, it no longer needs that advantage. The debate over net neutrality was always, in part, a tug-of-war over regulatory advantage between tech industry giants. Today, the FCC took steps to stay out of the fight — and remain a neutral regulator over the net.

NEXT: Alabama Is Sending Another Former Prosecutor to the Senate. Will This One Be Different?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Righteous buttburt from randos incoming in 3..2…1.

    1. Sadly, it’s not just butthurt than I’ve seen from people who supported Net Neutrality. Quite a number have actually become hateful and dangerous-sounding in their ignorance.

      1. I don’t know of another issue where so many people are so poorly informed yet have a strong opinion nonetheless.

        1. Climate Change.

          1. I haven’t had nearly as many relatives getting hysterical about Climate Change as with this Net Neutrality. Hysterical screaming sobbing crazies who have even more troubling describing what NN is than trying to describe AGW. i hope they all cower in closets out of fear of the big bad meanies shoving corporate propaganda down their tubes.

            1. I suppose, in fairness, that the passion / knowledge ratio does seem a lot higher with NN than with AGW, which is odd when you consider that the latter is supposedly literally destroying the world.

            2. Come to California…the AGW hysteria is the new religion. It’s literally a massive delusional apocalyptic flood cult.

        2. What about American politics?

        3. yes, although that is the mantra these days, react to media propaganda then riot and burn your friends homes to the ground in the process

        4. “I don’t know of another issue where so many people are so poorly informed yet have a strong opinion nonetheless.”

          You just described progressives on every issue where they feel strongly.

        5. I don’t know of another issue where so many people are so poorly informed yet have a strong opinion nonetheless.

          Economics, inequality, welfare, climate change, foreign policy, civil liberties, civil rights, … take your pick.

      2. Yes. “NN” sounds so noble. No one is taking content away. And I’m more worried about antitrust violations and consumer protections, which are in the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.

        It’s telling that behemoths like Google supposedly supported so-called NN.

        1. And I’m more worried about antitrust violations and consumer protections, which are in the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.

          The irony is that by changing the internet to Title II, the OIO required that broadband data be re-defined from non-common to common carriers, and subsequently exempted ISPs from being fined by the FTC for unfair business practices in “throttling data.” The FTC was trying to hit AT&T for doing this very thing to their unlimited data subscribers, and in the middle of the appeal process, Obama stupidly crowbarred the OIO through. The court came back and said, “sorry, AT&T is exempt from these regulations now.”

          NN supporters (who are really OIO supporters) are quite possibly the stupidest, most-ill-informed people in the country.

      3. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
        Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

      4. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
        Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

      5. You can earn more than $15,000 each month from you home, and most special thing is much interesting that the job is to just check some websites and nothing else. Enjoy full time and money freedome, also an awesome career in you life…. ?
        just click the link given belowHERE??? http://www.startonlinejob.com

    2. Can’t wait to shove it in their retarded faces when the world (wide web) doesn’t end after all.

      All thanks to Ajit. That guy has balls of steel.

      1. Seriously. He faced so many threats against him and his family, to a degree I don’t think I’ve ever seen against any public figure before. Not even Trump got this many pure death threats.

        1. I hope they come out with a Ajit action figure. Would look good next to my GI Joe and Evel Knievel ones.

          1. Could put him in an ‘X-Men’ style uniform. Then expand the action figure line to include Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Gary Johnson, etc. Ron Oaul could be introduced including a wheelchair as a ‘Professor X’ type of,character.

            Then there could be a whole line of villains. The Clintons, Chuck Schumer, an Al Franken figure complete with groping action grip. They could make figures of all of humanity’s greatest threats.

    3. HOW AM I INTERNETTING RIGHT NOW I DON’T UNDERSTAND

      1. You notice you can only post in all caps? That’s because you have to pay for lower case.

        1. THIS IS A FEATURE NOT A BUG!!!

          1. omg what have i done

    1. Who’s going to clean up the bloody brain matter from all the exploded heads at Boing Boing?

      1. Shouldn’t be too big of a mess.

        1. [golfclap]

      1. I’m sure someone is going to edit that clip for NN.

      2. that is funny. I have had that conversation so many times. Hitler must live in Pacoima. Hell he could always drive to Northridge, down Topanga then back up the 101 and backdoor it!


  2. The rules generally required internet service providers to treat most pieces of information that flowed over the internet equally, effectively setting up a non-discrimination standard for network management, content, and pricing. Those requirements will no longer be in force.

    And, importantly, this was an idiotic move made by people who literally have no understanding of network priority. It would have drastically reduced internet speeds pretty much across the board had it ever actually been implemented.

    So congrats, your Netflix streaming won’t be subjected to ‘buffering’ issues on your fiber optic connection.


    1. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior, stepping in when internet companies make promises to provide a service that they do not keep.

      What, like those advertisements that claim ‘up to’ a certain internet speed that you will literally never actually see because it turns out there are other people using the network? I’ve never been a fan of those speed claims, because I already know they’re full of shit. I have literally never seen any of my ISP’s provide the speed they claim, and it’s because it’s an ‘up to’ claim that you’d probably only see if you’re actually in the ISP’s building using their connection.

      1. I regularly get the 70/6 that my ISP advertises. Until I log onto the VPN for work that is. Then it gets throttled down to 10/3.

        1. VPN’s are cancer in my opinion. Useful for people in China maybe, but for work here in the U.S. I can’t say I’ve ever used one that didn’t feel like special torture.

          1. Thing that stinks is I got high speed specifically so I can get the higher upload speed for work. I have to upload some huge files on a weekly basis. Over the last month or so they throttled down the VPN, so now that particular job has just gotten a whole lot longer. So I’m going back to basic internet in the not too distant future.

          2. I run my own VPN service. All the cool kids are doing it. My connection is 250/50, so I can stream US Netflix while in Europe. I wave my private parts at your geopolitical copyright restrictions!

          3. Hope you don’t use public wifi anywhere.

        2. More than likely its your company’s VPN that is slow and not your internet service throttling you.

          I telecommute for work and use VPN.
          Through the company VPN I get about 7 down and 3 up.

          When I use a paid VPN for my own browsing privacy, the speeds I get through it are significantly higher, even when that VPN server is located in Europe.

        3. Google fiber here, ~900 up and down. WIreless speeds are faster than my old wired. Suck it.

          1. What does something ok,e that cost?

      2. I’ve actually tested above the 300mbps I’ve paid for quite regularly. Depends on the area/provider I suppose. My modem/router combo is pretty solid though. I think I’m running 32×8 on my channels.

      1. You are a parody onto yourself

  3. “The FCC Just Voted to Roll Back Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules”

    Once the new rules go into effect, will we still be able to access this website?

    1. My internet died literally when they took this vote. I’m posting comments via carrier pigeon.

      1. PETA is coming for you – RUN!!!

        1. My internet just died too. I’m posting this via carrier squirrel.

        2. My internet just died too. I’m posting this via carrier squirrel.

        3. My internet just died too. I’m posting this via carrier squirrel.

          1. I saw the time stamps, I know your joke was A LIE.

            1. This is how you squirrel.

            2. This is how you squirrel.

            3. This is how you squirrel.

            4. This is how you squirrel.

            5. This is how you squirrel.

            6. This is how you squirrel.

            7. This is how you squirrel.

            8. This is how you squirrel.

            9. This is how you squirrel.

            10. This is how you squirrel.

                1. As they say, funny once, funny 10 times…

      2. I had some hiccups in my Thursday Night Football stream today. CHAOS!!!

      3. Thank the gods for RFC 1149, RFC 2549, and RFC 6214. Never throw away old tech, you never know when melting snowflakes will short out your ‘board.

  4. From the reaction of some people and websites you’d think Net Neutrality is literally the most important issue in the history of the universe, and that going back to rules that were in effect until the last 2-3 years is going to result in the catastrophic destruction of our civilization.

    1. Someone on NPR this morning responded to this point by saying that things change, so rules have to change, too.

      Believe it or not, this was an argument in support of NN regulations that would make it harder for internet delivery methods to adapt to new ways of using the internet.

      1. More to the point, it prevented the FTC from hammering the ISPs in cases where they were found to be exercising unfair business practices. Hopefully Pai and the rest of the FCC were smart enough to switch broadband data back to Title I so that can happen.

    2. Exactly. ISPs need a margin for innovation and infrastructure.

    3. We’re not going back to rules that were in effect until the last 2-3 years.

      Pre-2015, the federal footprint was light because primary regulatory authority was given to the states and munis – the entities that had made the deals re ‘last mile’ monopoly. IOW – the stuff that ISP’s have wanted to do since 2005, they couldn’t do because they were dealing with the local regulators.

      2015 all the regulation moves up to the federal level – and feds decide to regulate both the ISP and content side in ‘common carrier’ type framework (which was the basic framework that the states had been using for their own ‘last mile’ regulation)

      Now – all the regulation stays at the federal level but the feds now consider the entirety of that ‘last mile’ and connection stuff to be ISP property rather than a common carrier ‘lease’ type deal at the local level.

      Why if I didn’t know better I’d argue that ALL the big boys have simply colluded in order to shop for a different regulator that they can more easily corrupt. And now they are just in a pissing contest to decide which of them actually gets to parade the captured regulator around as their war booty.

      1. Notwithstanding, Net Neutrality made it was easier to protect the dominance of Google Facebook and the other statist enterprises, and Deep State fronts, along with their censorship and mind-bending policies.

  5. So, 300 comments on this thread? What are the Vegas odds?

    1. 250 of them under newly registered handles.

    2. Influx of retards from IFL, Ars Technica, GIzmodo, etc.

      1. I remember back in the day when those were respectable ‘zines, but I date myself.

  6. Best news of the day, week, month, and possibly year, at least in the realm of government action. It’s telling that there was what I can only presume was a bomb threat just minutes before the vote. Those Net Neutrality supporters are truly charming folks.

  7. Wow- really? Eliminating net neutrality will kill 30,000 people a year. Think about that for a moment. That’s twice as many people as tax cuts will kill.

    1. So between them, we save enough federal taxes to pay the debt interest for 0.000000003 seconds.
      HOORAY!

      1. Between that many deaths and job eliminations, imagine how much salaries will spike!

        1. You just know this is going to trigger riots stimulus!

    2. But all those deaths will be the progtards whose heads explode. So, it’s a win/win.

      Hell, maybe army will finally break down and drink a bottle of Drano.

      1. Good, since I live in a blue state, massive die-offs of progtards will mean that local Star Wars showings will be less crowded this weekend!

  8. Regulating consumer services should be limited to things like health and safety and the promise of a fair and open market.

    So the FCC is basically cutting back on regulating something that doesn’t really need to be regulated.

    1. The FCC only exists to regulate the airwaves. The FCC should ideally only have jurisdiction over WiFi and similar over-the-air protocols, and then only to the extent that they parcel out the bands and prevent interference. The only reason they ever had control over telephones was because most people assumed that natural monopolies required mandated artificial monopolies.

      For everything else there is the FTC. Unfair business practices? FTC. Restraint of trade? FTC. Game of Thrones stuttering? FTC.

      I don’t see the problem.

      1. I wouldn’t trust anyone at the FTC to regulate the internet either, though.

        1. No, I would not either. But if one is the type of person who wants the Federal government to regulate the Internet, the FTC is the more appropriate department to do it with.

        2. They have the authority to prosecute violations of antitrust law. FCC doesn’t, AFAIK.

      2. That’s the other thing that no one who likes net neutrality seems to get. There will still be regulation and consumer protection. There just won’t be regulation for things that aren’t a problem, as there would be with NN. Seems like the right way to do it.

        1. “Consumer protection” is proggy speak; we should stop using it. Consider if it is protecting purchasers from a faulty/mis-advertised product it should be frog fraud protection; if it is upholding service agreements it should be contract protection. Let’s get to the root of the issue, because outside of actual fraud, “consumer protection” can only mean the govt backs up your buyer’s regret.

      3. Come on, it’s just one letter’s difference.

  9. I’m going to my FB page just to see the meltdown. I grow strength from their hatred, just like the Force

    1. no comments yet on fb they must in such shock that they can’t even post

      1. Didn’t you read the story??!!
        The whole internet has been destroyed!!!
        Run!!!
        My God!! Trump may get re-elected!!

      2. Facebook has been shut down by VerizonCast.

        1. They didn’t get shut down, they just refused to pay the $5/user fee Comatt levied on them for access

          1. What does it matter is they do, they can’t afford Disnox licensing fees anyway.

      3. “they must in such shock that they can’t even post”

        That or they found out what it costs.

  10. I look forward to the allegations of sexual harassment against Ajit Pai.

    1. Good point; a lot of people will claim he fucked them.

  11. Cue the incoherent wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who don’t even know what net neutrality is, and don’t even realize that most of the rules that are being rolled back weren’t even in effect yet anyway.

    1. With the exception of T-Mobile, companies were acting in compliance with the net neutral framework for some years now.

      1. So…was it a return to 2015 then? You said it wasn’t.

        1. Acting in compliance since the net neutral rules were put in place*

          The return was in reference to the mythical free time before the rules.

        2. Who wants to point out to them that it was the post-2015 internet that Putin was able to supposedly game so readily for Trump?

  12. “The FCC plans to do away with rules barring internet providers from blocking or slowing down access to online content. The FCC would also eliminate a rule barring providers from prioritizing their own content.”

    Today is the day we get to hear why this is a good thing for the internet. If you’re right, and this is just a return to 2015 (which it isn’t because vertical integration has shifted the landscape), then there was no harm in having these rules. If you’re not right (which is probably the case), then they were important ways to protect content providers and consumers.

    1. If you think there was no harm, you know nothing about the history of the federal bureaucracy.

      1. You can take issue with abstract harms unrelated to the rules at issue all you want. If youre looking at the rules themselves they were the kind that fix broken markets. Which we want.

        1. What is a broken market?

          1. Any market where you don’t subsdize him.

          2. le sigh. So you dont believe in market failures? like in theory or practice? Off hand, this would be people who want netflix and would pay for it but for getting tolled due to the fact that it competes with their provider.

            1. What you just described is not a market failure. Maybe the problem here has less to do with us not understanding net neutrality and more to do with you not getting basic economics.

              1. Well, you probably noticed, but it seems to be mostly talking points and deflection with this one.

                1. He’s just your typical ‘Gary Johnson libertarian’

              2. No, it is. We’re just definitionally talking past each other. Its an inefficient distribution of goods due to monopoly pricing.

                1. Brought about by government intervention. You always forget that last part.

                  1. And his solution is to empower the grantor of the monopoly.

                    1. Sure, to the extent that regional ISP monopolies were government granted. But since I don’t hear you claiming that we should step in and reset the markets so they arent regional monopolies, i don’t want the solution to be “sit back and let monopolists shut down the internet unless money.” But if your cool with that bc #freedom, I mean thats your thing.

                      Just a friendly reminder, all these rules do are:
                      – “bar internet providers from blocking or slowing down access to online content.”
                      – “bar providers from prioritizing their own content.”

                      Making me shake in my boots here. Much scary.

                    2. “we should step in and reset the markets so they arent regional monopolies, ”

                      We should step in and reset the markets so they arent regional monopolies.

                      CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!?!??!?!?

                    3. Oh sure, but what about the next strawman I come up with? You haven’t addressed THAT yet.

                    4. Oh, well in that case I fully agree and would be fine with us not putting in these rules.

                    5. Google is pulling youtube streaming for PAYING CUSTOMERS from amazon fire devices. Where’s your net neutering there?

                    6. Just a friendly reminder, all these rules do are:
                      – “bar internet providers from blocking or slowing down access to online content.”
                      – “bar providers from prioritizing their own content.”

                      Just a friendly reminder that in order to enforce those rules, the Internet needs to be reclassified as a Title II public utility whose pricing and content is subject to Federal whim. The FCC, of course, promised not to use that power, because we all know that when you create a power, no one ever seeks out that power to abuse it for their own advantage.

                    7. Yeah, i think thats ultimately the only good argument against these rules; the risk of additional regulations that aren’t good. But as far as these are concerned, theyre good.

                    8. Yeah, i think thats ultimately the only good argument against these rules; the risk of additional regulations that aren’t good.

                      It is not a risk. It is a certainty.

                      I’m guessing you’re not a Trump fan. Remember when Trump said he wanted to review ABC’s broadcast license with the FCC because they were saying things he didn’t like?

                      You’re arguing in favor of giving Trump that same power over the entire Internet.

                    9. Remember When the government decided to regulate cable tv to slow the imagined cost increases and what happened the cost went up and monopolies got worse and our viewing selection decreased. so we switched to Satalite

                    10. Just a friendly reminder, all these rules do are:
                      – “bar internet providers from blocking or slowing down access to online content.”
                      – “bar providers from prioritizing their own content.”

                      Agreed. I still fail to see how giving de facto monopolies the ability to do this is a good thing.

                    11. Just a friendly reminder, this turns ISPs into title II providers and does a hell pf a lot mpre than you claim.

                2. No monopoly is possible without government intervention.

                  1. Well thats wrong. See anyone who’s controlled an essential facility, ever.

                    1. Ok, name one. Name a single company that has ever had monopoly control (by definition and not your perception) without government involvement.

                    2. “See anyone who’s controlled an essential facility, ever.”

                      Do you see arm-waving and bullshit?
                      I do.

                    3. Nope, you’re wrong. Read some Ronald Coase.

                    4. Reply to Fear and Loathing.

                    5. Well thats wrong. See anyone who’s controlled an essential facility, ever.

                      I recently happened to take a trip to a gold-rush town called Columbia, CA.

                      There was an interesting story about a couple of guys who decided to devise a system for pumping water over the top of the ridge to supply water to the town for gold-mining purposes.

                      The citizens of the town decided that they were being price-gouged by this monopolization of an essential service, so they decided that the city council would provide a parallel system that would charge fair prices.

                      Once they built the parallel system, they found out that they had already been being charged fair prices, and they abandoned the new system.

                3. No, it is. We’re just definitionally talking past each other. Its an inefficient distribution of goods due to monopoly pricing.

                  Why are some ISP’s a monopoly?

                4. You know, I don’t get this.

                  I mean, I have my “I hate Comcast” badge and everything, but for basically the same price I was paying 15 years ago for internet I now get 150 times faster service, and it’s been years since I’ve had a problem that wasn’t solved within hours.

                  Would I like faster and cheaper service? Of course. With the repeal of NN, I expect to see the same sort of gains I’ve seen all along.

                  Comcast is in a red queens race, and their only choice is to satisfy customer demand or die.

            2. “Off hand, this would be people who want netflix and would pay for it but for getting tolled due to the fact that it competes with their provider.”

              If F&L doesn’t get what he wants for the price he wants to pay, why that’s a “market failure”.
              F&L isn’t real bright.

              1. lol, yes thats what ive been saying. its not pareto optimal unless i get what i want at the price i want.

                1. Fear and Loathing in DC|12.14.17 @ 3:02PM|#
                  “lol,”

                  F&L posted this.

              2. If F&L doesn’t get what he wants for the price he wants to pay, why that’s a “market failure”.

                A “market failure” is an excuse used by someone with no understanding of basic economics to justify the use of violence to get what they want.

          3. sarcasmic|12.14.17 @ 1:58PM|#

            What is a broken market?

            A market with overbearing gov’t interference?

        2. kind that fix broken markets.

          Define that.

      2. Precisely.

      3. Broadband is a de facto monopoly in most areas. It’s the opposite of a competitive market. The rules were intended to head off at the pass the vertical integration and rent-seeking abuses (which I guarantee you are already now in motion) which were obvious looming threats as the technologies and business arrangements emerged.

        It’s rather hilarious to hear the ecstatic warblings of the so-called libertarians on this issue. Really looking forward to our return to the days of CompuServe, guys! Great job!

        1. So your solution is a return to ma bell. Awesome job!

    2. “If you’re right, and this is just a return to 2015 (which it isn’t because vertical integration has shifted the landscape) ”

      I’d be interested in hearing what has changed so significantly about it in the last 2 years or so. “Vertical integration” isn’t really an explanation as much it is a buzzword.

      1. Consolidation has been the name of the game in the industry pitting content with providers. So the recent AT&T Time Warner merger, if it goes through, creates the kind of vertical integration risk at issue. NBCUniversal/Comcast was another, Verizon looking to acquire Disney is another. This is on top of there being less total provider options in the first place due to mergers, like CenturyLink and 3T merging, Verizon looking to acquire comcast (the only competitors in much of the east coast), amongst a few others I cant think of offhand.

        1. No. I didn’t ask you to give more fear mongering predictions.

          1. Thats.. not what fear mongering is. You literally asked how vertical integration is changing the landscape. These aren’t my predictions. They’re literally the mergers that have been approved, or are going through the approval process. The only one that isn’t there yet is the Verizon acquisitions, which I’m not “predicting,” they are proposals that have come from the company itself.

            1. Vague predictions of doom about silly, monster under the bed scenarios?

              Yeah. That’s all you’ve done when asked pointed questions.

            2. “You literally asked how vertical integration is changing the landscape”

              No. I asked how it HAD.

              You fear mongered about how you think it WILL.

              This isn’t difficult.

              1. AOL/Timewarner? NBCUniversal/Comcast? Even if you pretend vertical integration is somehow special in this market, its happened with content and providers multiple times, and it appears to be happening at an increased rate going forward. We could wait for those harms to happen before we implement these rules, I just don’t see the point.

                1. “We could wait for those harms to happen ”

                  Thank you for finally admitting nothing has happened yet. Jesus Christ that took forever.

                  1. I didn’t realize this was a workshop on missing the point. I’ll just let you keep going.

                    1. Read what I asked you. You just have a master class in missing the point.

                    2. Will M: “I’d be interested in hearing what has changed so significantly about it in the last 2 years or so. “Vertical integration” isn’t really an explanation as much it is a buzzword.”

                      To which i said the market landscape has been and continues to change because of consolidation. See examples.

                      To which you appeared to say omg nostradamus, consolidation doesnt exist bc you cant show what harms occurred in the last two years (separate discussion, ftr) while companies anticipated the net neutral framework, or something.

                    3. “To which you appeared to say omg nostradamus, consolidation doesnt exist bc you cant show what harms occurred in the last two years (separate discussion, ftr) ”

                      No I said HARMS from consolidation don’t exist, because you can’t show what HARMS occurred in the last two years, in direct response to your claim that “If you’re right, and this is just a return to 2015 (which it isn’t because vertical integration has shifted the landscape) ”

                      Please try to keep up.

            3. Yes, that’s exactly what fearmongering is. You make the leap from vertical integration, which improves the efficiency you claim to want, to abuse of monopoly power. And yet you can’t conceive of any level of abuse and crony capitalism resulting from a bigger, less responsive, more overbearing government on spite of the fact the the worst cases of abuse have come precisely from those government granted monopolies.

              1. fear mongering, as i conceive it, is making a comment for the purpose of riling someone up or causing fear. That wasn’t the purpose of my post. I’m just trying to explain why I think these rules make sense absent the government stepping in and abolishing the monopolies and allowing the markets to reform on their own.

                1. “fear mongering, as i conceive it, is making a comment for the purpose of riling someone up or causing fear”

                  Thats.. not what fear mongering is.

                  1. I mean, why let facts slow you down

                    oxford dictionary definition:
                    “The action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.”

                    1. And you don’t think implying that some vague horror scenario will occur because of vertical integration doesn’t exactly meet that definition?

                    2. The purpose was to explain why i think the landscape has changed. So sorry it triggered you.

                    3. And by the definition you gave, it was fear mongering.

            4. As long as there are no barriers to entry in an industry, vertical integration is not a threat to consumers. Those evil corporations can simply be undercut by new competition.

              The only viable solution is to get rid of all those barriers.

              1. Thats a good point. I’d just point out that those barriers are significant and the ways around them are troubling. For instance, we could get rid of the physical barriers to entry by making the physical wires a utility (which people here don’t like) so that providers compete for consumers on the same inputs, and can’t block competitors. See generally the issues google fiber had getting into markets.

                Also these rules lowered barriers to entry from the content side. So yes, amazon, netflix, et al will probably not be harmed by ISP tolls, but for smaller competitors it raises the fixed costs required to compete unless they sell themselves to provider.

                1. For instance, we could get rid of the physical barriers to entry by making the physical wires a utility (which people here don’t like) so that providers compete for consumers on the same inputs, and can’t block competitors.

                  Yeah – just like back when we had Ma Bell.

            5. And we all know corporate mergers never happened before Net Neutrality.

              1. LEVERAGED BUYOUT!!! CORPORATE RAIDERS!!!!

                FATCATS!!! FAAAAAAATCAAAAATTTTTSSSS!!!!

              2. Not entirely sure what you’re getting at. The net neutral framework protects against harms from vertical mergers. Undoing the framework pretends those harms don’t exist.

                1. So far, you haven’t done anything to demonstrate they do. You’ve just fear mongered.

                  1. Wait, youre asking me to demonstrate that vertical integration can cause harms? Like in general? No. Just bc its a problem appearing in this industry doesn’t mean its a new issue.

                    1. “Wait, youre asking me to demonstrate that vertical integration can cause harms? ”

                      Yes. This is the part where you apologize for acting like a shit because you were missing the point, but didn’t realize it til now.I

                      “Like in general? ”

                      No. Specifically in reference to the companies you mentioned.

                      “No”

                      In other words you can’t.

                      “Just bc its a problem appearing in this industry doesn’t mean its a new issue.”

                      In other words, you can’t.

                2. Fear and Loathing in DC|12.14.17 @ 3:18PM|#
                  “Not entirely sure what you’re getting at. The net neutral framework protects against harms from vertical mergers”

                  Bullshit.
                  It’s nothing other than price-fixing, you idiot.

                  1. price discrimination =/ price fixing.

                    1. Fear and Loathing in DC|12.14.17 @ 3:31PM|#
                      “price discrimination =/ price fixing.”

                      Gee, I bet you’re stupid enough to think there’s a point there.

        2. OMG! There can never be any new content providers! There will be only one!!!!!

          I’m sorry Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, eSports… I guess you just didn’t realize the pie was already baked, and you just aren’t a part of it.

    3. “It’s different now,” and “Government is US,” are the bestest arguments ever.

      Funny how the net neuters aren’t getting all hot and bothered about google pulling youtube from amazon fire devices directly hurting consumers to try to hurt their competition. Let me guess, “That’s different.”

      1. ” “It’s different now,” and “Government is US,” ”

        Next time a tech lefty tells me that in reference to Net Neutrality, I’ll just blame them for Trump.

        1. That’s different.

        2. “Government is US,” when it does stuff I like.

          when it does stuff I don’t like, it’s rogue elements and the Kochtopus.

          1. and “teh korporashuns!”

            Can’t forget them.

            1. Don’t forget democracy is literally being attacked every time a vote doesn’t go my way.

  13. This must be fake news, because the internet seems to still be here.
    Oh, wait. That’s right, it has just been returned to the dark ages that allowed the creation, innovation, and spectacular spread of the new technologies. And we will miss the need for hiring more useless federal bureaucrats.
    I am not sure I can stand the necessity of making my own decisions about what provider to use. The pressure is unbearable.

    1. The actual rules did nothing that would inhibit innovation, and in fact acknowledged the risk that vertical integration in the markets posed to the changing market. but yano, live your narrative.

      1. You mean aside from breaking real market pricing mechanisms because, like, muh free netflix.

        1. What market? If there were robust competition between ISP providers this wouldn’t even be an issue. But there isn’t; we’re talking about sole providers to individual buildings. For instance where I live, in DC, there are ostensibly a bunch of providers. But only one has been available in any building i’ve ever lived in but one (and even then I had to choose between only verizon and comcast).

          1. If your end goal is ‘more choices’ net neutrality doesn’t do that in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it does the opposite.

            1. Exactly. It locks in the current status quo. Who’s going to foot the huge up front costs of running fiber to a building that already has fiber when they aren’t allowed to do business in a way that is substantially different from the established company? Nobody. That’s who.

          2. Net neutrality doesn’t solve last-mile monopolies.

        2. What market? If there were robust competition between ISP providers this wouldn’t even be an issue. But there isn’t; we’re talking about sole providers to individual buildings. For instance where I live, in DC, there are ostensibly a bunch of providers. But only one has been available in any building i’ve ever lived in but one (and even then I had to choose between only verizon and comcast).

          1. ” But only one has been available in any building i’ve ever lived in”

            With all due respect, this is bullshit. You have satellite and cell service for certain. You almost certainly have dial up, and cable as well.

            What you want is unlimited high speed access on your terms, without allowing the providers to charge you for it.

            1. Right, if all I wanted to do was chat with you on here, there are plenty of low-speed options available to me. But if I want to do anything else, like stream netflix to my tv or play video games online, I’m limited to use of a major internet provider hardwired into my building. Of which there is usually only one.

              1. “Right, if all I wanted to do was chat with you on here, there are plenty of low-speed options available to me”

                Which is exactly what I said. What you want is unlimited high speed access on your terms, without allowing the providers to charge you for it.

                Don’t say things that aren’t true.

              2. “I’m limited to use of a major internet provider hardwired into my building. ”

                Cell service is fast enough in DC to do this.

              3. Do you realize that you’re basically saying that your being a bandwidth hog should be subsidized by your neighbors via higher prices?

              4. I’m curious – do you also demand that every building you live in rent you the penthouse? How about a choice of elevators? Most elevators I’ve ridden on are never fast enough for me, and frankly their capacity is dismal.

                I demand my rights – Elevator Equality! Could you get right on that F&L?

            2. “With all due respect, this is bullshit”

              Idiots like this are not due respect.

          2. Thankfully the government had NOTHING to do with that, right? Government creates the problem in the first place and your special needs solution is… more government. And if ypur building has cable and phone hookup, you have at least two providers available.

          3. For my 200Mbps service I’m getting over 200Mbps down and up.
            The only reason I have fiber out here in the boonies is because my provider was able to be an innovator and to get established in my area. This was before “net neutrality”, btw. There was a market, someone was able to fill it… in spite of shitty copper DSL or limited (shared) cable neither of which were available to me. I originally signed up for 50Mbs service. Since I signed up, my provider has DOUBLED everyones speeds twice… WITHOUT raising the prices for anyone. They are solely an ISP, not a content provider. They are continuing to build out and provide fiber to people who would never otherwise have had high speed access. THAT market. If you don’t have any other options, and no one is willing to step up – that is not a “market failure”.

            1. I live in the boonies as well but a local group has gotten a government grant to build wifi systems which you would think would be good but because of that at&t and others have stopped investing in providing better faster land line service so now I have to wait a dozen years for a wifi tower to maybe be built. which may never happen because the local liberals have already fought off a few towers because of the magic cancer it creates. So now I may never have internet at home outside of dial up which I don’t think they even make modems for anymore

  14. We’ll just have to wait and see. If the ISPs do something the things they are now legally allowed to do (but promise they won’t), they may run into free speech challenges.

    I predict most people won’t notice any changes until they have to pay extra for their favorite content. Then they’ll just bitch about prices like they already do or settle for unpreferred content that the ISP prefers.

    1. I already have to pay extra for HBO for my streaming tittie fix.

    2. Why doesn’t Walmart charge you $16 for milk? And why do they offer several different brands and not just Great Value brand?

      It’s almost like it wouldn’t be in their financial interest to limit options and piss off their customers.

      “But there are a lot of places with only one ISP option!”

      Yeah, and there are a lot of places with only one Walmart/HyVee/Etc. And those prices aren’t outrageous.

      What’s stopping these companies from sticking it to their customers? Profit. They’d lose profit by raising their prices or limiting their content.

      1. Nearly every place in the US has two options. Cable and/or DSL and/or wimax and/or LTE and/or something something.

      2. There ya go.

    3. You need to give an example of ‘pay extra for their favorite content’. Or do you believe that Netflix shouldn’t be a subscription model, to give one?

    4. “We’ll just have to wait and see. If the ISPs do something the things they are now legally allowed to do (but promise they won’t), they may run into free speech challenges.”

      Hint: Free speech doesn’t have anything to do with providing communications services.
      This shouldn’t have to be explained, but some people are really stupid.

      1. This shouldn’t have to be explained, but some people are really stupid.

        This is a good encapsulation of most internet debates.

    5. If the ISP’s do anything, it’s going to be charging the content providers, not the customers, to be included in the “fast lanes”.

  15. And Reddit loses its collective shit. Sigh.

  16. Protip for the coming cannibalistic apocalypse: salt. Everyone gets the guns and ammo and gold part, but no one thinks of salt.

    1. Exactly. And salt will be scarce because of the roving bands of radioactive salt monsters will have eaten it all up.

      1. No no no. Sheesh. Salt will be scarce because of all the long pig being eaten. Dude, do you even apocalypse?!

        1. My neck gills will finally come in handy.

          1. They’re not just stylish accessories anymore.

              1. Would?

              2. Mudpuppy describes his appearance, demeanor and sexual proclivities.

              3. I’ve always pictured him more like this: http://cache.boston.com/bonzai…..7_8983.jpg

    2. I’ll just use my guns and ammo to appropriate your salt.

  17. Net Neutrality: Beyond The Thunderdome.

  18. Just as other giveaways to large corporations, this administration gave another. With the merger of the ISPs with content companies i.e., (Comcast purchase of Time Warner) consumers will further see choice and content restricted. Large ISPs will undoubtedly start throttling content, restricting access and charging more to consumers. While those on the libertarian front might support this on ideological terms, the fact of the matter is that ISPs have been very effective at the state levels to RESTRICT competition. Those communities (mostly rurall) with limited choices, will further see their internet access and options restricted. Additionally, After all, every company self polices itself (sarcasm noted). This is a huge defeat for the average consumer and another giveaway to large businesses.

    1. We will only be free when we return to the warm embrace of one government authorized provider to rule them all. Hey, at least that at&t monopoly gave us bell labs which gave us the transistor and the laser.

    2. You noted your own sarcasm?

    3. I’m not sure when “rural people should have access to everything urban people get” became something people say and expect to be taken seriously.

      1. It’s like you don’t believe rural folk deserve postal delivery.

        1. I’m just glad USPS found a way to make money at it…

          1. Well that explains why USPS hasn’t sent me a damn thing other than advertisements for…the entirety of my adult life.

      2. Hey, they got an opioid crisis. That kind of thing used to only happen in urban housing projects.

    4. I will admit that the internet was a dark, slow place in 2013.

    5. “Just as other giveaways to large corporations, this administration gave another.”

      Are you really that stupid? Just checking.

      1. Title II was a giveaway to content providers, but we don’t talk about that.

    6. “After all, every company self polices itself (sarcasm noted)”

      Yeah, they do. It’s called profit margin. A company can only do what will net it an acceptable profit from voluntary exchanges with a customer; otherwise it’ll fail. If only government was like that.

      The “but a lot of places only have one ISP” argument is dumb. A lot of places only have a Walmart, and their prices are still as low as ever. You know why? Because it’s profitable in the long term.

    7. Wait, one of your compatriots up thread was bitching about AT&T merging with Time Warner. Is it too much to ask that y’all get your talking points and mergers straight before you start shitting your pants?

    8. And could you provide just one example of an ISP actually restricting access to content?

      Cause I can provide multiple examples of governments around the world that have a heavier touch on the internet censoring all kinds of content.

    9. How long until all this happens? If it fails to happen by then, will you admit you were wrong or will you move the goalposts?

    10. We’re all doomed unless TRUMP runs the internet. That seems to be the message I’m getting from the pro Net Neutrality people.

      Trump is the living embodiment of why big government is bad, yet so many hand wringers still demand Trump be in charge of everything. I don’t get it.

  19. Ah well, it was good while it lasted… In a month or two, we will all be paying $200 per month for dial-up, and if you want to stream Netflix, you will have to sign over your first born. And if you want to post or share anti-Trump sentiments, that will be free but will earn you a knock on the door from the secret police in the wee hours of the morning…

    Or so ALL the media outlets tell me apart from Reason. I even kept getting please for donations from Mozilla to help them in the effort to stave off this digital Armageddon.

    Will any of them feel embarrassed when they’re proven wrong, wrong, wrong over all their scaremongering? NOT A CHANCE.

    1. They will NEVER admit they were wrong. A year from now, they will find some ISP CEO somewhere who is making 5k more in salary this year than last, and will talk about ‘unprecedented greed’. Then, they’ll profile some lady with 8 kids who had to get a second part-time job to afford a third cell phone line, and will paint her as a poor victim of the unabashed evil of fascists.

      Anyone who opposed Net Neutrality will be a fascist, obviously, as fascists are opposed to corporations and government getting into bed to set the rules and prices the consumer is stuck with.

  20. This is not only a disastrous decision in general, it’s especially damaging to the interests of marginalized groups. I’ve already mentioned how rolling back net neutrality is a direct attack on abortion access, and here is a piece from Bustle explaining how harmful it will be for women more generally.

    Why The FCC’s Net Neutrality Decision Is A Stealth Attack On Feminism

    I’m livid right now. I haven’t been this discouraged since Ossoff’s loss.

    1. Poor commie kid.
      BTW, you stink.

      1. You understand it’s a parody, right?

        1. Commie kid would like to believe it clever enough to be a parody. It’s not.

          1. “Commie kid.” Brilliant. You should get together with the person who insists I’m a “conservative” and figure out once and for all what I really believe.

          2. It is.

          3. Sevo, this is a parody account. If you take a deep breath and step back, it’s really obvious.

          4. You should probably bang your parody-o-meter against your head good and hard, it’s clearly malfunctioning Sevo.

            Then again, they don’t call it Poe’s Law for nothing I suppose.

            1. Yes, I KNOW it’s a parody account. And if it isn’t commie-kid, it’s an amazingly good reproduction of his shtick.

    2. That’s like a C- at best

      1. Really, you think I’m joking around because I linked a piece from Bustle? What if Reason hired somebody who used to write for Bustle ? would that be a joke too?

        1. Possibly. Depends on hot they are?

    3. Sure, no net neutrality will mean no more abortions, that’s a given. So obvious it almost doesn’t need to be pointed out. But you left out the part about how all those old folks will now be forced to eat cat food.

      No more net neutrality means cat food for grandma from now on, even though she worked hard all her life and even acquired some decent cooking skills. But Ajit and Comcast have now conspired to make sure it’s Purina for breakfast, lunch and dinner for poor old Gram. Okay, maybe she’ll be allowed Fancy Feast on her birthday, but otherwise it’s Purina or nothing for that old biddy.

      But you don’t care about old folks eating cat food, do you? DO YOU? Because if you did, you’d demand that government DO SOMETHING, such as keeping net neutrality.

    4. I don’t have to read the article to know that women aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions or navigate public life.

      1. It’s 2017, “Diane.” That’s a terribly outdated attitude. And you wonder why libertarians are overwhelmingly white males? Young libertarians like me at least try to make the movement more appealing to marginalized communities, while people like you crack dumb jokes. It’s clear which of us is more serious about the future of libertarianism, and which is more interested in establishing a cliquey old boy’s club.

        1. You could have just typed TIWTANLW.

        2. As Free Press described in a 2014 article, mainstream media has long suppressed women’s voices. To carve out their own space in the media, women have launched websites to make their voices heard. If net neutrality is eliminated, access to women-created content that lies outside of the rhetoric of the mainstream media could be much more limited, as independent, women-owned websites will be unlikely to afford to pay ISPs for priority access to their content.

          Good… lord, these people have no idea what Net Neutrality did. No idea whatsoever.

        3. Without Net Neutrality, women’s and girls’ voices online will be threatened and silenced. Already, our so-called ‘mainstream’ media’s structural inequality continually leaves women and girls out … Especially affected by these structural inequalities are women and girls of color, trans women, queer women, and indigenous women (to name a few), who are regularly attacked and objectified by major media when they’re not completely ignored and erased from our screens and speakers.

          Holy good God, this article may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

        4. On the off chance you’re not a parody account and really are this stupid: Paul is pointing out that the article is robbing women of their agency.

  21. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, would be empowered to regulate anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior

    Like maybe how my city’s government jumped on Cox Communications’ dick back in the ’90s and basically outlawed all other cable internet providers?

    1. Pai keeps talking about how theyre going to lower barriers to entry on the inputs to offset the harms this can create… without acknowlding that the problem is exactly what you’re referencing – local governments bought by monopoly providers that the FCC has no power to change.

      1. Since you seem to be aware that this is an actual problem, you might consider rallying NN supporters to this cause of local de-monopolization.

  22. So according to social media suicide rates are going to quadruple because people won’t be able to afford 15 dollars a month for Facebook which is the only way they can access friends and family members. I had no idea seeing what people ate for dinner was so vital to some people’s existence.

    1. You must be quite young then, because you obviously don’t remember the days before Facebook.

      If you wanted to know what your friend had eaten for dinner, you had to call him on the phone. Even worse, you had to stand there near the phone while you dialed and talked, because they were bolted to the wall and had these cords so you could only move a couple of feet in any direction while holding the handset. They had these longer cords you could buy, but the damn things would get so twisted up they were worse than the standard short ones.

      And the kicker was, most of the time your friend would ask why you even cared so damn much what he had had to eat, what were you, his mother?

      Depression and suicide were rampant, obviously. Out of my high school class, only about 15% of us made it to full adulthood and the eventual rise of the internet.

      1. But the strong survived the culling and the species was made better.

        1. [clicks “Like” under a photo of some kale]

  23. It must be nice living in your little bubble here. “Yay we’re so much better and smarter than everyone else”. The sad truth is you all sound like idiots; you’re a tiny fractional minority of the population who lives for tiny crumbs like this ruling, and your terrible attitudes and statements about “them”, i.e. anyone who doesn’t totally agree with you, aren’t winning you any new fans.

    Enjoy your crumb; it will be blocked by the courts and then undone when the majority gets back into power in this backwards version of a democracy we live in, and then you can go back to your indignant whining.

    1. Fuck off, asshole.

    2. Live by the unaccountable federal agency, die by it.

    3. Damn, this guy is SUPER pissed that the Trump Administration lost one of its tools to control internet content.

      1. I said that to one of our interns during a superficial conversation about this.

        I literally saw the light go on, he had no idea it was even a possibility.

        1. Cognitive dissonance is so hot right now.

    4. Oh sure, we may have facts and logic, but you have feelz and mob power! The trains will run on time under your administrationn goddammit!

      This is what your media “literacy” has wrought, Welch. Think on that.

    5. Yes, we’re the ones in this conversation that sound like idiots.

    6. I don’t want to be in any club that would have me for a member.

      1. I actually live by those words as much as possible. That particular Marx was a genius.

    7. Heh, that moment when you tell a ‘tiny fractional minority of the population’ to go fuck themselves because they’re a minority.

      So Progressive!

    8. Typical responses. Ranging from “fuck off” to “we are the only ones with facts” to “all government is evil”. Well geez, I’m sure convinced!!!

      Notice how you guys never get any of the things that are actually important to you? Real freedom from government over-reach, real limits on the role of government in individual lives. They keep you placated by handing more of your freedoms to multinational corporations and tell you “it’s the free market and that solves everything!”, and you eat it up because it’s the only scrap they’re ever going to give you.

      1. Did someone say “multinational corporations”????(Schwingggg!!!!)

        1. south Korea Telecom is soooo cheap and so gooooood.

          But for some reason they wont’ come invest in my hometown.

      2. We’re sure lucky that you’re here now. Because I’m sure you have the sure-fire solution for all of those things.

      3. Welp, your intellectual shallowness and nonspecific paranoia have convinced me. I’m’a go post some angry bullshit on Facebook WHILE I STILL CAN.

      4. And your solution is more government.

        1. We have to create more monopolies in order to protect us from monopolies.

          1. Once we really lock in those existing monopolies they’re sure to treat us better.

      5. youdontknowmebut|12.14.17 @ 3:04PM|#
        “Typical responses. Ranging from “fuck off””

        Oh, we know you all too well. You’re a scumbag who would gladly use government guns to take our lives and wealth.
        So, fuck off.
        Oh, and I’ll be polite; “Please”.

    9. People who understand how capitalism works sound like idiots to people who don’t. We’re used to it.
      Your superiority complex isn’t helping your case, though.

    10. will be blocked by the courts and then undone when the majority gets back into power

      How does “the majority” get out of power?

      1. Russians, you see.

      2. The majority of people voted against the guy who just put these rules in place.

        It’s like you guys are cheering that the oligarchy just beat democracy, like you’re happy about it.

        1. Actually, they didn’t. Voter turnout was 58%.

          1. The majority literally don’t give a shit either way.

        2. I love your description of “the majority” as Democrats.

        3. The majority of people voted against the guy who just put these rules in place.

          Also, no rules were put in place. Some rules were removed.

        4. youdontknowmebut|12.14.17 @ 4:04PM|#
          “The majority of people voted against the guy who just put these rules in place.”

          Bullshit twice. In one sentence.
          And you claim we don’t know you.

        5. The majority of ppl rejected the guy whi put the rules in in the first place.

          What do I win?

        6. The majority of people voted against the guy who just put these rules in place

          Hey idiot–the OIO DOESN’T PREVENT THROTTLING! In fact, the Obama administration insured that these ISPs couldn’t even be fined by the FTC for unfair business practices because it switched them from non-common to common carrier status so they would fit under Title II. There’s a fucking exemption for throttling for common carriers, but not for non-common ones.

          Congrats, you dipshits cheered on the very thing you claim was ended, and nerfed an existing regulatory power to boot. You and your cohorts should have been bullycided as kids.

  24. Oh, the rending of garments and the tearing of hair!!!

  25. But…but…this is TrumpHitler undoing something that was done by Obama The Lightbringer (blessed be his name!)!!! The internet will be taken from us by the Russians and the Nazis!!! We’ll all have to communicate with Morse code!!! The Great Pumpkin won’t rise up in our pumpkin patch!!! We’re DOOMED!!!

  26. Federal agencies never abuse their rules. It is known.

    1. I like my internet me I like my DMV.

      1. Full of rampantly enacted sex?

  27. Good for Aijit.

    Those who threatened his family over this are despicable.

  28. Now companies don’t have to include my streaming services on my data count. The horror!

    1. Now they also don’t have to include your streaming services on my data count, either. The horror!

  29. I smell Tulpa.

    1. Does a figment of a crazy person’s imagination have a smell? What is it?

      1. I’m going to go with ‘lavender’.

  30. Yes, i’m sure the former counsel for verizon is just looking out for our interests while coincidently also passing policy that helps verizon.

    1. See, that’s fear mongering.

    2. No, but Amazon and Netflix are totally looking out for our own best interest and definitely not just trying to stifle competition

    3. When they passed a policy designed to benefit Netflix, that was a-okay.

    4. See there’s your problem. You assume that it can’t be both. You assume that the only way for Verizon to do well is by hurting its customers. That’s asinine. Besides, the policy passed doesn’t “help” Verizon. It simply repeals previous policy that was specifically designed to hurt Verizon. But in your world, not helping is hurting and not hurting is helping.

    5. I’m sure all those hundreds of google enplotees who cycled thru the Barry administration had our interests at heart.

      Do you really want to keep getting your ass handed to you?

  31. “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” Groucho Marx

    Net neutrality is a textbook example of this.

    1. It really just stems from content provider rent seeking. Since they create content, they’re really good at propaganda and getting the useful idiots to do their corporate shilling for them. For free!

  32. The FCC Just Voted to Roll Back Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules

    And the dark night of internet fascism descends on America. ///prog

  33. So the line is, as long as teh Internet isn’t completely destroyed, all the complainers were overreacting? That’s about as convincing as Ajit Pai doing the Harlem Shake and telling me I hate America and freedom.

    1. It’s frustrating, isn’t it? You’d think on a libertarian site, most people would at least be alarmed at the severe obstacles to abortion access that were just established. Instead, commenters here are just being snarky jerks.

    2. Make some specific predictions about significant negative effects caused by this vote and the timeline for when those effects will be realized. I’m sure you’ll be wrong.

      1. The potential bad consequences are well known. I don’t have a timeline, but I’m sure that Comcast has our best interests at heart and there’s no need to worry.

        The single excuse for this action is a lie. ISPs have innovated more since NN regulations were put in place. So you have to ask yourself what’s the real reason for making a change. “Freedom” and “America” don’t cut it for me, I don’t know about you.

        1. Tony|12.14.17 @ 4:51PM|#
          “The potential bad consequences are well known. I don’t have a timeline, but I’m sure that Comcast has our best interests at heart and there’s no need to worry.”
          The same way Safeway does, you blithering idiot.

          “The single excuse for this action is a lie. ISPs have innovated more since NN regulations were put in place.”
          Non-sequitur.

          “So you have to ask yourself what’s the real reason for making a change. “Freedom” and “America” don’t cut it for me, I don’t know about you.”
          Yeah, liberty is threatening to some juvenile who has to be told what to think. Price-fixing is just ducky.
          Fuck off.

        2. Hint:

          Net Neutrality never went into effect. If you think ISP’s have innovated more since that time, you are essentially admitting that net neutrality was never needed in the first place.

          That’s before you take into account that treating all internet traffic as having the same priority will necessarily slow down the entire internet for everyone across the board, likely forever. It means your text to someone about what time dinner is will be treated with exactly the same priority as a medical alert.

  34. NN is somewhere between assault weapons and the Patriot Act.

    It’s vague enough that it can mean anything you want and therefore nothing, but positive enough that most don’t understand how you could possibly be against it.

    And it’s not like a majority of people were ever wrong about anything…so obviously this is all a travesty.

  35. While I’m generally a fan of eliminating burdensome regulation, it does appear that ISPs have engaged in some shenanigans over the years. Is there a non-Title II way of dealing with these?

    Edited to satisfy this stupid widgets objection to a URL:

    https://www. freepress. net/blog /2017/04/25/ net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

    1. “”Is there a non-Title II way of dealing with these?””

      Yes. Just use existing law. Use the existing FTC. Just don’t pretend that this is the end of civilization when all that is happening is a relatively minor change to rules enacted barely two years ago.

      1. Agreed.

        So, are the accounts in that link like the Madison River example able to be resolved even though the FCC claims they don’t have the authority to fix it?

    2. The way to deal with it is to pressure your local government to stop favoring certain ISPs. End the subsidies. End the protections.

    3. Stop giving them money?

      1. I happen to be in an area which has two providers, but my choices are Frontier (bad) or Comcast (worse). So, as a protest vote I should just go without Internet because my government-granted duopoly sucks?

        1. Clint O|12.14.17 @ 6:11PM|#
          “I happen to be in an area which has two providers, but my choices are Frontier (bad) or Comcast (worse). So, as a protest vote I should just go without Internet because my government-granted duopoly sucks?”

          Guess what? You get to chose.

    4. I’m gonna call out this article’s misrepresentation of the MetroPCS incident specifically, as an example of how pro NN people get this shit wrong all the time.

      MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

      MetroPCS blocked non-YouTube streaming because they were offering a cheap plan on a cheap phone with a cheap browser that wouldn’t handle javascript, and it just so happened that YouTube is encoded in such a way that even this POS could handle it. People started bitching that (Surprise, surprise!) you get what you pay for. For people without much money who didn’t need video streaming on their phones, a $40 per month unlimited data plan probably sounded like a pretty good deal. But under NN, companies wouldn’t be able to offer choices like that. Decreasing the number of choices available to consumers is one thing government has always been good at.

      1. Thanks for clarifying this one. I didn’t know the veracity of all these claims, so this is very helpful.

    5. Is there a non-Title II way of dealing with these?

      Yeah, put them back under Title I, change their status back to non-common carrier, and the FTC can fine them into oblivion for unfair business practices. Obama’s OIO prevented this from happening.

  36. So my life remains largely unaffected?

    This is BS.

  37. So my life remains largely unaffected?

    This is BS.

  38. I particulary like the people who say govt is bought and paid for by big money lobbyists, so we have to give govt more power!

  39. Over 300 comments. So what did I win?

  40. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an internet forum so full of snarky catty little bitches.

    1. You’re more used to the hive mind, right? Thinking IS hard. It’s best if you let your betters think for you.

  41. Transparancy?
    Oh, No’s, we can’t have that.
    The Little Snowflakes would have to use their mindless brains to think about what and who is trying to screw them.

  42. Pretty heavily biased article IMO and not accurate on a number of points. The Obama regulations were put in place after a lawsuit by cell carriers to charge more for certain services and they were denied the right to treat their customers differently depending on how they used their data. You are entirely wrong about this legislation making the internet less regulated. In the words of FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel who voted against the regulation – “We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online, and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the Internet as we know it.”

    A very different explanation of what this vote today destroyed than the author’s description.

    1. But we CAN have HOV lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged around DC and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We CAN have gatekeepers who define “hate speech” and “price gouging.”

      Couldn’t have copied and pasted from MoveOn.org better myself.

      Now maybe you can take the time to learn the facts which don’t fit your emotional narrative. Unlike you, I won’t hold my breath.

    2. “In the words of FCC commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel who voted against the regulation – “We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online, and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the Internet as we know it.””

      I bet she read this nonsense on the internet.

    3. “The Obama regulations were put in place after a lawsuit by cell carriers to charge more for certain services and they were denied the right to treat their customers differently depending on how they used their data.”
      Which is wrong to begin with. So you got one strike.

      ” You are entirely wrong about this legislation making the internet less regulated.”
      Hint: If a regulation is repealed, that industry is less regulated. Strike two.

      “A very different explanation of what this vote today destroyed than the author’s description.”
      You are correct, but you chose to believe the wrong one.
      Three! You’re OUTTA here!

    4. Your bullshit was already debunked on previous threads, Wally.

  43. Man, what an Obummer dude !

  44. I want to believe it’s not this easy to rile up a majority of Americans with misinformation who, not that long ago, would’ve rioted had the government suggested it regulate the internet.

    But I may, at long last, have to admit I give people too much credit.

    1. What you meant to say is that you’re surprised at the amount of media literacy of which Welch laments a lack thereof. Truth is secondary to that.

    2. Remember when everyone was screaming about SOPA and PIPA? At the time I took that as a good sign. I thought people were against government regulating the internet. Shows what I know.

  45. OMG the FCC just destroyed the Internet !
    The sky is literally falling on me !
    I’m not going to be able to read articles, stream video or post comments …
    Oh, wait. Hang on. There it is. Okay, Never mind.

  46. Eek Barba Durkle|12.14.17 @ 5:28PM|#
    “They will NEVER admit they were wrong. A year from now, they will find some ISP CEO somewhere who is making 5k more in salary this year than last, and will talk about ‘unprecedented greed’. Then, they’ll profile some lady with 8 kids who had to get a second part-time job to afford a third cell phone line, and will paint her as a poor victim of the unabashed evil of fascists.”

    Eek, I have to assume you read the SF Chron, because that it *exactly* what will happen.

  47. RIP Internet 2015-2017

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.