MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The FCC Just Voted to Regulate the Internet Like a Utility

Net neutrality regulation is sure to create some problems of its own

Ajit Pai / TwitterAjit Pai / TwitterIn a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is regulated. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission's two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward with the rules. The agency's two GOP-appointed commissioners opposed them.

Under the new rules, broadband providers, long classified by the agency as Title I information services, will now be regulated as Title II telecommunications services—essentially making them public utilities, like the phone system. The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks.

Today's vote is the result of a lengthy process begun by Chairman Wheeler roughly a year ago, and that process came in the wake of two previous efforts in which the agency's net neutrality rules were struck down in court. But the end result of the vote was largely set near the end of last year, when President Obama released a statement calling for the agency to implement the strongest possible net neutrality rules.

Obama's statement, itself somewhat atypical in its attempt to publicly influence an independent regulatory agency, followed a long, secret effort inside the White House, in which administration staffers acted, as The Wall Street Journal reported, "like a parallel version of the FCC." Wheeler had been considering less restrictive rules, but changed his course after the president's statement.

Today's vote will mean that Wheeler's proposal, which has been kept secret up until now, will finally be released to the public. And it likely means that the FCC will push forward with clarifying and implementing the as-of-yet-unknown-details of Wheeler's proposal.

In part that's because much remains uncertain about exactly how the proposal will be implemented. Wheeler's plan promises to use the FCC's forebearance authority to hold off on some of the more onerous parts of Title II regulation, like rate regulation, but this amounts to little more than an unenforceable promise not to regulate ISPs quite as strictly as Title II allows. There will also be fights over which taxes and fees may apply to Internet service under the new regulatory regime. Proponents of the Title II switch say that Internet service won't be subject to new fees under the proposal, but in today's meeting, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, a Republican appointee who opposes the Wheeler plan, warned that new taxes and fees on Internet service were sure to come.

It is also virtually certain to result in another court battle—one that the FCC may well lose, as Berin Szoka of Tech Freedom, which opposes Wheeler's plan, has argued. At minimum, the proposal will be challenged and, over time, probably redefined.

In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and far-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration's long-running political priorities—a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process.

As Commissioner Pai told ReasonTV, the move is a "solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist." It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own.

Watch ReasonTV's full interview with Commissioner Ajit Pai below:

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.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    OK congress, get on this.

  • ||

    Haahahhaa

  • F. Stupidity, Jr.||

    Shreek in five, four, three, two...

    No way. It takes time for all the talking points to come down.

  • DontShootMe||

    Yeah, but once the net neutrality rules kick in, the talking points will be delivered at the same speed as cute cat videos.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    No way to spray whipped cream on this turd - he will practice avoision.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Optimist.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I can think of a slightly harsher term.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    No, you're the retard

  • Hugh Akston||

    GET OUT OF MY HEAD

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I CAN'T WE'RE BOTH RETARDS

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    CAKE ANYONE?

    /Fellow 'tard

  • Aloysious||

    Yellow cake?

  • From the Tundra||

  • Almanian!||

    So you're all gay retards making people bake cakes for you?

    At least I'm a NOT GAY retard.

    You guys suck. LITERALLY.

  • Libertarian||

    I, too, am waiting for the GOP to pass legislation to fix this asap.

  • ||

    Don't hold your breath, it's not going to happen.

  • Murray Got hard||

    thats cute

  • Bill||

    Nothing 8 or 9 rounds of legislation over the next 40 years can't fix. We need to get the IRS involved too.

  • CatoTheElder||

    And Homeland Security.
    And DoD.
    And Department of Education, because, you know, the children and the right of every child to safe, affordable Internet.
    And Department of Interior because native Americans.
    And the Justice Department.
    Especially BATFE/DEA.
    And Health and Human Services, if for no other reason than to re-design the Internet so that it never has to suffer the loss of face that it got from HealthCare.gov.
    And, of course, the US Supreme Court to dismiss any notions that restrictions of free expression are perfectly constitutional as long as the government is doing the restricting (no right to shout "Fire" in crowded theatre and all that.)

  • MoreFreedom||

    If you think the GOP will fix this, you haven't paid attention to how the GOP establishment votes. They are consistently for more government.

  • Murray Got hard||

    And they got the last bastion of free speech and innovation.
    Next stop USSA

  • gaijin||

    an unprecedented and fear-reaching step

    Indeed!

  • ||

    Prepare for a lot of "but why didn't anyone warn us?!" in the future.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Prepare for a lot of "Market failure!" and "We need even more regulation!"

  • Andrew S.||

    Yep.

    Of course, they call the current situation "market failure". When, you know, it exists entirely because there is no market, because the government granted the companies monopolies.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm still having trouble just what the current situation is which is so awful, and how this is supposed to change that.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Netflix wants to offer $8 all-you-can-stream without building the infrastructure to provide it. So now YOU can pay for it! Innit wonderful!

  • harryborten||

    Why should they have to pay twice you nitwit? Jesus. You people know nothing.

  • mplspolitics||

    The face of a man who has no idea what he is talking about is right here:

    https://www.facebook.com/harry.borten

  • ||

    I'm still having trouble just what the current situation is which is so awful, and how this is supposed to change that.

    Fantasy scenarios about traffic throttling that have yet to come to pass, fantasy scenarios about what regulations will actually take place, plus lots of "this enlightened European country with over 10 times the population density and over 237 times less area than the US has better Internet, so obviously this will magically fix things because the ISPs are just swan diving into their Scrooge McDuck moneybins and investing literally nothing in infrastructure.

    ... Monopolies legally enforced by local government? Never heard of that."

  • bodenlosen Schweinerei||

    A quick question to flummox even supposed "techies" on NN: What exactly is "throttling, and, more importantly, how can YOU identify it in the wild (as opposed to just too many people and too little bandwidth)?"

  • KDN||

    Well, you see, if I'm paying for 15 MB of access and only downloading at 4 MBPS, I'm clearly being throttled and it's fucking Comcast's fault.

    Boo, Comcast! BOOOOOOOOO!

  • perlhaqr||

    Yeah, I've been using "throttling" questions to limit the number of pointless conversations I have about NN.

    "Can you explain what a peering agreement is? No? Then I'm not going to talk to you about NN because you don't have an opinion on NN. You have someone else's opinion on NN."

  • Harun||

    I always wonder why South Korea Telecom doesn't come over and invest in the USA and reap major profits by offering lower cost internet.

    I suspected they were getting subsidies in the home country, but recently in another comment thread someone said that in South Korea, the content providers pay the ISP, too.

    So, their version of Netflix pays half the freight, thus consumers get lower ISP prices. (Though they might pay more for their Netflix.)

    This makes total sense. Supposedly France is pushing this model as well, because that way Google has to pay French providers.

  • Sevo||

    "So, their version of Netflix pays half the freight, thus consumers get lower ISP prices. (Though they might pay more for their Netflix.)"

    Not "might". They do.
    Where do you think the money comes from?

  • Brendon Carr||

    That's easy, dummy. Money comes from Our Leader, Obama, and his fatherly love for us and our love for him.

  • Calvinus||

    Actually, Comcast recently did engage in traffic throttling with Netflix during a contract dispute.

  • Andrew S.||

    I'm more thinking of the slow speeds we have as compared to other countries, especially in Asia. If we had real competition rather than government-created monopolies, we'd likely see higher speeds and lower prices. Actual competition would also invalidate any fears of what the proponents of net neutrality seem to think is taking place, because if an ISP is throttling you, you could just go to their competitor, if they existed.

  • Bill||

    So dog eat dog competition, hey? That will do nothing but create more fat cats! :)

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Capitalists are hoarding cable infrastructure, otherwise there would be plenty for all!

  • Sevo||

    Hamster of Doom|2.26.15 @ 1:39PM|#
    Capitalists are hoarding cable infrastructure,"...

    I know I am. Shucks, the garage is full of the stuff, just waiting for the gov't to screw with the market and make it more valuable!

  • ||

    Market failure = "Where's my legislated free lunch?"

    The local monopoly status of many ISPs doesn't even enter the radar of most all of the so-called "Net Neutrality" advocates I've come across.

  • ||

    Well, there you are.

    And a court battle is meaningless, Obama will not comply with the courts orders, not even the Supreme Court.

    And our congress, as expected, are nothing but a gang of neutered sheep, who will make a little noise and then do nothing.

  • John||

    Congress can't do anything unless enough Democrats agree to override the veto. I have no doubt a majority of both the House and Senate would vote to undo this. That however is meaningless as long as Obama is in office and the Democrats are still covering for him.

    The blame for this lies with Obama and the Democratic party as a whole.

  • John Thacker||

    Democrats in the Senate would filibuster, wouldn't get to Obama, as I'm sure you agree.

  • John||

    Yes. But the Republicans could invoke the Reid Rule and pass it anyway. They could pass it if they wanted to, but they could never override the veto.

    This shit is getting dangerous. Obama has two more years. He just keeps pushing more and more. He is totally emboldened. What is he going to try next?

  • Bill||

    3rd term?

  • Jima||

    Got to finish outlawing ammo before that third term stuff...

  • F. Stupidity, Jr.||

    The blame for this lies with Obama and the Democratic party as a whole.

    That's not my understanding. I was told by very smart people that Republicans were against Net Neutrality and, consequently, the people to blame for all of its shortcomings.

  • John||

    They wouldn't fix it so they are to blame for the resulting disaster just like they are to blame for Obamacare.

  • Libertarius||

    "You'll do something, Mr. Rearden!"

  • Kahlua Akbar||

    The blame for this lies with Obama and the Democratic party as a whole.

    And Republicans and libertarians who refused to vote for Romney.

  • SamFox||

    KahluaA, WRONG! Romney is as 2 faced & double tongued as 0. YouTube Snakes On A Campaign...watch that one.
    The fault is with those that took media's word that Ron Paul was unelectable & an isolationist. Both are lies that easy to manipulate Homer Simpsons took to heart.
    Mitt is just another establishment shill like John McLame. SamFox

  • MoreFreedom||

    Congress isn't a gang of "neutered sheep." They are all for taking over the internet, because that communication threatens their power. They just want to appear to be against it.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Taking bets now on what internet service will cost in two years.

  • Rich||

    Surely it'll be free for all!

  • Sevo||

    "Surely it'll be free for all!"

    And worth every penny!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Just like health insurance!

  • Joe_C||

    God damn I love you Reason commenters.

  • thom||

    I was reading a reddit thread about this and this was the sentiment of 90% of the comments. Every comment basically boiled down to "fuck Comcast! Bring on the super fast super cheap Internet!" it was depressing.

  • Harun||

    Exactly. And comcast can only have a monopoly because local government agreed to it.

    The solution lies there.

  • harryborten||

    So like how the FCC wants to allow local govs to build their own fiber networks? Oh, sorry. That's right.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Nostradamus-level prediction, I say. And I say to hell with it. Let's all move to Bulgaria.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Costa Rica - better beer.

  • From the Tundra||

    I'm in.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Rakia! Vacations on the Black Sea! You can buy a house for $10k USD! Did I mention the rakia!

  • perlhaqr||

    Plus, you'd be much closer to the source of Ukrainian chicks. :D

  • Raston Bot||

    Not as much as health insurance but it won't be subsidized and will impact the young imbeciles much more :-) So we got that going for us... the schadenfreude that is.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    +1 But what do the Millenials think?

    Young people aren't interested in health care and spend little on health care because they don't tend to need a lot of health care.

    Internet connectivity, though... Now that's a priority. Obama took away Candy Crush from millions, the bastard. And don't mess with Xbox Live.

  • DesigNate||

    Millenials post on Reddit and think NN is fucking great.

    I would hope they choke to death when their internet is slowed to a crawl and costs them more than a car payment, but it will affect me too so I can't.

  • harryborten||

    You mean how it's expensive right now? Because of the monopolies? Oh, right. Sorry. You have to argument.

  • epsilon given||

    Yeah, because net neutrality is going to end all the monopolies on the local level. NOT! I just remembered: those local monopolies are the direct result of GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.

    Kindof like when Ma Bell was the only choice in town, because of government rules, until the government decided on a whim to break it up...

    But, hey, when government starts throwing its weight around, everything automatically gets fixed, amiright?

  • Murray Got hard||

    screw you grandpa

  • Restoras||

    It goes up 25%, at least.

  • Joe_C||

    Is that all?

    Don't forget the bullshit $20 tax for railroad workers who's families work in the llama trade growing ethanol.

    And what about the subsidy for people with longer second toes? Don't they deserve a fair shake too?

  • Restoras||

    At least...I am quite sure they will go up more.

  • ||

    that Spanish American War isn't going to pay for itself.

  • Joe_C||

    Nice.

  • Rich||

    Today’s vote will mean that Wheeler’s proposal, which has been kept secret up until now, will finally be released to the public.

    What basis is there for this assertion?

    In any event, "Fuck".

  • ||

    More likely the rules will leak out a little bit at a time, but will not be fully released until after all the damage is done. Anything that does leak out that sounds bad will be labeled paranoid right wing delusions by the media.

  • John Thacker||

    They're actually still *editing* the rules, from what I understand, so yeah, it'll dribble out.

  • ||

    They had to pass it before deciding what's in it, you say? I'm shocked, shocked.

  • CatoTheElder||

    From what I've read, the rules are quite discretionary and can be interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

    So even if the rules are released to the public, the possible range of interpretations of the rules will not be known until well after they are in force.

  • Ron||

    The rules won't be known until someone doesn't like what someone else is doing at that time the someone will be informed and fined until the rules are "interpreted".

  • Jima||

    Yeah, just like the kings of old, "The law is what I say it is..."
    What could go wrong??

  • Enough About Palin||

    Fuck you, Obama.

  • Joe_C||

    Worst president ever. He's going the distance to make sure no one breaks his PR.

  • ||

    I distinctly remember in the twilight of GW Bush's Presidency thinking that the next one would have to put in some serious overtime to top that debacle.

    Well...

  • DesigNate||

    The sad thing is that he's put in less time. Too busy golfing and campaigning.

  • Restoras||

    No no no...that's a good thing. Imagine how much fucking worse everything would be if he had applied himself more.

  • grrizzly||

    Obama's incompetence is the best thing about him.

  • ||

    Yeah, he had some heavy-duty water-carrying being done by the Tingles Hopenchange McLightworker crowd, so he didn't have to.

  • Joe_C||

    Me too.

  • DarrenM||

    You should be thankful Obama *didn't* put in the overtime. Imagine how much damage he could have done if he did.

  • Libertarius||

    Yeah Obozo is fucking terrible, the Bush years were quaint compared to how fucking bad it's got now.

    I'm reminded of the scene in Terminator 3 where the guy is about to activate Skynet, and you're sitting there like "Don't do it!", but he does it anyway, and ten minutes later he's dying as the man who opened Pandora's box. The Terminator movies are meant to foreworn man about surrendering his agency to technology--the Obozo years are showing us the bankruptcy of surrendering one's sovereignty to the state, the failures and destruction born from the tribal premise of collectivism.

    But I doubt it has got bad enough for the leftoid masses to yet see how retarding the actions of the state can be. Next they will rename I-70 to "Die Obamenstrasse".

  • CatoTheElder||

    The difference is that Terminator was fiction and Obama is real-life.

  • Libertarius||

    No shit, Sherlock. It's an analogous conceptual integration.

  • Murray Got hard||

    Calm down comrade,

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Shut them down - they've gone rogue!

  • kinnath||

    Let the lawsuits begin!

  • ||

    How is a lawsuit going to help when you have an administration that will just ignore the courts?

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    They can ignore the courts, but the industry can ignore the Administration - how do you enforce a rule that is void?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Theft and Guns come right to mind.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Not sure you are going to get an armed government agent to go in when a judge says no - they are too closely teamed up to split because a President says "ignore the courts".

    That would be impeachment level anyways.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Not directly, obliquely. Some regulatory bullshit reason to harm the industry in another way. Nice company there, be a shame if something happened to it, basically.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    If it were industry doing the fighting back - or, if there are one or two names on the suit, yeah - they probably would get "Gibsoned".

  • Libertarius||

    Let it be known that, here on this hallowed day, did the term "Gibsoned" enter into the libertarian vocabulary.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    +1 Exotic Wood Violation!

  • Murray Got hard||

    But But But we can all have our freedom of speech equally censored now! Equality!

  • Rich||

    "As God is my witness, I thought the Internet was a series of tubes!"

  • John Thacker||

    They no longer need to re-authorize the FISA Amendments Act, then. Apparently (according to Reasoner Julian Sanchez) the whole reason the Act became necessary is that the FISC decided that making Internet service not common carrier prevented warrantless wiretaps from being legal.

  • John Thacker||

    In that the Obama Administration gets both the economic regulations and the legalization of spying that it wanted, yes.

  • Joe_C||

    Wooooo!

  • Xmas||

    I believe you are correct.

  • ||

    By next week when you attempt to access the internet, you will be greeted by a black and red screen with the title 'Welcome to Obamanet 1.0'. And below will be the caption 'You must answer the following question before you may proceed to Obamanet':

    1. Are you or have you even been a climate change skeptic?

    2. Have you ever had anti-government feelings?

    3. Do you or have you ever opposed higher taxes?

    4. Would you like to contribute to Obama's campaign for a 3rd term as US President? (don't worry, he's going to change that 2 term rule by executive order tomorrow). Fill in the amount of your donation and your credit card information below.

    Oh, who am I kidding, it would take an Obama appointed development team 5 years to do that and 3 more years before it actually worked.

  • Len Bias||

    Is it ok to answer 'yes' to number two as long as my anti-gov't sentiments subsided in January 2009?

  • Brendon Carr||

    I think it's mandatory.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Wheeler's plan promises to use the FCC's forebearance authority to hold off on some of the more onerous parts of Title II regulation, like rate regulation

    Over under on how long that lasts? I say 1 year into the next administration if they are a D, else the first week of the next D administration.

  • Andrew S.||

    R or D, it doesn't matter, there's zero chance it lasts at all. An R candidate might campaign against it but then use it when he's elected, like Obama did with the Patriot Act.

  • John||

    The problem is that the patriot act doesn't effect very many people. This affects everyone. So no candidate R or D is going to get away with taking office and then using it.

    Not every law is the same.

  • KDN||

    It's totally unworkable without radical changes to the forebearance process. I predict that this proposal will quietly be shelved.

  • ||

    I think that this will get sued into oblivion, but even so, it will at least be fun to see all the NN advocates shit a brick when they realize what it would actually mean to get what they were asking for. I will laugh so, so hard at them. And then sneer at their abject stupidity.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    I know… I had to disable network neutrality on our firewalls because the other traffic was swamping our web conferences.

  • Rich||

    You MONSTER!

  • ||

    Yeah, this is basically going to be a reenactment of the train tunnel scene with the deserved passengers in Atlas Shrugged.

  • Kahlua Akbar||

    all the NN advocates shit a brick when they realize what it would actually mean to get what they were asking for.

    They won't. Even when faced with the reality. They will just scramble to find someone else to blame.

  • BigT||

    it will at least be fun to see all the NN advocates shit a brick when they realize what it would actually mean to get what they were asking for.

    You are far too optimistic. These mongoloids are STILL in love with Obamacare,, even as their premiums and deductibles rise. It's all about signalling to their compatriots that they are not racists. For them, to even be fleetingly thought of as racist by opposing a black agenda is the one true mortal sin.

  • DarrenM||

    Never underestimate the human ability for self-delusion.

  • harryborten||

    Hint there buddy... prices are falling. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • Libertarius||

    You are high on crack. You haven't burst your own bubble yet, let alone that of anyone who lives on earth and supports his own life.

  • mplspolitics||

    Rinse your mustache Harry. Too many Dear Leader dingleberries hanging from it.

  • Gorthan||

    I will laugh too, just as I laughed at all of the Republican Bush-fellators who hate Obama for doing what Bush did first. It's truly amazing to see the pliability of public opinion on a whole slew of issues influenced by nothing more than which party occupies the White House.

  • Puddin' Stick||

    Time to invest in Netflix stocks!

  • Murray Got hard||

    why?

  • Puddin' Stick||

    Netflix, among other content providers, have essentially pushed the cost of upgrading ISP hardware onto other internet users.

    Netflix will benefit most since they're heavy bandwidth users.

  • Murray Got hard||

    What other providers would you recommend investing in?

  • Restoras||

    Maybe Amazon. They'll create more of their own content and use their Prime Instant Video to attract more Prime subscribers

  • KDN||

    Akamai and Google, for two. But nobody is as positively affected by this as Netflix.

  • harryborten||

    You really have no idea.... at all.

    The infrastructure was subsidized by.. .guess who? Us. The taxpayers. Netflix already pays millions to connect. They owe nobody nothing. Sorry, if that breaks the comcast PR tit you are sucking on.

  • mplspolitics||

    More proof that support for NN is nothing more than a bunch of petulant ignoramuses who hate Comcast. You are children.

    And yet here you are, running to the people who fucked up your internet in the first place and asking them to delver you from their deliberate fuck up.

    Progressive is merely a synonym for Stockholm Syndrome.

  • epsilon given||

    Harry, you are the one that has no idea. What was Netflix inflicting on the internet, after all? Movies.

    You would have us believe that an internet designed to send emails would have no trouble streaming movies as well. To put this in perspective, let's assume that the average size of an email is 1 kilobyte.

    With this average, you could expect to put about 1,000 emails on a 3.5" floppy disk. On the other hand, you would need about 4,000 floppy disks to hold *one* movie.

    Is it really all that unreasonable for Comcast to request that Netflix pay extra to help develop the new infrastructure to handle that difference? Or are you the type who thinks that there is no difference between a tweet and a movie, because they are both made of ones and zeros?

  • ||

    Reason posted this before Drudge.

    I bet the sheep are all bleating over at HuffPo.

  • CatoTheElder||

    They are doing the Internet equivalent of a Roman Triumph over there.

  • Sevo||

    Wait until they find out what's in it.

  • Rhywun||

    So... who's going to trawl through the massive loads of derp at, say, slashdot and report back on their findings?

    Not It!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    This is from November, but the headline alone is enough:

    Obama's Plan to Save the Internet

  • Rich||

    here are the important, pretty self-explanatory bullet points:

    No blocking.
    No throttling.
    Increased transparency.

    "You keep using that word...."

  • Pro Libertate||

    BLINK TAG BAN.

  • Rhywun||

    "Inspirational, right? Obama's good at that."

    W
    T
    F

  • Almanian!||

    *lights derpetologist signal*

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Yeah, I ain't goin' in there - Derpetologist is just crazy enough to do it!

  • PapayaSF||

    This is obviously terrible, but I'm not too worried, because I don't think it will last. Once Silicon Valley gets a look at the details, they are going to hit the ceiling.

    There's no way this is some sort of "light touch" regulation. Soros has spent many millions on this, with the help of hoards of activists. They weren't simply worried about Comcast getting more money from Netflix.

    Remember when Betsy McCaughey actually read the Hillarycare bill in 1993 and reported on the details? It killed the bill. Well, hundreds of tech bloggers and writers are going to be diving into this. The uproar will be epic, and it won't cut it for them to say "Oh, don't worry, we won't enforce that part!" If there isn't something in here about subsidized net access for disabled illegal immigrant lesbians of color, there is something that someone will use to argue for that. As soon as a digital copy is released, I'd search it for the phrase "hate speech." You know it's in there, right?

    So Democrats in Congress (and Hillary etc.) will be in a huge bind: they get a lot of money from SV. Do they want to head into 2016 with lots of donors and voters upset with them? And the GOP can ride to the rescue, advocating for less regulation.

  • ||

    I would agree that this is going to light a firestorm of epic proportions. And it's likely going to be very bad for Democrats in 2016.

    But even if most people become outraged about it, how does it matter when we have a president that has declared himself above the law?

  • LynchPin1477||

    You are way more optimistic than I am.

    The regulated always resist at first, but they cozy up pretty quickly afterward. I don't think Silicon Valley is going to save us.

  • ||

    I think you are replying to PapayaSF, not me. I don't expect that either and I'm not feeling optimistic.

    What's going to happen is a shit storm and they are basically going to fuck up the internet in ways we can't even imagine yet.

  • John||

    The one difference here is that regulation gets away with destroying wealth that could have been produced but isn't. People never miss what they never had. This regulation is going to make the internet much worse than it is now. People are going to notice is and know what is to blame. It will make things worse in a noticeable, important and attributable way. That means it is likely to have much worse of a backlash than normal regulation.

  • ||

    People are going to notice is and know what is to blame.

    Yeah, the kulak wrecker-hoarders and obstructionist businesses. They're always the ones to blame.

  • John||

    That is what you guys said about Obamacare. It was going to be popular and cause people to demand single player when it failed. Hasn't worked out that way has it?

  • JW||

    Yet.

  • John||

    I will bet you any amount of money JW that single payer will never happen. IN fact, it is less likely to happen today that it was before Obamacare.

  • JW||

    It almost seems irrelevant at this point.

    With Il Douche in office, I keep wondering how he can make it worse than he has already.

  • perlhaqr||

    Man, I really wish I had come up with "Il Douche". :D

  • ||

    I always believed the strategy was for Obamacare to be a horrible train-wreck, and the only way to save us is 'single payer'(ObamaCare Dos) to the rescue.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Yes, but the homeless will now be able to watch Netflix government propaganda for free on their Obamaphones via subsidies from the productive class. Why do you hate the homeless?

  • Restoras||

    Because they smell bad?

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    They evade my orphan press-gangs so I can't get enough of them to work in my monocle mines?

  • epsilon given||

    I don't hate the homeless. What horrible things did they do to deserve being forced to watch unlimited government propaganda?

    We want to *cure* things like schizophrenia, not cause it!

  • PapayaSF||

    The innovative, don't-need-permission spirit of SV runs deep and cuts across ideological lines. I can't imagine that those 300+ pages of regulations will be read by entrepreneurs and nerds and everyone will say "This is all a good idea!" There's just no way. This is to "net neutrality" what Obamacare was to "health care reform." In fact, worse, because it was all done in secret, so they didn't even need to get Congressional Democrats on board.

    And messing with people's internet is likely to create even more of a backlash than messing with health insurance. Look at GamerGate: that was just progs trying mess with games. This will create an even bigger stink.

  • Rich||

    And messing with people's internet is likely to create even more of a backlash than messing with health insurance.

    This. It's a larger part of the economy and people's lives.

  • Harun||

    NN discussions were all theoretical before, and those always include rational, enlightened angels running the plan. Now we will see the reality.

  • John||

    He is only above the law for two more years. Is there any part of society that obama isn't going to fuck royally before he is through? I always figured silicon valley was probably immune. Not so much.

  • ||

    I'm becoming a little more worried each day that he's just going to issue some emergency action and refuse to leave office. Who would stop him? The GOP congress?

  • John||

    There are four players in Washington, the President, each party in Congress and the media. To go after one, you have to have two of the other three. The media is never going to turn on Obama. So unless the Democrats do, the Republicans are powerless to stop him. He could issue an emergency order and I have no doubt the major media would support him and bully the Democrats into doing so as well.

    Things have gotten that dangerous. If he doesn't do that, however, and we have anything approaching a fair election come 2016, the Democratic Party is going to be gravely wounded by all of this.

  • Rich||

    the Democratic Party is going to be gravely wounded by all of this.

    Omelet.

  • ||

    I used to predict that he and his supporters were going to try and repeal the 22nd Amendment. That seems to have fizzled out, partly because there's no way it would pass. But more and more, he seems to be perfectly fine with just skirting the law, so...I have no idea what he might do. He does seem to be tiring out to some degree, so maybe he'll just leave office because he's had enough. But then there's shit like this and the new ammo ban and it just keeps coming.

  • John||

    He just keeps pushing harder and harder. He is going to keep doing more and more tyrannical shit until the country revolts and kicks his sorry ass out of office. The only question is where is that line and will he cross it before he runs out of time. I am not sure what the answer to that is.

    My guess is he will get close to it and the Democrats will take an epic ass beating in 2016 causing him to deem the country unworthy of him and him to leave office in a snit and probably move overseas somewhere.

  • ||

    Maybe if we're lucky he can go too far before then and actually get impeached. That is a circus I would LOVE to see. Oh god that would be AMAZING.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Honestly, I'd pay a lot to watch that on pay-per-view.

  • John||

    I would give anything to see the Democrats actually turn on him and kick him out of office. The shot of him and his sorry wife getting on the helicopter Nixon style would be one of the greatest sights of my lifetime.

    I can't see it happening. The Democrats just won't turn on him. I don't know what he would have to do to get them to turn on him. He is even screwing over their own big money supporters here and they won't do it.

  • ||

    He'll never be impeached.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    That is a circus I would LOVE to see. Oh god that would be AMAZING.

    I'd move to the country, stock up on popcorn, and watch the riots on TV.

  • Invisible Finger||

    The FCC would not allow the riots to be televised or streamed.

  • perlhaqr||

    Well, they'd allow it, it just wouldn't be technically feasible any more.

  • ||

    He wants them to try impeachment so that he can play the race card.

    He's going to take this a lot further over the next year or so, we haven't seen anything yet.

    The more he gets away with, the further he will push.

  • John||

    Hyperion,

    I think the next thing he is going to do is start spending money and issuing treasury notes without the approval of Congress. The Republicans are likely going to cut the shit out of a lot of his pet programs in the next budget. What do you think the chances are he just declares the budget void and spend the money anyway? I say 50/50 at least.

  • CatoTheElder||

    After this and the ammo ban, I wouldn't put anything past Obama ... other than the 3rd term. He's certainly going to Cloward-Piven unilaterally in a big way for the next two years.

  • Harun||

    Ammo ban? *googles*

    Holy mother of god.

  • ||

    something, something creased pants...

    Obama is just ignoring the fact that the public gave the house and senate to the 'publicans for a reason. And with no real check on his power, why would he listen?

  • ||

    Obama is just ignoring the fact that the public gave the house and senate to the 'publicans for a reason. And with no real check on his power, why would he listen?

    Unfortunately, there's a disturbingly strong line of thinking on the left that a "do-nothing Congress" means that the President can simply take dictatorial action.

    "Elections have consequences", but only if the right people win them.
  • Rich||

    Ah, HA! This Cuba stuff now makes more sense!

  • Rich||

    @ John 2:07

  • grrizzly||

    Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.

  • Bill||

    I read that last bit as "new arm band" at first and got very worried ......

  • Kahlua Akbar||

    he's just going to issue some emergency action and refuse to leave office.

    Not sure how the logistics of that could possibly work. He would need force to back that up, and I don't see the military or even federal LEAs backing him up on that.

  • ||

    I don't think we're lucky enough to have him kindly fuck off to private life. No, I wouldn't be surprised to see him in future administrations as a returning Senator/cabinet member/Handicapper General/etc. Believe me, I'd love to be wrong here.

    Most of Silicon Valley eagerly supported him and this, so Mencken's "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard" comes immediately to mind.

  • John||

    That all depends on what happens in 2016. If the Democrats lose, they will want nothing to do with him and neither will the country.

    No, Obama will deem the country unworthy of him in 2017. My guess is that he will end up on the payroll of the PA or some other foreign entity. He won't be head of the UN. No one likes him enough. But he will be out working for various enemies of the west and the US. You watch.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Americans are barred from being Secretary General.

  • ||

    Obama will just issue some executive action to make it possible for him to be Secretary General. He'll threaten them, by saying he'll boot them from US soil and cut off all funding.

  • Rhywun||

    He'll threaten them, by saying he'll boot them from US soil and cut off all funding.

    Finally something I can get behind.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Americans are barred from being Secretary General.

    Well that's a bit odd for an American Empire to tolerate.

  • John||

    Americans are barred from being Secretary General.

    Watch him admit to being born in Kenya to get around that rule. Wouldn't that be delicious if the birthers were right? I would rather see him leave office and then casually admit he was born in Kenya than see him impeached. The media having to eat shit over that would be priceless.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, see, you don't understand Obama at all. He'll tell them he was born in Kenya to become SecGen, but, in actuality, he really was born in Hawaii.

  • Restoras||

    If the Democrats lose, they will want nothing to do with him

    I'm not so sure about that. Of course, that would be the logical thing to do politically - but I wonder if there is a big enough segment of Team Blue that might circle the wagons and say the country didn't deserve Obama, he was to forward-thinking for the proles, and they will double down on their progtard bullshit, with Obama as a standard bearer. He is a community organizer, after all - I bet he goes back to that. He'll be with us like we've been stuck with Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

  • John||

    The media will do that. They have no choice. But Democratic politicians won't. Hell, even black politicians are getting tired of his sorry ass.

  • Restoras||

    I think you are right about that, but we are talking about someone with a major narcissistic personality disorder - I just don't see him adopting a Cincinnatus lifestyle. He was a community organizer - I think there is a good chance he goes into some kind of advocacy work for proggie causes. Plus the media still loves him so they'll be more than happy to have him on at every turn.

    If he were smart - which I don't think he is - he'd angle for a university president job.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    His Beautification post-presidency will be even harder to stomach than his administration.

  • John||

    Restoras,

    That is what Obama for America is. Obama wants to be the major force in politics after he leaves office. He wants a movement. Instead, I think he is just going to be a festering boil on the ass of the Democratic party.

    Imagine if Bush had never left the public spotlight after leaving office. The Republicans would have been fucked. That is what is going to happen to the Democrats with Obama.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Key difference John is that mass media and the entertainment industry will treat the two totally differently.

  • John||

    Yes Trolls they will. And that will just take them down with him.

  • Restoras||

    I see your point and generally agree with you, but as DwT points out, his Beautification will begin in earnest as soon as he leaves office, or sooner if a Republican wins, and with the media on his side I can see him Not Being Ignored. Plus, people have short memories, especially for bad/unpleasant stuff, so a concerted campaign to buff his image might raise his popularity enough so that the networks keep shoving his funny looking mug at us - at least until the next mid-term election. If, as you say, that whole scenario contributes to another defeat for Team Blue - then I can see the party totally abandoning him, but not until then. I just think there are enough hard core liberals and media sycophants to keep him in an elevated public position for at least his first two years out of office.

  • John||

    Restoras,

    The Democratic party may have gotten into a death spiral of extremism. They just keep kicking more and more groups out of the party and the smaller it gets, the more extreme its remaining members.

    This action is kicking silicon valley out of the party. I never thought they would do that. I think we are hitting some kind of tipping point. Nothing stays the same forever. Parties don't last forever.

    As idiotic as this is, part of me thinks that it isn't the threat we think it is because it is like all forms of central planning going to fail miserably and just further discredit the ideology behind it. It seems oddly fitting if it turns out that Obama who thought of himself as ushering in the era of big government and central planning ends up presiding over its death spiral. Call me naive but I can't shake the feeling that all of this is the last gasps of a dying ideology. Yeah, it is going to do a lot of damage and be a very rough ride, but it is not going to last.

  • Restoras||

    I don't think that's naive at all and you may well be right. They seem to be losing blue-collar working class people and that's a huge problem for them. If that constituency ever became more independent and less of a lock there is nothing for them to replace it with, in terms of a base.

  • perlhaqr||

    Yeah, that's because they hate everything working class people actually do to, y'know, make a living.

    Steel, cars, oil...

  • perlhaqr||

    OH! You guys mean "beatification". That makes more sense now.

    I was like "What, he's going to get a bunch of plastic surgery?"

  • CatoTheElder||

    He's going to follow in the footsteps of Clinton. He'll set up the Obama Foundation, and run up $50 million in travel expenses over the next fifteen years. Meanwhile, Michele will enter politics.

  • Rhywun||

    Meanwhile, Michele will enter politics.

    Holy hell don't even joke like that.

  • CatoTheElder||

    It's not a joke ... it's inevitable.

  • PACW||

    How do you do italics and bold? I get a text box but no options to do stuff with the text.

    Not that I've had as witty a reason to use them as this.

  • Rhywun||

    Google how to use HTML elements i and b, or install reasonable if you're on Chrome.

  • thom||

    2017,maybe,but by 2021 it will have all blown over. We all really do have the face the fact that 20 years from now he will widely be considered one of the greatest President's ever. He is the first black president. Full stop, that's all that is necessary.

    My prediction: when the Democrats regain the Presidency in 2024 he will be nominated, and easily confirmed, for the Supreme Court.

  • perlhaqr||

    OK, now you're just trying to give someone convulsions. ;)

  • DarrenM||

    ...a president that has declared himself above the law?

    Only God is above the law! ....oh

  • Puddin' Stick||

    Oh, don't forget provisions that allow the NSA to spy on internet traffic.

  • AlgerHiss||

    "...Once Silicon Valley gets a look at the details..."

    Silicon Valley is heavily populated with leftists. Big, powerful government is not a big problem with this bunch.

    Always remember: Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.

  • JW||

    "Once Silicon Valley gets a look at the details, they are going to hit the ceiling start to think of ways of how they can cash in."

    Fixed.

  • Rhywun||

    If there isn't something in here about subsidized net access for disabled illegal immigrant lesbians of color,

    Now you're just being ridiculous. It's only 320 pages, they can't fit in everything you know.

  • Sevo||

    PapayaSF|2.26.15 @ 1:42PM|#
    ..."Once Silicon Valley gets a look at the details, they are going to hit the ceiling."...

    Dunno.
    Did you see the reports of SV lapping-up Shrillery's j'accuse on 'wymenz-be-victims' campaign stump speech the other day?

  • PapayaSF||

    No, but it's one thing to applaud PC platitudes, and quite another to want the feds to decide what web companies are allowed to do and charge and maybe say.

  • harryborten||

    How delusional can you be?

    Jesus.

    Yes, let's let the monopolies (which are natural monopolies because who wants to run wires everywhere) control what is on the internet. Great idea, Reason commenters.

    There is a reason why every single consumer group supports NN. There is a reason why every EXCEPT the telcos and business friendly republicans support. NN.

    You all are on the wrong side of this, and of history.

  • mplspolitics||

    MOAR PLATITUDES, Mario! https://www.facebook.com/harry.borten

  • epsilon given||

    Running wires doesn't lead to natural monopolies. What leads to natural monopolies is local municipalities insisting on giving monopoly rights to right-of-ways for wires.

    If we want to open up competition, we need to stop these "natural" monopolies. Regulating the internet isn't the way to go.

  • sarcasmic||

    The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks.

    You didn't build that!

  • Real American||

    Net neutrality is the solution to the problem of government not running the internet.

  • esteve7||

    and you guys keep saying there's no difference between republicans and democrats.... so who voted yes and no on this one?

  • Andrew S.||

    If there were 3 R and 2 D members of the FCC, and an R President said it was an important thing to pass, how do you think the vote would have gone?

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    The Chamber of Commerce would have "harumphed" and it would have failed.

  • Kahlua Akbar||

    Except the R president wouldn't have said that, which seems to be the point.

  • ATC0||

    So much for our Libertarian moment.

  • Restoras||

    Wait, when did we have one?

  • ||

    Did you blink? You missed it.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    The Libertarian Moment is a lot like a Senior Moment in which a liberty focused individual forgets the nature of the world they live in and either a) attempt to assert the supremacy of the BoR, or b) give into optimism about liberty in the future.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    *applause*

  • ||

    This... and the 5.56 ammo story... and the Treasury spending an unauthorized $3B on Obamacare... why bother having a Congress or a Judicial branch?

  • From the Tundra||

    ...why bother having a Congress or a Judicial branch?

    Jobs program for retarded people?

  • ||

    Well there is that :(

  • Restoras||

    That's what Metro North is for, at least in NYC. I assume it's the same everywhere else.

  • CatoTheElder||

    For the same reason Rome had a Senate after Caesar became emperor.

    It was a tradition that maintained the facade of citizen rule. And it paid pretty well, too.

  • Rich||

    I trust that those who had a part in writing "Wheeler's proposal" will be proud enough of their "solution" to come forward and be thanked.

  • Raston Bot||

    Civil servants do what now? HAHAHAHAHAHA

    The political appointees like that Gigi Sohn person are just PR hacks that tweet brainless tripe.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I wonder how many toll booths my internet traffic will have to pass through on the way to Reason.com?

  • geraldinejnoga||

    my neighbor's step-aunt makes $85 every hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $17746 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out the post right here........

    ➜➜➜➜➜ www.netpay20.com

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Not anymore.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Hand carried discs FTW!

  • trshmnster the terrible||

    Mail order cam girl videos. It's like the 90s all over again!

  • Joe_C||

    Hilarious.

  • Number 2||

    "Obama’s statement, itself somewhat atypical in its attempt to publicly influence an independent regulatory agency, followed a long, secret effort inside the White House, in which administration staffers acted, as The Wall Street Journal reported, “like a parallel version of the FCC.” "

    Someone tell me again about "independent"
    administrative agencies relying on their "expertise" to further the "public interest" free of political influence.

  • ||

    frozen in amber. the future now belongs to the successor of the internet.

  • DJK||

    Interesting thought. Do things like MAIDSAFE get a big boost in response?

  • ||

    No. Why would it/they?

  • DJK||

    The successor of the Internet, if it ever comes about, is likely to be something highly decentralized. Such technologies have been on the radar mainly as a result of governmental intrusions into information technology. First, it was revelations of NSA practices. This seems to be another thing that could make the EFF crowd upset and further catalyze innovation in this area.

  • ||

    You have not explained why NN regs would make users want to use a decentralized layer on top of existing infrastructure.

  • HolgerDanske||

    In order to have a successor, you need to first define "the Internet". Otherwise the regulation can apply to just about anything that vaguely resembles what we have today.

  • EV||

    "Wheeler's plan promises to use the FCC's forbearance authority to hold off on some of the more onerous parts of Title II regulation, like rate regulation"

    This is the most laughable part of that entire fucking thing. All it is going to take is one softy liberal complaining about price and then you will see our dumbass Pres on TV saying things like "No one should go broke in America over internet access" or "If I had an internet it would be free."

    Liberals have no idea what unintended consequences are and can't fucking think 1 step ahead let alone 5-20 years down the line when there are new people at the FCC.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Thinking 1 step ahead is like doing math. It's teh hard.

  • Murray Got hard||

    What is especially owrellian is that the proggies tout this as their lords and saviors "saving the internet"

  • sarcasmic||

    They're running to the front of the parade and pretending to lead it.

  • tlapp||

    Just like the old German socialist model. No need to own the means of production just own the property rights that used to belong to the property owner.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    You know who else implemented a German socialist model?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    Ludendorff... "War Socialism"?

  • Restoras||

    The Soviet Union?

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Tiger Woods?

  • ||

    golf clap?

  • ||

    it was a good run for 20 years.

  • Drake||

    We can tell our grand-kids what it was like to freely exchange information - but only when well away from any electronics.

  • Rich||

    when well away from any electronics

    What a concept!

  • metnfvaxxa||

    I just got paid usd6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that's cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over usd 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,,,,,
    www.work-mill.com

  • Enough About Palin||

    You are so fucked now.

  • SugarFree||

    Obama has shit in the punchbowl so many times, it's all turds now.

  • ||

    Turds with Red No 2.

  • NealAppeal||

    It's turds all the way down.

  • simschad68||

    My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!

    ........... www.Jobs-Fashion.Com

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    "We make profit on the Internet since 1998!"

    Are you shifting to lobbyist now?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Here's what Congress should do: Threaten to defund the FCC. If not the whole thing, at least don't fund this nationalization of the Internet. They can do that without worrying about a veto, since they control spending.

    Holy shit is this a bad idea.

  • Murray Got hard||

    they have no spine they wont do sh*T

  • ||

    They'll be labeled racists and haters of the poor because they want to deny the poor and minorities access to affordable internet.

    A week after this, the left will act like women and children were dying in the streets before this regulation because of lack of internet.

  • Murray Got hard||

    It is a never ending cycle. The state will always create a market failure (where in reality there are subtle unnoticed cartel-like restrictions that ruin the market) and use this fake market failure to persuade the citizenry to let them expand their power. Same thing happened in healthcare, education etc.

    I used to think that a collapse would end it, but maybe they are more competent at keeping the system running (as in not going bankrupt) then we give them credit for?

  • ||

    threaten? no, they should just defund the FCC period.

  • John||

    They could just pass a law right now putting a stop to this. The problem is Obama would veto and the Democrats would refuse to override it.

    They could defund the FCC, but it has already been funded for this year. They could do it for next year but Obama could likely manipulate it into a shut down and the media would cover for him as they accused Republicans of being meanies and shutting down the government because they hate Obama.

    Without a veto proof majority, it is very hard for one party in Congress to stop a President. And I honestly can't see him doing anything that the Democrats and the media won't support.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They should just say flat out that the FCC is done if this doesn't get shitcanned. It's a legislative act by the commission, so Congress is right in the procedural sense as well as the substantive. Fuck Obama and fuck the media. This is a big move in the wrong direction for one of the few great innovations we've produced in the last few decades.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    But probably a great move for cronies left and right so I assumed that it was just a matter of time that this happened. It's kind of astonishing that it took this long.

  • ||

    It's because 'hands off the internet' was one of the very rare things that had brought the left and right together. But of course, our fearless leaders, knowing what gullible sheep most liberals are, painted a pretty picture for them, got them behind it, and then hid the true plan in 320 pages of regulation and got it passed.

    You watch, all of the liberals who supported this shit will be screaming the loudest when they 'find out what's in it'.

    I mean how stupid do you have to be to not even be a little suspicious of 320 pages of new rules that no one is allowed to see?

  • Joe_C||

    Is that last question rhetorical?

  • John||

    That is one upside to all of this. Obama is destroying the very instruments of liberal governance. Before this, the chances of the Republicans really going after the FCC were zero. Now, they will never fund it or have any faith in it again. And neither will the country. The FCC is supposed to be non-partisan and Obama just shit all over that. Long term, I can't see that working out too well for supporters of big government.

  • Restoras||

    Now, they will never fund it or have any faith in it again.

    You really think so? I don't think the Republicans have the balls to do that. Now that they control Congress, they'll do everything they can to create a go-along/get-along atmosphere with all the bureaucrats.

  • John||

    They won't defund it, but they will cut the shit out of its funding. And they sure as hell won't go along with giving it any more power. And the Republicans were before this pretty pro FCC. The Republicans loved their indecency standards after all.

    The FCC is now nothing but a political football. That undercuts the entire justification for its existence.

  • ||

    I think Hillary best illustrated the point of this when she said 'It's a foot in the door'.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I think she best illustrated this when the Lewinsky debacle broke on The Drudge Report in 1998. Hillary said in response:

    “We’re all going to have to rethink how we deal with the Internet. As exciting as these new developments are, there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function…"

  • Ryan60657||

    Wondering if the ISPs like Comcast and AT&T are happy or sad. On the one hand, it will prevent them from extorting fees from Amazon Prime or NetFlix and thus curtail a potential source of revenue growth. However, it also prevents new competition from upstarts who might be able to offer free (or at least discounted) internet service by allowing certain content providers to subsidize costs.

  • ||

    What do you think? Regulation will allow them to send their armies of lobbyist to lobby for even more regulation to kill off their competition, what little is left of it. Big ISPs are going to love the shit out of this, as it literally will ensure that they maintain even bigger monopolies.

  • ||

    yep - the Cartel-enabling bill

  • ||

    bill made up rules.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Public choice for the regulatory capture win!

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Hey kids, remember when the internet was wild and free?

    Seriously, how does this get reversed? What would have to happen to free the internet?

  • ||

    A few options, without comment on likeliness:

    * The order could be struck down by the courts

    * What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away -- it can amend the legislation upon which this order is based (Communications Act of 1934, I think)

    * The FCC could revoke/replace the order

  • ||

    First of all, Obama has already shown his willingness to ignore the courts.

    2nd, Obama would veto any amendment to that legislation that would alter this regulation, if it could even pass, which it won't because democrats own it.

    FCC is not going to revoke it, they just passed it.

  • John||

    All true. But any future President and Congress can easily undo this. And when they do, they are likely to undo a lot more than this. If there is a silver lining to this cloud it is that progs will never again be able to convince anyone that the FCC is anything but a political tool. It is hard to defend such things after they completely lose their legitimacy like this.

  • DJK||

    Better yet, Internet 2.0. The technology is already starting to come about in the form of things like MAIDSAFE. This FCC nonsense seems like another catalyst for these sorts of technologies.

  • John||

    That is just it. Technology rolls on faster than the planners can account for it. There will be something that will replace the internet.

  • DJK||

    This is what I'd like to believe. I'm not sure I'm convinced of it. But I guess it really is the only hope. Rollback of regulation is not going to happen anytime soon. Technology making the regulation obsolete very well might.

  • ||

    Just wait, it won't be long before the liberals that have been cheer leading this on and are now rejoicing about their great victory, will be yelling 'the corporations have bought our government again! We'll just make our own internet!'. Lol, it's going to be a 3 ring circus.

  • John||

    Come on Hyperion,

    I am sure Google got those last minute changes out of genuine concern for the public good.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Does this new regulation, or any law it is based on define what the Internet actually is?

    If not, assume that any data transmitted via a public'ish network is "the Internet", and subject to this regulation.

  • BigT||

    Remember Pirate Radio? Is it possible to set up Pirate Internet with everything offshore and satellite relayed? Then it would be beyond the FCC's reach.

  • ||

    Internet service providers like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile will have to act in the “public interest” when providing a mobile connection to your home or phone, under new rules approved by the FCC.

    The rules put the Internet in the same regulatory camp now as the telephone, banning providers from “unjust or unreasonable” business practices.

    Who defines the "public interest" or "unjust or unreasonable"? By what standard?

    Holy shit, this really is like an Ayn Rand novel come to life.

  • Rich||

    And with significant "going Galt" things will *really* get interesting.

  • ||

    If our government is not brought under control by the people, it's going to be more like the Hunger Games than Atlas Shrugged.

  • Restoras||

    Funny, I was thinking the same thing. But even in Atlas Shrugged, the dystopia descended to the point where a lone signalman, equipped only with a lantern, braved the darkness to help Dagny get the trains running. No idea why that image stuck with me after all these years.

  • sarcasmic||

    Penaltax!

  • Will Nonya||

    So net neutrality will allow ISP's to be prosecuted both for what they block form their networks and what they allow. Nice move by Top. Men.

    I have to wonder how this affects the legality of the governments internet surveillance. Or at least the arguments they use to claim legality. Does it make their claims stronger or does it make them more vulnerable to challenge?

  • sarcasmic||

    It's like anti-trust.

    Charge too little and you're undercutting, charge too much and you're gouging, charge the same and you're colluding.

    Basically it means "Kiss our asses or we'll make up some excuse to prosecute you."

  • ||

    Isn't it funny how anti-trust resulted in more monopolies over time?

  • sarcasmic||

    You mean when established businesses can sick regulators on their competition, you get more monopolies? I never would have thought of that.

  • ||

    Well, the big businesses made the government collude with them! Because they have a monopoly on force and the government couldn't... oh wait...

  • sarcasmic||

    No, no, no, no, NO! Government and business collude because government isn't powerful enough to stop itself from colluding! If we give government even more power, then it will control the businesses that control it!

  • CatoTheElder||

    Or when you erect insurmountable regulatory barriers, there are no new entrants to a market or technological innovations?

    Certainly that's an unintended consequence.

  • DrAwkward||

    Now let me state the present rules,"
    The lawyer then went on,
    "These very simple guidelines,
    You can rely upon:
    You're gouging on your prices if
    You charge more than the rest.
    But it's unfair competition if
    You think you can charge less!
    "A second point that we would make
    To help avoid confusion...
    Don't try to charge the same amount,
    That would be Collusion!
    You must compete. But not too much,
    For if you do you see,
    Then the market would be yours -
    And that's Monopoly!

  • DesigNate||

    Be prepared for it to mean they can spy on whatever the fuck they like and you can just take it.

  • esteve7||

    don't read the NY times article on this, my brain literally hurts from the amount of derp there.

    people claiming they are SHOCKED this was a partisan issue, that those 2 GOP members voted against something that is PRO BUSINESS

    Gotta stop those evil corporations from creating fast lanes

    We settled for one type of regulation (the government) over another (from the ISPs)

    Holy Shit

  • ||

    Just don't read the comments at NYT. It is literally heart breaking to know that we share the planet with so many clueless idiots who like to think of themselves as smart.

  • Andrew S.||

    So a friend of mine just told me this:

    Honestly Andy, I know you're anti-government everything, but the ISPs were engaging in such blatantly anti-competitive practices that I don't see how you can defend them, especially since existing laws made it virtually impossible for new ISPs to enter the marketplace.

    Now, you can argue that it was the government that created this situation in the first place, and you may be right, but then is it not the government's responsibility to police these companies?

    The problem is too much government regulation! The solution... more government regulation!

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    There just isn't a clue stick big enough for some people. When internet service slows and costs double five years from now he will be singing the same fucking song.

  • From the Tundra||

    Sorry to tell you this, Andrew, but I'm afraid your friend has severe brain damage.

  • Murray Got hard||

    roast your friend. Dont let his stupidity slide

  • ||

    Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

    Just remind your friend of saying this, say that you wont't forget and will bring it up again in a couple of years when no new ISPs have entered the Market, Comcast has gobbled up even more of the market, and we are paying more for less internet.

  • ||

    I would send him some links - like how Google colluded with this... and how members of the FCC used to work for the providers being regulated.

  • ||

    Google has text on their search page now rejoicing about the win. Hmm, why would a big corporation be rejoicing about this? I thought it was all about socking it to the big corps and helping the people? Something is wrong here, already.

  • John||

    The biggest corporation in the world thinks this is great. They must really be selfless over at google.

  • Sevo||

    Why, they just want to do good! And I think they're doing very well indeed.

  • JW||

    blatantly anti-competitive practices

    [citation needed]

  • ||

    If your friend is suffering from Comcast PTSD point out that the Comcast execs are Democrats who are some of the largest contributors to the party. Attempt to point to that this means that this imagined day of reckoning may not be coming.

    Also? Anti-competitive practices? If a business is granted a legal monopoly, they don't have to care. Sounds pretty anti-competitive to me!

    Ugh. This shit has been nonstop in my social circles as of late and I'm just sick and tired of it. I basically accept that when it comes to guns or drugs or whatnot that I'm not going to win some people over and I don't sweat it too much. When it comes to this, for some foolish reason, I seem expect differently and it exhausts me.

  • Raston Bot||

    Did you ask your pet idiot what problem this would solve and how it would solve it? I always start with that. ALWAYS.

  • Almanian!||

    seems legit

  • ||

    Where the hell is Shreek and Tony? Are they in their bunk having an orgasm over even more government control over their life?

  • From the Tundra||

    Tony's still over in Suderman's thread basking in the glow of the visiting racists.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I'm sure they'll be along soon enough. Al Gore invented the internet--Barack Obama saved it! Any negative consequences are just market failure! And Bush's fault!

    I just covered their talking points but they'll have to repeat them anyway.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    How long before we see populists advocating for internet price controls because of the resulting increase in costs?

  • ||

    "The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks."

    'Their networks'. Private property, is it not? The FedGov just appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars of hardware from these private companies? Is that right?

    How is this not fascism?

  • JW||

    How is this not fascism?

    It is, but without any style.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Private property, is it not?

    The idea is that government regulation will increase the efficiency of the the Internet. Just like it did for the railroads.

  • harryborten||

    Yes, because we obviously want 100 railroads and 100 fiber lines running through every neighborhood.

    Idiot.

  • Libertarius||

    You truly are a clueless, helpless, incompetent drooling moron. When the railroads were taxed and regulated to death back in the old days, it was a fucking disaster. By the time you got to the 1970's, they had no money to maintain their tracks, but Uncle Sugar was there to make train schedules (which was also a fucking disaster); entire systems were abandoned. It was the 1980 deregulation of the RRs that made their resurgence possible, and it is this NN idiocy that is going to strangle the internet and hand it over to the fascist leftoid cronies.

    Your leftwing statist-collectivist-fascist idiotology is on its fucking deathbed--these are the last, desperate gasps of a dying ideology.

  • harryborten||

    Everyone needs internet. It needs to be a utility. Just like water and gas, which works great for 99% of people with fair prices and good availability.

    Something as important as the internet should be not be incorporate hands. There is NO COMPETITION and there will never be competition because who the fuck wants to lay down fiber lines everywhere? Idiots.

  • ||

    Americans INVESTED for many years in the Research and even the WIRING of the WHOLE PLANET for the Internet !
    Corporations are WELCOME to use ALL the Technology from the Public Investment to CREATE THEIR OWN INTERNET !
    Then you can LEAVE our Investment alone.
    PLEASE do so !
    Don't worry we will NOT visit the Corporate Internet unless we wish to Buy or Sell something just like any other Business and would expect to pay to play there !
    So take ALL your Tracking Software and SPY Programs off the Public Utility and call us sometime we'll have lunch.

  • Almanian!||

    Herc?

  • From the Tundra||

    I wish.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    needz moar RANDOM caps.

  • ||

    Your Capslock key is sticking, need to fix that.

  • Raston Bot||

    In his defense, if I had five boys I'd be insane too.

  • Free Society||

    So once all internetz is solidly in the control of political institutions, no one will spy on you anymore? Great thinking. God help us next time government contractors develop a technology, they'll put us over a barrel for generations and create legions of internet trolls with broken CAPS LOCK keys and broken logic.

  • MJGreen||

    They can spy on you to make sure you're not thinking or saying the wrong things, but they will NOT spy on you to figure out what new products or sales might interest you. It's the latter spying that is so galling and dangerous.

  • Loki||

    Any comment where I see RANDOM ALL-CAPS is pretty much guaranteed to be a marvel of well thought ou, logical points. ALWAYS. /sarc

  • Free Society||

    Sometimes a comment is so sarcastic that to finish it off with a '/sarc' tag is to insult the intelligence of non-retards everywhere.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    WANT CAKE?

    *smashes handful of chocolate cake into maw and starts licking fingers*

  • Mike M.||

    And the Overton Window just got moved yet again. This guy makes King George III look like Patrick Henry.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Unthinkable!

  • Invisible Finger||

    To make sure everyone has access to the internet, the internet will be closed from 7pm to 10pm 7 days a week.

  • ||

    They are going crazy over at Daily Kos. We won, we finally won!

    This over 320 pages of regulation that they have no idea what's in it. WTF? Can people really be this dumb?

  • Invisible Finger||

    It's easy to "win" when there isn't any, you know, democratic process involved.

  • JW||

    Can people really be this dumb?

    You just shut up and be thankful for your chocolate ration.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    I hear it is being increased to 20 grams! Plus good!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    That's what they did for Obamacare, so it's not surprising they'd spooge all over themselves for ObamaNet.

  • John||

    Yes they can be. It makes me almost want to wish for President Huckabe and a super majority in each congress. I would love to see those assholes finally feel some pain for the idiocies they advocate.

    Net Neutrality really does separate the ordinary evil Progs from the full on functionally retarded ones. The ordinary evil Progs are smart enough to realize how bad this is. The retarded ones not so much.

  • DesigNate||

    There's no way that President Santorum and a Republican House and Senate would ever use this to ban porn or sites that talk about sex or evolution.

    Nope, no way.

  • Free Society||

    That's too far away and hypothetical to matter. Name one single time in human history that a government power was expanded and then abused by subsequent regimes in way that were unforeseen by the policy pushers. You can't do it. Never happened. Well? *sticks fingers in ears... LALALALALALALA*

  • SMcBride||

    Yes, people are stupid, and they want to be ruled.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm sure this will go well.

  • ||

    And they got the last bastion of free speech and innovation.
    Next stop USSA

    Taking bets now on what internet service will cost in two years.

    Oh, don't forget provisions that allow the NSA to spy on internet traffic.

    I wonder how many toll booths my internet traffic will have to pass through on the way to Reason.com?

    frozen in amber. the future now belongs to the successor of the internet.

    We can tell our grand-kids what it was like to freely exchange information - but only when well away from any electronics.

    I would hope they choke to death when their internet is slowed to a crawl and costs them more than a car payment, but it will affect me too so I can't.

    When internet service slows and costs double five years from now he will be singing the same fucking song.

    Christ, I'm anti-NN regs but the histrionics in this thread make this place look like bizzaro-reddit.

  • KDN||

    We have enjoyed so many salty ham tears over the years that it's time we gave some back.

  • DesigNate||

    Okay, the "more than a car payment" might be a bit hyperbolic, but there's no question that prices will increase and quality will decrease.

  • Sevo||

    Carl, you remember when the CRA passed and we were told in absolute terms that there never would be quotas?
    Remember when smoking first got restricted and we were assured that no one would ever consider dietary restrictions?
    So now, I gotta ask which of those quotes do you *really* think is unlikely?

  • Bush League||

    There should be no optimism on here that this may get undone in the future. It's over. The history books have already been written, they'll tell about fearless President Obama's great leadership in overseeing the regulations that will save the internet.

    You see, before these regulations, the internet was an unregulated wasteland controlled by robber barons that had no concern for the desires of their customers. The greedy ISPs colluded and almost destroyed We The People's most coveted service, Netflix. They censored small websites and threatened to throttle companies that didn't pay them enough.

    And if you don't think it's plausible something like that could be written in a history textbook, go grab your child's history textbook and read the chapter on railroads.

  • John||

    How did that work out for the railroads? Not so good. Meanwhile, the world moved on. And so will we.

    And things do get undone. The only part of the new Deal that exists today is social security. Everything else was either repealed or rewritten as to be unrecognizable to the new deal socialists who drafted it.

  • PapayaSF||

    Well, farm subsidies are still around.

  • John||

    But they have been paying off the farmers since the nation was founded.

  • ||

    Does this mean I can finally get some beer delivered by drone? Oh, wait, that's the FAA.

    Dear President Obama, can you please issue the FAA 320 pages of regulation to pass and sneak beer delivery by drone in there somewhere?

    I mean, since you are King now, you can do anything right? What about re-runs of Fantasy Island, can you do that too, boss?

  • Loki||

    So long internet, it was nice knowing you.

    Fuck these shitstains...

  • Chocolatejeebus||

    Ah, freedom and free markets take another blow. And not the good kind.

  • Mr. Soul||

    Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Does this mean Comcast can no longer throttle you for running a Pirate Bay hub out of your house? Asking for a friend.

  • perlhaqr||

    I see no way this could go poorly.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Nice to see the Democrats do John Ashcroft's bidding.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Fuck the FCC!

  • SusanM||

  • Ken Shultz||

    Great memories.

    Used to hear people say "Eff the FCC" on that show more often than "Baba Booie".

    Time to bring that shit back.

    Fuck the FCC.

    We should start adding it as a postscript to everything we write on the internet--like Cato the Elder and "Carthago Delenda Est".

    As in:

    "The growth in legal marijuana revenue doesn't necessarily represent new users of the stuff. Much of that revenue growth is simply displacing profits that would be going to street gangs and cartels.

    P.S. Fuck the FCC"

  • SusanM||

    At the very least, Stern could re-release his "Crucified by the FCC" boxset.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Irrumabo autem FCC

  • PACW||

    I approve. I will probably use 'Eff" because that's more my style but I agree wholeheartedly.

  • XM||

    Can someone explain to me how NN will increase internet speed? Because that's what really matters, because there's no way anyone will get "free" or discount internet.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It will increase speed precisely in the same way that Obamacare reduced healthcare costs.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    *quietly removes Steam shortcut from desktop*

  • Mickey Rat||

    It does not. It literally means making every type of connection equally slow. It prioritizes equality over efficiency.

  • albo||

    Nice. One Netflix battle with Comcast and everybody screams for the heavy hand of government.

  • Ghetto Slovak Goatherder||

    To posterity wondering how our civilization could destroy the greatest thing it invented: I am so, so sorry. Please know that some of us disagreed, some of us protested, and forgive the ignorance of our fellow man.

  • ||

    Anyone else's blood boiling like mine? It seems like people love this garbage too. People really love it when the government gets right up in your guts from your asshole with their phallus-shaped monopoly on UOF.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is there a more useless agency than the FCC?

    Arguably, their only useful purpose is to ensure that people aren't trespassing on each others' spectrum, but couldn't various types of broadcasters police that problem themselves--and call the police to enforce the law just like with any other trespasser?

    If somebody is converting your property for their own use--well, we have a common law tort for that and a court system that'll be happy to try your case. Why do we need an agency to do what the police and the courts are already there to do anyway?

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. Fuck the FCC!

  • np||

    People have used radio before the FCC and disputes were resolved in an analogous way to homesteading because it can be treated like land.

    Basically it boils down to first use of a particular frequency band in a particular area.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They could auction the spectrum off, and wouldn't that be great!

    They wouldn't have a license to hold over the broadcasters' heads every time Janet Jackson showed a little side boob, though--and what's the point of being a bureaucrat if you can't slut shame pop stars in public?!

  • SusanM||

    Speaking a someone who trusts neither Big Government or Big Business (unless you can show me the door to The Galt Dimension where today's captains of industry came from I'm left to assume they came from the same fetid bucket of turds our politicians, professors and lawyers came from) I really don't know what's at stake here.

  • Sevo||

    ..."I really don't know what's at stake here."...

    Uh, what's at stake is control over the internet is now in the hands of those with the guns, rather than those wishing to make a buck.

  • SusanM||

    That much I gathered. What I'm missing is how 300+ pages of regulations (a footnote compared to most) leads to gulags.

    The idea I gathered is that NN means that ISPs can't favor certain players and is itself content-neutral. If that's the case then the ISPs will have to charge more to cover bandwith-hogging internet services. Whereas those services would have to charge more or fold if they have to pay extra for access. It strikes me as a lose-lose situation for the customer either way. Maybe it's just that I've not reached the Orange level of enlightenment.

    I will say this: I actually kind of hope ISPs do start charging for email. a charge of even 1/10th of a cent would totally kill the spam industry (and free up a crap-ton of bandwidth along the way) which then couldn't send out a billion random emails.

  • MJGreen||

    Whereas those services would have to charge more or fold if they have to pay extra for access. It strikes me as a lose-lose situation for the customer either way.

    Consumers have more choice when those bandwidth-heavy services must pay. Your options:

    Pay $10 more for Internet
    Pay $2 more for Netflix, $2 more for Amazon Prime, more ads on Youtube, etc.

    Option 1 is now going to be forced on us. Will you stop paying for Internet altogether, because of that price increase? I'm guessing not. You'll eat the cost.

    But what if it's option 2? Now you can decide whether the additional cost that Netflix incurs is really worth it to you. It's easier to drop Netflix than it is your entire Internet service.

    And from an economic perspective, prices are more accurately representative of costs borne by Netflix and others. NN hides the cost that Netflix produces, and the price system conveys less accurate information.

  • SusanM||

    Ugh, more ads. They're reminding me more and more of NYC squeedgie-men these days.

    I see what you're saying, though.

  • Sevo||

    SusanM|2.26.15 @ 6:02PM|#
    "That much I gathered. What I'm missing is how 300+ pages of regulations (a footnote compared to most) leads to gulags."

    Get back to me in a year or so after someone is accused of violating reg. 201.3, chapter A.
    You really don't think the regulations will be enforced by coercion? Do you think they'll send someone by to persuade you to do the right thing?

  • SusanM||

    Depends on whose interests align with whose. Those someones being threatened will have a phalanx of lawyers to drag any legal proceedings out for years and plenty of payola on offer to keep things out of court. I think there's more danger of regulatory capture than secret police capture.

  • ||

    I kind of have faith in hackers to find ways around this crap. And the FCC won't be able to keep up. Like PEDs in sports are always ahead of the testers.

  • Swiss Servator... Switzy!||

    How does a hacker get around all of us having slower service, less innovation and higher prices?

  • Ken Shultz||

    A hacker can't solve problems like that.

    Those problems can only be solved by more regulation.

    P.S. Fuck the FCC!

  • CatoTheElder||

    Irrumabo autem FCC!

  • BigT||

    Remember Pirate Radio? Is it possible to set up Pirate Internet with everything offshore and satellite relayed? Then it would be beyond the FCC's reach

  • John Galt||

    How does a hacker enable us to not have our free speech strangled?

    And yeah I know about dark nets and what not, and it's not really free speech if it's only between those initiated into the esoteric.

  • Teaching Student||

    Unfortunately not all of us have the ability to hack.

  • Teaching Student||

    Oh, and Fuck the FCC!

  • ||

    You could already encrypt your traffic and send it through nonstandard ports. This is a fuckup on a far more fundamental level.

  • jjjjj||

    If only these regulations were as hypothetical as the problem NN advocates complain about.

  • Gorthan||

    Is it a coincidence that the Golden Age of Big Government is occurring at the same moment in history when the vast majority of Americans have become ADD-distracted-can't remember a phone number-I'll ask Google-fucks?

  • Vapourwear||

    Isn't this a fucking "rulemaking"? Doesn't that require publication to the Federal Register and a public comment period?

    Should at least be able to sue it into public comments.

  • Robes Pierre||

    Has Reason fulfilled its financial obligations to the second-most crony capitalist industry in America, or can we look forward to more talking point memos from the ISP behemoths?

  • Vapourwear||

    Now THAT'S some weak sauce.

  • John Galt||

    Piss off, slaver.

  • DesigNate||

    You know what?

    Go fuck yourself and any other of your inbred retard troll fucks that come here. Congratulations on making sure Comcast is your ONLY choice in the future. I hope you choke on your internet bill.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Robes Pierre is too stupid to make choices for himself.

    ...especially about his internet access.

    He probably needs the FDA to tell him not to eat dog shit, too.

  • John Galt||

    Sick MFers.

  • EMD||

    " i like free market because free markets can let any company make me pay whatever they want because i think i want it or cause i can't get it anywhere else"

    Actual Facebook comment.

  • John Galt||

    Democrats do well manipulating and exploiting "stupid Americans." In light of how effectively they use tactics such as shaming to get Republican politicians and justices to do their bidding, too, it'll be purely amazing if the small shreds of liberty we have left can last even a few more years.

  • EMD||

    "yeah free markets mean companies get more money to invest in their product and people and not do sketchy things with their stock options to line their own pockets and buy yachts and shit like that so they do honest business and savings get passed onto the consumer and business grows and whatnot regulation is donkey dick reaganomics 101"

    Same guy. I asked him if he's forced to buy anything he doesn't want. Outside of health insurance, of course.

  • samuraijacksonvna||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha­ I do......

    www.wixjob.com

  • samuraijacksonvna||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha­ I do......

    www.wixjob.com

  • samuraijacksonvna||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha­ I do......

    www.wixjob.com

  • SusanM||

    While you're here do you have a good Dim Sum recipe?

  • finerbiner||

    Libertarians, is there any degree to which multinational corps can diminish competition that will upset you?

    This fight is between two bad actors and I find it curious that you all seem to be only able to see one.

    You are all so afraid of the government but have no fear of companies that are becoming as large as governments?

    The 21st century is a fight between big government and big business. If you decrease govt power without putting in place safeguards against multinational corps, the corps will be your new masters.

  • Sevo||

    finerbiner,
    Is there any stupidity so deep that a lefty won't type it?

    "You are all so afraid of the government but have no fear of companies that are becoming as large as governments?"

    Yes, you ignorant asshole; the government CAN THROW YOU IN JAIL AND KILL YOU!
    How stupid are you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You are all so afraid of the government but have no fear of companies that are becoming as large as governments?"

    You're speaking purely from ignorance.

    There isn't a staff writer or a commenter here that hasn't denounced rent seeking corporations at one time or another.

    You're debating the libertarian voices in your head--that aren't really libertarian at all.

    P.S. Regulation is one of the key ways that corporations rent seek. Invariably, the corporations colonize their regulators. Regulation is the means by which corporations colonize their regulators.

    What the regulations were didn't matter when the regulations weren't there. Now the FCC is only going to pass rules that the industry approves of.

    You know what the telco industry was like when it was heavily regulated?

    Ma Bell.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHgUN_95UAw

    Watch that video very, very carefully.

    That's the internet comin' to you. When you can choose any service option you want--because they'll all be the same.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.P.S. Fuck the FCC!

  • MJGreen||

    Google is twice as large as Comcast. Why do you have no fear of the company that is much more of a government (in every metric) than Comcast?

    There is no fight between big business and big government. Big business loves big government. In this case, the winners are all big businesses, along with government regulators and lawyers. It's just that some big businesses are likely to gain more than others.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You know why the USSR collapsed?

    I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because central planning heavy regulation was, is, and always will be stupid.

    It's because they didn't have Obama--he's so very, very precious.

    If he wasn't there to make decisions about my internet for me, I don't what I would do!

    P.S. Fuck the FCC!

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    "...company that is much more of a government (in every metric)..."

    Google has SWAT teams?

    Oh, I get it.
    You're retarded.

  • MJGreen||

    In every metric that could be applicable to two large corporations.

    ...Hey! You're retarded!

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    One corp. is bigger than the other!
    The horror!
    They must all be made equal, by hatchet, axe and saw!

    Seems the whole idea of "force" and "coercion" versus "attraction" and "enticement" seems to elude you, sunshine.

    Big Business is a good thing, as long as it doesn't get it's hands on the guns, the guns that I fucking pay for with my fucking taxes!

  • MJGreen||

    They generally do get their hands on the guns, via the government. That's what I was saying.

    Take a breath. I'm not anti-business, pro-equality or anything. I even like Google on the whole. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in portraying Comcast as this huge, powerful villain, when Google is larger and has its fingers in many more pies, and is a major player in getting NN passed.

  • ZardozSpeaksToYou||

    I see.
    My apology for the ad-hom, then.
    The thing is, companies that own the connectivity infrastructure are more likely to be monopolies or part of cartels, as they invested the billions in the "last mile", and have already got reg's in place at the municipal level to stop other, smaller players from entering the market, say by buying a few dslams and starting up a small ISP.
    Companies like Google, while huge, just exist essentially as a bunch of server farms, and it's very easy to opt out of using their services as others join the market.
    Google used a huge investment to make street view, for example, no smaller company could have done that, but I still use DuckDuckGo sometimes, I have a choice.

  • kbolino||

    You are all so afraid of the government but have no fear of companies that are becoming as large as governments?

    The only corporation anywhere near as large as a government is Saudi Aramco. And it's owned by the Saudi government.

  • Dr Clayton Forrester||

    And now that's officially a utility *and* political football to be used to blackmail voters - all online small businesses prepare to bend over and grab your ankles.

    This is an important step towards justifying internet taxes. Congratulations! You just married your daughter, Frank!

  • Brian||

    I assume that the people who get excited about net neutrality are the same kind of people who get excited about free and reduced lunch.

  • bodenlosen Schweinerei||

    Nailed it. "All data plans are unlimited now!"

  • johny why||

    oh heck, why are they solving a problem that doesn't exist? very unamerican. there's no profit in prevention. much better to wait until it gets all fouled up beyond repair. now that's the american way.

  • beancrisp||

    FACT: Only people who support tyrannical government agree with the three goons who voted to regulate the Internet like a utility.

  • HiTechSurvival.com||

    So the same government that could not get Healthcare.gov working for 6 months now runs the internet.

    good god........

  • Tom Dial||

    Today's decision on net neutrality is an excellent start on solving the problem of insufficient government control over the internet, as likely was its intent.

    What it will not do is improve anyone's service, increase competition in the market for network communication services, or lower anyone's cost (unless followed up with the mandated tariffs that worked so well for telephone service in the last century).

    It is interesting that the NY Times reports for tomorrow's edition that the Dutch net neutrality regime, which they report allows chargebacks to high volume content providers like Netflix, hasn't brought deterioration in the two years or so since it was issued. They also do not report, however, that it has improved anything.

  • triclops||

    How will the FCC treat treasonous traitorous traitors like Snowden?

    I know this will make spying on Americans even easier than before, but how will Uncle Sam use this to increase censorship and punishment of whistleblowers?

  • J2Hess||

    Government properly conducted, by the people and of the people, is the guarantor of our liberties. Why you have no problem with monopolies restricting our liberties is a real puzzler.

  • FUQ||

    Monopolies don't have guns to kill you with or rape cages to throw you in. They have no ability to restrict your rights in any way. Only government has the ability to do these things. This rule change was done without the peoples consent. There was no vote by elected officials. Government just bypassed the people and dumbasses like you are happy about because it fucks those evil corporations.

  • Libertarius||

    Even if there was an economic monopoly for X, how could you possibly believe it was "restricting your liberty"?

    Does your concept of liberty include the right to use other people's property without their permission or recompense? I bet it does, that's why you're a subhuman idiot leftoid.

  • Denan7||

    There is no monopoly on cable services. You can become a cable service provider if you want to.... (At least you could *before* the Internet was moved under Title II... Now I'm not so sure.

    Assuming a pre-Title II Internet, first, get LOTS of money ($1B to $1.5B). Go to city/county cable commission and get a cable franchise license. These cable commissions want competition for their existing provider (say Comcast or Cox...). That allows you to be a cable TV provider and an ISP.

    (We'll skip telephone requires you to become a CLEC under Title II and God help you trying to get one of those...)

    Allocate 3 years before you connect your first home and 10 years plus before you expect to see a penny of profit. Then start tearing up streets to lay conduit for your fiber-optic network. Also you have to build a 100K sq-ft plus sq-ft facility to house the servers and other equipment for your cable head-end, ISP, telephone central office...

    There is no monopoly on cable. There is effective monopoly protection under Title II for land-line telephone service providers. Try getting either a ILEC license (Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier) or a CLEC (Competitive LEC) license. It won't happen.

  • TKList||

    Deregulate the Cable/ISP industry at the local, state and federal level.
    This will increase competition and produce better service at a lower price.

    If you do not have choices the culprit is more than likely your local and state regulations. Deal with your local politicians.

  • Colonel Nogov||

    Does the government have to destroy everything? The government NEVER shrinks. It only grows. It is impossible to put the monster back in the cage. Abolishing the government is the solution.

  • clemonsmargaret91||

    Work from home as a professional appointment setter. No sales and no experience required. Very simple business model with a SOLID company. Our team will train you with both offline and online marketing that WORKS!
    Serious inquiries only!..... WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  • GAuhymeri||

    I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing,,,,,,
    www.wixjob.com

  • ER Jones, Author||

    The big carriers will figure out a way to use the new rules to their advantage. The rules will be another hurdle for new companies to enter the market and compete. Some of the big carriers may be protesting, but over time, information will probably come out about how they were working the program.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I'd like to vote for a panel of citizens to regulate the FCC and tax them for it, with the money going back to taxpayers. I bet you they object to such reasonable "regulation." I'd also like to have them flogged.

  • lindy carbajal||

    my business partner was wanting CA BOF 4546 last month and was informed of a great service that hosts a lot of fillable forms . If you are searching for CA BOF 4546 also , here's a "http://pdf.ac/8GKe2t".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online