Just Because The Internet Didn't Implode The Day After Repeal Doesn't Mean Killing Net Neutrality Was A Good Idea

from the we've-been-over-this dept

By now we’ve well established that the FCC ignored the public, ignored the experts, and ignored all objective data when it killed net neutrality rules at the behest of telecom monopolies.

While the vote to kill the rules occurred last year, the rules didn’t technically die until last June 11. And one common refrain by Pai and pals (and many folks who don’t understand how the broken telecom market works) is that because the internet didn’t immediately collapse upon itself post-repeal in a rainbow-colored explosion, that the repeal itself must not be that big of a deal. For example, Ajit Pai tried to make that point again last week at an FCC oversight hearing that was severely lacking in the actual oversight department.

In his opening statement, Pai proclaimed (pdf) that the internet still working semi-reasonably is proof positive that the threat of the repeal was over-hyped:

At the time that the Restoring Internet Freedom Order was adopted, there were many hysterical predictions of doom. We were told that it would be the destruction of the Internet, or as some outlets put it, ?the end of the Internet as we know it.”…It has now been 67 days since the repeal of the previous Administration?s utility-style Internet regulations took effect. Far from ending or being delivered one word at a time, the Internet remains open and free.

Of course Ajit Pai lecturing anybody on truthfulness is amusing, given his past claims that net neutrality only aids fascists and that the U.S. broadband market is wonderfully competitive. But Pai’s not the only one repeatedly making this claim in the hopes it magically becomes true. Pai staffer Matthew Berry has also pushed this same claim on Twitter each and every day since net neutrality was repealed, though the message is usually accompanied by adorable little trivia nuggets in an effort to make them seem interesting. For example:

Charming. And given the naming choice of the FCC’s net neutrality-killing “Restoring Internet Freedom” order, that last one is quite apt.

Again, the message is that because Comcast didn’t immediately begin behaving like a jackass, what Pai’s FCC did must have been a good idea. But there are numerous reasons ISPs didn’t immediately start behaving idiotically. One, they’re worried that the FCC behaved so ridiculously during the repeal that it may not stand up to a court challenge from Mozilla, consumer groups, and 22 states attorneys general. It’s more than possible that the courts could find that the FCC violated agency policy and several laws (including the Administrative Procedure Act) by ignoring the will of the public and basing the repeal on fluff and nonsense.

ISPs are also worried about the fact that more than half the states in the nation are now pursuing their own state-level rules in the wake of federal apathy. So not only are ISPs (temporarily) inclined to behave to avoid adding any ammunition to the looming lawsuits, they’re wary of agitating state lawmakers and Governors looking for a reason to impose tougher state level rules. Should the FCC win in court and ISP efforts to ban states from protecting consumers proceed, their inevitable behavior won’t be subtle. They didn’t just spend millions of dollars gutting FCC authority and consumer protections for fun.

In short, ISPs are only really behaving until the legal fight has been settled and the dust has been cleared, something Pai and Berry know very well. But as we’ve noted previously, just because the internet didn’t immediately implode doesn’t mean that killing net neutrality won’t be immeasurably harmful. After all, what many see as a silo’d conversation about net neutrality is really about something larger: a horrible lack of competition in broadband and the laundry list of bad behaviors ISPs engage in to take advantage of that fact.

What tends to be forgotten in this whole conversation is that net neutrality violations are really just a symptom of the lack of broadband competition.

It’s a problem nobody really wants to fix, given it would require standing up to hugely powerful campaign contributors like AT&T. And instead of fixing it, the current administration’s “solution” has been to eliminate oversight of natural monopolies and gut consumer protections. The theory is that this blind deregulation of broadband will somehow magically result in a free market utopia. In reality, eliminating oversight of natural monopolies like Comcast simply frees those monopolies to engage in bad behavior, with neither regulatory oversight nor healthy competition to constrain it.

This isn’t opinion. Former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry) followed the same mindless deregulatory mantra, and it’s one of the major reason why Comcast is currently the only real broadband option in countless areas country-wide. Mindless deregulation may work in healthy markets where competition can supplement adult regulatory supervision, but broadband is not a healthy market. It’s a broken system of regional monopolies propped up by regulatory capture and corruption. Anyone who thinks killing basic consumer protections solves this problem doesn’t understand the problem we’re dealing with.

No, the internet didn’t immediately implode in the wake of the FCC’s historically-unpopular decision. But that’s not the point. Killing net neutrality is just one part of a broader, multi-decade effort to eliminate most meaningful oversight of one of the most broken, predatory, and unpopular markets in America. Anybody who thinks this hasn’t already slowly but surely resulted in significant, additional problems hasn’t paid attention to history, or spent a few hours on the phone with Comcast technical support. And as U.S. telcos refuse to upgrade their networks and Comcast’s monopoly power grows, you’d be a fool to believe the current trajectory won’t make our current broadband problems significantly worse.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Just Because The Internet Didn't Implode The Day After Repeal Doesn't Mean Killing Net Neutrality Was A Good Idea”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That One Guy (profile) says:

"They have't acted bad the entire time we've watched them!"

Picture a child with a penchant for grabbing cookies from the cookie jar. This is made more difficult by the fact that said jar is generally out of reach, but they still manage it every so often, despite the effort required and being told off and occasionally punished for taking cookies whenever they can.

Now imagine that for some reason the jar is placed in a lower, easier to get to position, perhaps by a visiting relative who also has a sweet tooth and is too lazy or short to reach the jar in it’s usual spot. When it’s pointed out that the jar being lower means the child can get to it easier, they dismiss the concern, claiming that ease of access will have nothing to do with how often the child will grab a cookie.

Knowing that the jar is much easier to get to, those around the child are careful to watch them, not leaving them alone in the room with the jar, and generally keeping track of them so that they don’t have a chance to make a dash for the jar. The child, realizing that they’re being carefully watched makes sure to act entirely innocent, as though they’d never grab a cookie from the jar, and the very idea is absurd.

Throughout an entire day, during which they are carefully watched and know that any slip-ups could result in the jar being moved back to it’s higher position, the child doesn’t grab so much as a single cookie, upon which the visiting relative declares that that is proof that the new location of the jar has no impact on the child whatsoever.

Looping back to the article, Pai, Berry and others claiming that the ISP’s not immediately taking advantage of the repeal of rules meant to keep them in check means that those rules weren’t needed(we’ll just ignore why they were implemented in the first place…) is rather like the relative claiming that they were right about the jar after a single day.

They’re greedy, not stupid, and they know that right now there’s any number of things that could undo the repeal and/or give ammo to those trying to pass rules to keep them in check. As such it’s no surprise that they’ll be (mostly) on their best behavior now, but anyone who thinks they won’t take full (if slow) advantage of a lack of rules once the heat dies down and people aren’t paying as much attention are only fooling themselves.

They’ve shown the sort of things they’re willing to do with the rules in place, expecting them to act better without said rules is utter folly.

JoeCool (profile) says:

Re: "They have't acted bad the entire time we've watched them!"

Actually, SOME started acting badly even before the rules officially changed. I mentioned before how Charter started badgering me (at least twice a week!) to get their streaming service now while it’s (relatively) cheap because net neutrality is dead and they are GOING to make it expensive to stream very shortly.

So while they have DONE anything yet, they’re already pressuring customers on the threat of bad things they WILL done once they think it’s clear.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "That's a nice connection you got there..."

He is right though.

First we had anti-trust and anti-monopoly regulations…
They failed, because the regulators failed (bought off).
Then we had the FCC regulate them as “natural monopolies” when they are not actual monopolies and did not need to be classified as one.
Then they failed, because the regulators failed (bought off).
Then the DOJ a few times sued to break up or block the monopolistic efforts of some of these businesses while the “regulators” did nothing but get bought off.
Then we did NN, nothing changed, Providers still throttled, Caped, and Preferred certain traffic over others.

Each time a regulatory failure occurred there was a call for more regulation. It’s like the stupid Olympics where we call for more of what failed every single fucking time it fails!

The same as “nerd harder” when it comes to having a golden key that only lets the good guys in while the bad guys are kept out.

There are no good guys… just guys doing whatever the fuck they can get away with regardless of their membership in government or criminal groups!

cc37 says:

World to end soon

“… the internet didn’t immediately collapse upon itself post-repeal …. Killing net neutrality is just one part of a broader, multi-decade effort to eliminate most meaningful oversight”

oh, so we now have to wait many decades to see if the doom & gloom crowd was correct about the horrors of NN repeal. How convenient for them in now avoiding the need for any tangible proof of their dire NN forecast. And apparently the NN panic has now sharply diminished to merely a “part” of the massive diabolic effort to destroy angelic government regulation.
What will be the excuses proffered in year 2070 ?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: World to end soon

Because that is all they can do.

If what is being said or done is not in their political dogma/mantra then it is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, or bigoted.

If a white man stubs his toe on a table a minority placed, it’s because he is racist and really just kicking that table because a minority put it there and they are just performing a microaggression.

They can’t resist the constant doom and gloom their dogma and ignorance creates and just like how misery loves company they want to drag everyone else down with them.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

They can’t resist the constant doom and gloom their dogma and ignorance creates

Are you talking about the NRA, which tirelessly campaigns on “keeping the Second Amendment alive” by way of spreading FUD about “gun-grabbers” and indirectly helping to foster a climate of fear that makes ammosexuals believe the only safe way to exist is with a loaded gun in their hand at all times?

Or are you talking about conservative Christians, who claim to be “persecuted” in the United States despite all evidence to the contrary and continually try to make other religions look evil, especially Islam, based on the actions of a comparative handful of that religion’s followers? (There is also the homophobia and the historically documented use of the Bible to justify racism/slavery…)

Could you be talking about White supremacists, who play on the fears of disaffected White Americans to make them believe people of color are the only obstacle to “making (White) America great again” and the only “true” way to stop “those people” from “ruining America” is to put White people back in charge of everything ever?

Or are you talking about Infowars and Alex Jones, which push to at least some degree the dogma of all the previously listed groups (and more) onto a perpetually frightened userbase that is led into believing in concepts like race wars, “the War on Christianity”, gun-grabbers, and drinking water turning people (and frogs) gay?

If you refuse to look at all the people who perpetuate a culture of “constant doom and gloom” because you happen to agree with their politics, it is your “dogma and ignorance” that keeps you blind. I am well aware that people with whom I agree can also create FUD culture—I have probably done a bit of it myself, to be fair—but the difference between me and you is, I can admit that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Are you talking about the NRA,”

Terrible deflection there. Yes they too preach doom and gloom, but the 2nd has a “shall not be infringed” clause. This means that any attempt to control firearms is unconstitutional. If you don’t like that, then fine, but you do need to get an amendment voted in an ratified as per the constitution to change it. Any attempt to write guns laws to undermine the Constitution means you have no standing to bitch about any other other rights you think should be protect while others should not be. Just as you are clearly willing to shit on the constitution over some rights others are also clearly willing to shit on the constitution over the rights you do like.

“who claim to be “persecuted””
Everyone gets persecuted, no exception. It’s just that people like you think some persecution is okay but just not others… I call that hypocrisy and it makes you a scum human being for only supporting the rights of some but not others.

“Could you be talking about White supremacists, who play on the fears”

Yep, another “racist” comment by someone who probably claims they are not racist. What makes it racist is that it only singles out ONE extremist group while giving others a pass. Playing off of everyone’s fears is the name of the game. Take this problem for example. The fear that a provider may not let you play movies at netflix while forcing you to watch on comcast instead. You now call for more power to be given to people that are screwing you… all because you can be pulled around like a puppet on a string. Dance! I said DANCE little puppet!!!

“Or are you talking about Infowars and Alex Jones, which push to at least some degree the dogma of all the previously listed groups (and more) onto a perpetually frightened userbase”

Seems to me that the bigger chickens are the ones trying to silence those they hate. What’s the matter? Afraid that someone might think infowars are right about a few things? Hey, every extremist group has a few things right, the problem is that they like to over react… like what you are doing here. Overreacting because you are driven by fear!

“If you refuse to look at all the people who perpetuate a culture of “constant doom and gloom” because you happen to agree with their politics, it is your “dogma and ignorance” that keeps you blind.”

Oh damn… something I can agree with you on here. The problem is that you think I listen to those guys and are driven by fear because you listen to those guys and are driven by fear.

I want people to stop looking to other men to lead them like sheep. I want people to stop joining any group in a effort to seek security or safety from a different group. I want people to seek out information and learn for themselves and NOT turn out to be a mindless regurgitating puppet that dances on a string just like you and the people you claim to love or hate!

“I am well aware that people with whom I agree can also create FUD culture—I have probably done a bit of it myself, to be fair—but the difference between me and you is, I can admit that.”

It is good that you can at least admit that, there is no one that walks this earth that does not create a problem when they use dogmatic approaches to problems.

I want to avoid the dogma and go with what works best. The problem with the “regulate all the things” groups is that they think they can achieve a utopia. You can’t and never will. The power has to be with the people, and that also means they must have some responsibility in the market. Who they do business with, being able to start a competing business, being able to refuse to do business with someone that the local or federal government granted a monopoly too. We call this a free-market approach, and bad regulations damage that. We need narrow and specifically defined regulations… its not hard to come up with them, it is just hard to keep all the sycophants from letting their leaders drive them to insane conclusions out of fear, just like all the ones you pointed out.

Each with a grain of truth to create lies and drive people to terrible actions!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I would run down all your other bullshit, but I am not in the mood right now. But I did want to say something about this:

The problem with the "regulate all the things" groups is that they think they can achieve a utopia.

People who call for more/better regulations do not believe this. (If they do, they are fools.) They believe that, in the absence of government regulations, businesses would endlessly exploit consumers and workers alike while owners/upper management get all the rewards. Regulations do not exist to “achieve a utopia”; they exist, in theory, to make sure regular jackoffs like me do not get nickeled-and-dimed by companies and workers do not get shafted by the people who sign the paychecks. (Whether they accomplish this in practice is a whole other discussion.) People can support good regulations and talk smack about bad ones without leaning into either the “regulate everything” or “deregulate everything” extremes.

Vel the Enigmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

-and I think you’re stark raving nuts.

The reason these people are all “doom and gloom” is because the history of these companies shows that if everything goes their way, once the dust settles, they will take every advantage of it they can to fill their coffers. My family has had Time Warner (pre-merger), Comcast, and AT&T. Time Warner and Comcast turned to crap when they got bigger, and AT&T is the same way.

We eventually had to get rid of our cable to combat rising costs, and it’s only going to get worse and more restrictive.

You can’t seriously tell me you haven’t been wronged by an ISP.

Vel the Enigmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:2 For a round 2

Let me make this even clearer for you. You want to know why the we need regulations in the first place for this market?

Cause a free market only works when the actors in it legitimately want to compete, and take a wild guess what happens when they don’t? You get shit like what we have right now.

Nobody in the broadband industry seriously wants to compete with one another. Instead they’re buying laws to benefit themselves, and to stay the course of the current status quo with a noose they will be slowly tightening.

The only deregulation that will help right now, is to remove all the laws they bought from the books so some actual, meaningful competition can happen… and it’s looking like that’s gonna have to end up happening by force at this rate.

I.T. Guy says:

Re: World to end soon

Read your own quoted quote you Muppet.

“… the internet didn’t immediately collapse upon itself post-repeal …. Killing net neutrality is just one part of a broader, multi-decade effort to eliminate most meaningful oversight”

“is just one part of a broader, multi-decade effort”
Implying the end of the multi-decade effort to eliminate most meaningful oversight. Which happened.

Reading comprehension brah… learn it… know it… live it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Moar Drivel

Attack the fact that Regulation was changed, but still do not attack the monopolies.

You guys have no clue how stupid you look do you? You constantly advocate for your own destruction without even knowing any better.

The fight over NN is a waste of time. It will never be fair, no matter how many politicians you suck off to get these regulations.

When NN was in effect, my ISP still stucked, ISP’s still rate limited, data limited, and broke NN rules anyways. In fact the entire regulatory industry is in capture and your solution is to give it more power. Mega Mergers happened under Obama and Wheeler just like they are happening under Trump and Pai…

Do you see any differences yet? Because I do not… well except for the diarrhea rhetoric you guys keep spewing. I HOPE you get your fucking NN rules back so I can keep reminding your losers just how much it is not fixing your little problems!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Moar Drivel

“When will stop railing against regulations, and start working to eliminate the capture?”

Have to get rid of the “regulate all the things” mentality first. Hard to get “good regulations” put in place while that mentality pervades the environment. Politicians only hear two things right now which have been reduced to meaningless buzzwords.


Neither of these mean anything! The left treats the words objectively opposite of what the right treats them as while Politicians and Businesses treat them contrary to both sides.

“Also, even antimonopoly and antitrust need a regulatory agency to enforce them,”

Exactly, so I can’t actually be totally anti-regulation now can I? We already have these regulations too, we just need to strengthen and tweak them, instead of fighting for or introducing weak and worthless regulations like NN. I don’t even hate the idea of NN, I just think it is a pitiful example of how lost its supporters are, literally begging for crumbs from the table. We can do so much better.

“and that agency can be captured and change policy to eliminate the intent of the regulation.”

correct and is the problem we have now. Which is why the politicians must lose their jobs. The problem is that you cannot get either the left or the right to wake up and realize that they are sheep in a con game, blindly supporting their candidates because “at least we stopped that other loser from getting elected”. Pretty much the epitome of the last few presidential elections. All losers in the extreme, but just less evil than those other guys!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Moar Drivel

“Which nobody here has in the way you believe so,”

Then why do your politicians all take bribes from the businesses they are trying to regulate?

Am I pissed off? No, just sad that you are that stupid. Your actions are explanation enough. People like you created the problem of Trump, I hope you enjoy his rule, because he is the result of your actions and beliefs just as Obama is the result of the actions and beliefs of your opposition.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It looks like you are not paying attention. No one is following those definitions. Here are the definitions that are being followed that makes them meaningless.

Dems: Regulate = Utopia of Equality of outcome
Reps: Regulate = Utopia of Equality of opportunity
Politicians: Regulate = Power & Control mechanism
Business: Regulate = A business expense where beneficial laws are purchased.

Additionally, regulations can be beneficial or damaging. Kinda like the regulations that bless these monopolies. Those are not good, they are bad. deregulation has the same problem. Removing regulations can be beneficial or damaging too! The problem is that this “detail” is not being discussed here.

So um… no I will not be withdrawing my statement. I know for a fact you do not use those definitions of regulation or deregulation and neither does anyone else! In fact that is kinda the problem, everyone want to make up everything they can to twist what the other side means by things!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Moar Drivel

Have to get rid of the “regulate all the things” mentality first.

This sites authors, and many of its commenters are much more nuanced about regulation than you are. Beside which you do not convince people of the merits of your arguments by taking them to an extreme and insulting anybody who disagrees with you.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Stupid or trolling

This sites authors, and many of its commenters are much more nuanced about regulation than you are. Beside which you do not convince people of the merits of your arguments by taking them to an extreme and insulting anybody who disagrees with you.

At first I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and thought that they were just really enthusiastic about the topic, and as a result just mistook the position of those around them, but at this point my assumption is that they are either stupid but honest, or not actually interested in an honest discussion and are just trolling.

They either completely miss that strawmanning and insulting others are surefire ways to have anything they say dismissed out of hand(despite this having been explained to them several times), or understand that and don’t actually care to convince anyone because all they’re doing is fishing for frustration, annoyance and/or anger.

In neither case are they worth wasting time trying to have an honest discussion with, because as they have made crystal clear by now that’s simply not possible.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Stupid or trolling

No, it is your group that cannot engage with honest discussion.

There are only two rules.

#1. People must agree with the platform or else goto #2.
#2. Belittle, gaslight, twist, misdirect, attempt to silence, or physically assault anyone you disagree with.

I happen to be one of the few free thinkers here because I do not belong to any of the groups.

I don’t hate NN, I just think it is a waste of time, just like trying to educate ignorant folks like you.

You bring up the fact that I insult others while other insult me, isn’t it interesting that the only problem with insults is when I am insulting but never when you are doing the insulting? That is called hypocrisy, and you are full of it.

Yes, you can dismiss everything I say however you like. It does not stop anyone from being correct or incorrect. There is more than enough evidence that regulations in general do not work because humans are corruptible and any effort to consolidate power into a small group or individual over time turns to pure corruption.

There is a reason why the Founding fathers of the USA espoused free-market, because regulations and control are what kept people in the dark ages for so fucking damn long and you seek to return folks to that same lethargy under the guise of misguided “utopia”.

The world is getting smaller, there are fewer and fewer smaller businesses as we get larger and large monolithic businesses that are given power by more and more regulations that stifle new players in the market rather than promoting competition and innovation. Stagnation is the result of the “regulate all the things” crowd and they so blind they not only do not see it… they fight with every last breath to perpetuate it as they choke on the fumes of their own failures.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You bring up the fact that I insult others while other insult me, isn’t it interesting that the only problem with insults is when I am insulting but never when you are doing the insulting?

When you can prove that you are here for reasonable discussion instead of provocation for the sake of itself, we will stop insulting you. Until then: Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.

Zippy says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

And yet you fail to address anything he said in his last post. Failing to do so indicates the inability to do so, and being unable to counter arguments presented counts as an admission that those arguments are correct. Otherwise you would have addressed them. Without insults or derogatory remarks since those only detract from your position and that of anyone who uses them. You might try acting like a civilized human being for once, Stephen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Moar Drivel

I guess you have never see a person say one thing but do something or support something that actually do not agree with what they are saying have you?

I guess you believe every lie that gets pushed onto you. You might be shocked to learn that most people are either, lying, ignorant, or getting fooled.

This leaves the “informed minority” at a significant disadvantage here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Ann, evidence has been provided. There are multiple links in this article. There is a wealth of previous articles, also with links, that reference the bad behavior of the ISP’s even prior to the repeal of Net Neutrality.

There are other sites and people that have reported on this, and the bad behavior of the ISP’s is well documented.

So can you explain what you mean by “no evidence?”

Also, can you explain why you are so against Net Neutrality? What is it about NN that you dislike? Why do you believe it should be dismantled? Why do you hold the position you have? What reasons, what evidence, what arguments do you have to support the removal of Net Neutrality?

Also, given you dislike Net Neutrality, are you able to explain why people would want it? Do you have an understanding of the arguments supporting it? What is your rebuttal to these arguments?

Also, why do you use the term “minion?” What is this term intended to portray? Who is the minion? And do you realize that referring to someone who does not agree with by a pejorative term causes people to want to ignore what you have to say?

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

This particular troll (or I suppose it could be a small collection of related trolls) uses the term “minion” to mean the Techdirt staff/writers/etc. who are not Mike Masnick. The idea is that those people – by virtue of writing things for the site under his direction – are Mike’s minions, writing what he tells them to write and regurgitating exclusively opinions he approves of.

Evidence for this proposition (rather than other, more innocuous, explanations for the observable facts) seems to be completely lacking, but this particular troll does not seem to be in any way hindered by an inconvenient need for facts, evidence, or logic.

The Wanderer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

While I don’t think he’s using it that broadly, that does raise a possibly valid alternate meaning: he might also, in some cases (though probably not this one), be using it to refer to the Techdirt readers and commenters who (seem to) universally/blindly support Mike’s arguments on every subject.

Exactly how large a group that may be is unclear, given the number of (non-trolling) people who seem to disagree with the argument presented in one Techdirt article or another, but I imagine he thinks it’s the bulk of the regular readership (or at least commentariat).

ECA (profile) says:

You dont think it didnt?

LOOK at the FCC, NOT doing its job..
The FCC, not going out and sampling the DATA RATES and charges for services..
The Gov. Subsidizing MOST of the service to get it BUILT UP, and nothing happening..
CORPS, only taking payments and NOT building anything..
Services in RURAL area seem to be better by 10 fold, over what the Major Metro areas have..
UPTO speeds, are NOT upto..Like a toilet you dont know is full of water or NOT..FLUSH it and see whats flushed..
Corps that own…Cellphone service, ISP service, Phone service, and SAT services..Do you think they make enough money?? Add 1 more..MOST of the TV/CABLE services.

And a IRS that cant find all the money to TAX them..

DannyB (profile) says:

Repealing of Net Neutrality is good as . . .

When Net Neutrality was repealed, the internet did not implode . . . on that day.

When Flint’s water supply suddenly had lead contamination, there weren’t any health problems . . . on that day.

So it’s just fine to repeal net neutrality without regard to the bad consequences, just as it is to change the water supply without regard to any bad consequences.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...