# FCC Repeals Net Neutrality Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522 "2017-12-14T18:35:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/21 "2017-12-14T19:43:11Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > So, to provide an instructive telephone analogy, you think it’s “a good thing” if you pick up the phone to call Giovanni’s Pizzeria and end up connected with AT&T Ripoff Pizza Monopoly instead. And you think it’s “a good thing” that the only way you can actually get your pizza order to Giovanni’s is to have a telegram delivered via horseback courier. Because the telephone company has decided to spin off into the pizza business, and by golly, they’re gonna make sure there aren’t any Giovannis in their way. > > You think this is how public utilities should operate. I don’t. Not surprising that the FCC thinks this sort of thing is great, since just about every federal agency is now headed by a crackpot who thinks the agency shouldn’t even exist. > This is about a lot more than “prices”. And if you believe in free markets and fair competition, then you should be in favor of policies that support them, instead of policies that encourage monopolistic domination. None of the examples you offer correctly describe net neutrality. The repeal of the net neutrality rules does not permit DNS queries to be hijacked, for example, to deliver different address records for hosts. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/22 "2017-12-14T19:43:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > I don’t think ISPs have any moral obligation to to choke their bandwidth. > > Madison River Communication can block VOIP. If they just targeted Vonage VOIP, I’d be open to a remedial rule. Would you be open to a remedial rule if Madison River Communication blocked all VOIP except for the VOIP provided by Madison River Communication? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/23 "2017-12-14T19:46:53Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Would you be open to a remedial rule if Madison River Communication blocked all VOIP except for the VOIP provided by Madison River Communication? Yes. I’m not persuaded this this is a likely outcome, but I’m open to the possibilit that my prediction is wrong, which is why I said, “_Potentially_ a good thing,” and “I’d be open to addressing any _future_ abuses with further rules.” ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/24 "2017-12-14T19:47:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > None of the examples you offer correctly describe net neutrality. The repeal of the net neutrality rules does not permit DNS queries to be hijacked, for example, to deliver different address records for hosts. The problem described there is at a higher level than DNS queries. Sure, you’d get the correct IP address for Giovanni’s Pizza, but when your browser tried to go to that IP address, the ISP would reroute your connection to “Totally Awesome ISP Pizza Place” Perhaps they would flash a warning such as “Sorry, we don’t allow connections to Giovanni’s Pizza, but since it seems like you want pizza, try some of the great pizza at Totally Awesome ISP Pizza Place - we will re-direct you.” ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/25 "2017-12-14T19:49:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I’m not persuaded this this is a likely outcome, but I’m open to the possibilit that my prediction is wrong, which is why I said, “_Potentially_ a good thing,” and “I’d be open to addressing any _future_ abuses with further rules.” Good, because I’m just discussing these future abuses with you. But still, the only “potentially good thing” I’ve seen from you is “Less regulation is better”. Do you have anything that is potentially good about this that benefits the consumer? ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/26 "2017-12-14T19:51:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > None of the examples you offer correctly describe net neutrality. The repeal of the net neutrality rules does not permit DNS queries to be hijacked, for example, to deliver different address records for hosts. Ok, say you get in a taxi and ask to be driven to a restaurant. If it’s Applebee’s, the driver takes you straight there, if anywhere else they charge you twice as much and drive around for an extra half hour. Or you buy a kindle book, but if it’s not one that’s published by Amazon they only let you read a page a day. So how does allowing monopolistic business practices like these increase competition and benefit consumers? Personally I don’t find shouting “Free market!” and hand waving to be very convincing. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/27 "2017-12-14T19:54:24Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > The problem described there is at a higher level than DNS queries. Sure, you’d get the correct IP address for Giovanni’s Pizza, but when your browser tried to go to that IP address, the ISP would reroute your connection to “Totally Awesome ISP Pizza Place” > > Perhaps they would flash a warning such as “Sorry, we don’t allow connections to Giovanni’s Pizza, but since it seems like you want pizza, try some of the great pizza at Totally Awesome ISP Pizza Place - we will re-direct you.” I grant that this is a technical possibility; I don’t regard it as remotely likely. And if it became reality, I’d be open to addressing it with regulation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/28 "2017-12-14T19:55:42Z")
> [@PigArcher](#): > > Ok, say you get in a taxi and ask to be driven to a restaurant. If it’s Applebee’s, the driver takes you straight there, if anywhere else they charge you twice as much and drive around for an extra half hour. > > Or you buy a kindle book, but if it’s not one that’s published by Amazon they only let you read a page a day. > > So how does allowing monopolistic business practices like these increase competition and benefit consumers? Personally I don’t find shouting “Free market!” and hand waving to be very convincing. Then I guess you’re not convinced. I’m not upset. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/29 "2017-12-14T19:58:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I grant that this is a technical possibility; I don’t regard it as remotely likely. > > And if it became reality, I’d be open to addressing it with regulation. But things like that were starting to happen, which is why they started treating it like a utility in the first place. It wasn’t just “Hmmm. Nothing is really affecting anything, I guess we will just change the way we treat ISPs because we have nothing better to do today” Things were happening that required addressing it with regulation. And they addressed it with regulation. And now you seem to be saying “The things that happened before they addressed it with regulation aren’t happening anymore. Therefore, we don’t need the regulation” ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/30 "2017-12-14T20:14:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I’m not persuaded this this is a likely outcome, but I’m open to the possibilit that my prediction is wrong, which is why I said, “_Potentially_ a good thing,” and “I’d be open to addressing any _future_ abuses with further rules.” So - thanks to the rules we had - there were no current abuses. There now is a potential for abuse thanks to removing the rules. And now, thanks to no rules, we have to wait for abuse in order to create ‘new rules’ to prevent abuse that would have already been prevented under the current rules. Seems to me this is entirely backward - when you have a chance to create some rules ahead of time to keep things ‘free and equal’ - you do it. In this case there is absolutely the potential for abuse - since many ISPs also have thier own services (streaming is a good example) - and they want to make sure that thier content is favored over other providers content. (In speed and quality). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/31 "2017-12-14T20:16:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I grant that this is a technical possibility; I don’t regard it as remotely likely. > > And if it became reality, I’d be open to addressing it with regulation. Yes, and that kind of regulation, expressed as a set of general principles, is called net neutrality. My somewhat picturesque analogy was not meant to be taken literally and, as already noted, anti-competitive practices can be a lot more nuanced than blatant DNS hijacking. Here are a few examples that happened in my area, or else were about to happen before the government firmly stepped in. One was broadband ISPs intentionally throttling sites or protocols they didn’t like, and even having the audacity to deny to regulators that they were doing it (“how would those idiots ever be able to prove it?”). Well, unlike the Trump gang, the regulators were responsive to consumers, not the monopolistic greed of the industry, and responded to thousands of consumer complaints, including complaints that the throttling was also having unintended effects on other protocols and applications, by ordering the ISPs to stop all throttling and curtail all practices of header and deep packet inspection – i.e. - you are a common carrier and have no right to be selective about what you carry. Another was a joint proposal from both the cable and the telco broadband ISPs regarding bandwidth quotas. These two industries are usually fierce competitors but boy can they ever get cozy together when it comes to self-serving common interests. In this case, participants in both industries were in agreement that the consumer should be shafted with a baseline monthly bandwidth quota of 25 GB, which effectively prohibits streaming or buying movies online except under terms dictated by the ISPs. Not coincidentally, this came just before both ISP groups spun off their own streaming services, which of course would have been immune to those quotas. So you have a whole world of possibilities of ISPs giving their own services preferential treatment, or the services of favored providers in contrast to less favored ones: “Nice online business you have here. Would be a shame if customers couldn’t get to it because your bandwidth sucked.” Is that your idea of free markets? Fortunately, regulators here ordered the ISPs to stop throttling, told them to go pound sand with respect to super-low quotas, and have generally kept a tight rein on monopolistic practices, all of which is the opposite of where the FCC is heading. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/32 "2017-12-14T20:17:16Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So - thanks to the rules we had - there were no current abuses. I’m not sure I agree that there’s a cause and effect relationship there. > [@](#): > > Seems to me this is entirely backward - when you have a chance to create some rules ahead of time to keep things ‘free and equal’ - you do it. Huh. Welp, seems to ME that you don’t impose rules in a free society unless there’s no other choice. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/33 "2017-12-14T20:19:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. I’m not persuaded this this is a likely outcome, but I’m open to the possibilit that my prediction is wrong, which is why I said, “_Potentially_ a good thing,” and “I’d be open to addressing any _future_ abuses with further rules.” My mother didn’t wait for me to get hit with a car before she taught me to look both ways before crossing the street. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/34 "2017-12-14T20:25:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Welp, seems to ME that you don’t impose rules in a free society unless there’s no other choice. So are you ignoring the abuses that caused net neutrality to begin with. And here’s a question for you: my ISP decided to deny customers access to Netflix. What are my options? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/35 "2017-12-14T20:26:36Z")
When you enjoy monopolistic authority the normative approach should no longer be the market behaving on its own. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/36 "2017-12-14T20:28:33Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > My mother didn’t wait for me to get hit with a car before she taught me to look both ways before crossing the street. Was your mother otherwise occupied when the schedule called for her to explain that “looking both ways” is not a good analogy for these rules? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/37 "2017-12-14T20:29:18Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > My mother didn’t wait for me to get hit with a car before she taught me to look both ways before crossing the street. Also, at a 4-way intersection near my house, there were a lot of accidents. The city put up 4-way stop signs and the accidents dropped to almost zero. Someone came along years later and said “What are these stop signs here for? There hasn’t been any accidents here for years - get rid of them!” Lo and behold, accidents started happening again! Who knew?? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/38 "2017-12-14T20:29:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > When you enjoy monopolistic authority the normative approach should no longer be the market behaving on its own. I’d say that if you’re a _natural_ monopoly, that might be true, but that ISPs are not always natural monopolies. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/39 "2017-12-14T20:31:35Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Also, at a 4-way intersection near my house, there were a lot of accidents. The city put up 4-way stop signs and the accidents dropped to almost zero. Perhaps your mother, or **Inner Stickler** ’s mom, failed to inculcate in you the observation that what’s missing in your analogy is the “lot of accidents,” prior to net neutrality rules being implemented. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/40 "2017-12-14T20:32:05Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > You guys now owe a nickel every time you post. So you were charge a nickel per post back in 2014? Yes or no? Because the rule didn’t exist in 2014. It went into effect on June 12th 2015. [Linky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#United_States). As to why the rules are bad, why don’t we check with small internet providers: > [@](#): > > We are some of the nation’s smallest wireline Internet service providers (“ISPs”), each providing vital Internet connectivity to roughly 1000 or fewer residential subscribers. We support an open Internet, our customers expect it and would depart if we degraded their Internet experience. Two years ago, many of us urged the Commission to refrain from subjecting our broadband Internet access service to Title II “utility style” regulation because that approach was not justified by sound economics or market realities for smaller ISPs and would impose onerous burdens on our operations. Unfortunately, the Commission ignored this evidence, classified us as common carriers, and adopted one-size-fits-all rules. In the wake of this decision, our > businesses have suffered. … > > … > We can tell you that the 2015 Open Internet rules hang like a black cloud over us. Each of us has spent substantial time and resources, including for advice from outside consultants and lawyers, to ensure that our practices are consistent with the rules. The General Conduct rule represents perhaps the worst of government regulation. It is so vague and open-ended that we are concerned that the Commission would invoke it to sanction conduct for which we have no advance warning. **Moreover, the mere threat that the Commission may use the General Conduct rule to impose rate regulation affects our ability to obtain financing. Further, because the Commission’s reach under the Open Internet rules appears to be virtually unlimited, each of us has slowed, if not halted, the development and deployment of innovative new offerings which would benefit our customers. In brief, for us and our customers, the rules have been all cost and no benefit.** > > We are pleased to hear that the Commission is considering a reset of the 2015 > regulations. We need a return to data-driven policies and not regulatory overreach driven by speculation. Prior to the Commission’s Title II decision, our customers had unfettered access to the Internet because, for us, open Internet principles were consistent with our ethos and were simply good business. Most certainly, should the Commission revisit its classification decision and revise or even repeal its 2015 Open Internet rules, we would continue to provide an open Internet experience for our customers – and could do so without suffering the costs of utilitystyle regulation. We thus support your effort to set in motion a process whereby the Commission would free smaller ISPs from utility regulation while ensuring consumers continue to have > access to an open Internet [Linky](https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/170425_Letter_from_22_Small_ISPs.pdf). Or, how about those evil municipal broadband providers? Surely they think the rollback will cause undue hardships, like a nickel per post on the Straight Dope, right? The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association release the following statement: > [@](#): > > Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai today reached out to have conversations with several operators of small, fixed-wireless internet service providers (WISPs) about his “internet freedom” initiative. > > Chairman Pai is seeking to overturn a set of FCC rules that have created significant uncertainties and compliance burdens for small businesses that provide broadband. > > David Giles, president and owner of InvisiMax in Warren, Minnesota, told Chairman Pai about the negative impacts of regulatory uncertainty on his business and his rural customers. > > “All of the uncertainty about what the actual rules are, and how they apply to my business, and how they might apply in the future, is not attractive for investment. It’s risky. And when our compliance costs go up because of government action, we either have to reduce investment or increase prices to pass those costs on to our customers,” Giles told Pai. > > Michael Whelan, CEO of AirLink Internet Services in Mounds, Oklahoma, told Chairman Pai that he agrees that the internet should be “free and open.” AirLink does not block or throttle any internet traffic; nor does it prioritize any content; and it provides clear and simple information to consumers about prices, service levels, privacy practices, and how to resolve complaints, Whelan said. > > “If consumers have good and accurate information about the services we provide, they will be better at holding us to our word than some government process,” Whelan said. > > Mark Radabaugh, president of Amplex Internet in Luckey, Ohio, and chairman of WISPA’s FCC Committee, expressed frustration with the FCC’s “general internet conduct” standard. > > \*\*“I really don’t know what that means, and nobody has been able to explain this to me either,” Radabaugh said. “At Amplex, we always try to do right by our customers and would never intentionally do something wrong. But I can’t follow the rules if I don’t know what they are, or what they mean. > > “If your internet freedom proposal is adopted,” Radabaugh told Pai, “I’m going to have a lot more certainty about what is expected of me as an operator, and that will translate into additional investment and opportunity in northwest Ohio and all over rural America.” \*\* > > \*Most U.S. WISPs are small and medium-sized businesses serving rural areas with an average of 10 employees or less. In comments filed at the FCC in this proceeding, WISPA stated that the FCC’s “net neutrality” regulations, which are designed to treat all internet providers like large monopoly utilities, are taking resources away from investment in under-served areas and diverting them instead toward lawyers and compliance consultants. \* > > The “light-touch” regulatory environment that existed from the earliest days of the internet until 2015 served consumers better than the new rules, WISPA said. > > All three WISPA members thanked Chairman Pai for his leadership on this issue and expressed support for his efforts. [Linky](http://www.wispa.org/Wispa-News/ArtMID/13028/ArticleID/224/CategoryID/38/CategoryName/FCC-News/LOCAL-WISPA-MEMBERS-SPEAK-WITH-FCC-CHAIRMAN-PAI-AND-EXPRESS-SUPPORT-FOR-HIS-INTERNET-FREEDOM-INITIATIVE). It is rather funny to watch people freak about a two year old rule getting overturned. Will some providers attempt to profit from this change? Certainly. Will it work? I suspect that it won’t as the consumers will freak as will local politicians\*. Slee \*In many areas, as far as I can tell, the biggest block to having multiple broadband providers is the local government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=3)