# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/441 "2017-12-19T21:53:26Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Reference to the preamble in rulings: > > [Jacobson v Massachusetts](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/) > > [Ellis v City of Grand Rapids](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/257/564/1600532/) One Supreme Court ruling from 1905 is not particularly compelling. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/442 "2017-12-19T23:07:58Z")
I have yet to see an adequate response from **Bricker** , **D’Anconia** , **ITR Champion** , et al. to what I think the fundamental argument is. We have evidence that, before the 2015 Title 2 regulations were put in place, that broadband providers _did_ interfere with internet services that competed with their own content or services–that’s why the regulations were promulgated in the first place. Most of the large ISPs are _also_ content providers and have incentives to discriminate against competitors, not for broadband service, but **content**. I have nothing against free markets, in principle, but _there is no free market_ in broadband service in most places in the US. Panera has no incentive to screw around with sandwich production, because there are a thousand other sandwich shops ready to do it properly, and I can go to one of them instead. But I can’t do that with ISPs, nor can most other Americans. If you think NN stifles the market in some way, explains to me _which_ market it stifles. I’d be happy to get rid of it if I had 5 or 6 equivalent choices for broadband, at least some of which are not vertically integrated monopolies or near-monopolies. Force Comcast to lease out its cable to other ISPs (like the Baby Bells in the old days of land line long distance), and I’m right there with you. Explain why we shouldn’t regulate these providers in **some** way so as to blunt their monopoly power. Ajit Pai didn’t do it, and no one here seems to have done it. Besides the problem of vertically-integrated ISPs discriminating against internet content and services that compete with the ones they own, there is the problem of the large content and service providers that can pay for access to the ISP’s customers being able to entrench their own market power because competing startups can’t pay the toll. Again, which “free” markets are helped or hurt by the presence or absence of NN? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/443 "2017-12-19T23:38:25Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > One Supreme Court ruling from 1905 is not particularly compelling. Why not? Is there a more recent ruling that overturns it? Cite that SCOTUS decisions have an expiration date. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/444 "2017-12-19T23:42:08Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > I have yet to see an adequate response from **Bricker** , **D’Anconia** , **ITR Champion** , et al. to what I think the fundamental argument is. > > We have evidence that, before the 2015 Title 2 regulations were put in place, that broadband providers _did_ interfere with internet services that competed with their own content or services–that’s why the regulations were promulgated in the first place. Most of the large ISPs are _also_ content providers and have incentives to discriminate against competitors, not for broadband service, but **content**. > > I have nothing against free markets, in principle, but _there is no free market_ in broadband service in most places in the US. Panera has no incentive to screw around with sandwich production, because there are a thousand other sandwich shops ready to do it properly, and I can go to one of them instead. But I can’t do that with ISPs, nor can most other Americans. > > If you think NN stifles the market in some way, explains to me _which_ market it stifles. I’d be happy to get rid of it if I had 5 or 6 equivalent choices for broadband, at least some of which are not vertically integrated monopolies or near-monopolies. Force Comcast to lease out its cable to other ISPs (like the Baby Bells in the old days of land line long distance), and I’m right there with you. Explain why we shouldn’t regulate these providers in **some** way so as to blunt their monopoly power. Ajit Pai didn’t do it, and no one here seems to have done it. > > Besides the problem of vertically-integrated ISPs discriminating against internet content and services that compete with the ones they own, there is the problem of the large content and service providers that can pay for access to the ISP’s customers being able to entrench their own market power because competing startups can’t pay the toll. Again, which “free” markets are helped or hurt by the presence or absence of NN? Expanding a bit - I did a bit of wandering around on the web, with the search term “broadband market share in USA”. The top 5 broadband providers account for 91% of the market share. The top _two_\* have 81%! This was as of the third quarter of 2017. How is there any possibility of market forces affecting the broadband market in any way, shape, or form in this situation? I’d really like to see **Bricker** and **D’anconia** address these points. \*Comcast and Charter, if you’re interested. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/445 "2017-12-19T23:50:23Z")
Foo. Too late to edit. I searched for Internet Service Provider market share in the USA, not broadband. While I’m here, I’ll note that the majority of Americans polled do not _want_ net neutrality revoked. [Example here - note that it is a PDF](http://www.publicconsultation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Net_Neutrality_Quaire_121217.pdf). ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/446 "2017-12-19T23:52:10Z")
> [@galen\_ubal](#): > > Expanding a bit - I did a bit of wandering around on the web, with the search term “broadband market share in USA”. > The top 5 broadband providers account for 91% of the market share. The top _two_\* have 81%! This was as of the third quarter of 2017. How is there any possibility of market forces affecting the broadband market in any way, shape, or form in this situation? > > I’d really like to see **Bricker** and **D’anconia** address these points. > > \*Comcast and Charter, if you’re interested. And, I would bet, they actually have a **larger** market share in the geographic areas they serve. Cable companies are legacy local monopolies in most places–that’s how they were incentivized to lay cable in the first place, _in exchange for a certain amount of local regulation_ (and Cable Access Channels, of course). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/447 "2017-12-20T00:28:53Z")
[NY Senator Chuck Schumer Has a Plan to Keep Net Neutrality in Place](https://futurism.com/ny-senator-chuck-schumer-plan-keep-net-neutrality-place/) > [@](#): > > Schumer intends to force a vote on a net neutrality bill that, if passed, would overturn the FCC’s ruling. The plan is made possible by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which enables Congress to reverse agency rules so long as the reversal has majority approval in the House and Senate. > > “One, this CRA doesn’t need the support of the majority leader. We can bring it to the floor and force a vote, so there will be a vote to repeal the rule that the FCC passed,” Schumer said at a WeWork’s press conference, according to a report by The Hill. > > “It’s in our power to do that and that’s the beauty of the CRA rule,” he added. “Sometimes we don’t like them, when they used it to repeal some of the pro-environmental regulations, but now we can use the CRA to our benefit, and we intend to.” The article also says > [@](#): > > House Telecom Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) has introduced her own net neutrality bill, though it has weaker standards than the just-repealed rules. ---
**Author:** ![galen\_ubal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galen_ubal/32/4440_2.png) [@galen\_ubal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/galen_ubal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/448 "2017-12-20T01:00:50Z")
By the way, somebody in this thread posted a link to a map of ISPs available at given addresses, and I’m blessed if I can find it again. Could someone lend a hand? **Bo** , I’ve seen that. I think it’s worth a shot, along with the many suits that are going to be brought by seventeen or so state Attorneys General. Between the two, if I were running Comcast, I’d stand pat for now. On the other hand, forward planning over short-term profit doesn’t seem to be a virtue in the corporate world anymore. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/449 "2017-12-20T01:27:32Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Why not? Is there a more recent ruling that overturns it? > Cite that SCOTUS decisions have an expiration date. This decision is best used before 1978. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/450 "2017-12-20T02:20:49Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Of course it exists. It’s been expanded beyond all recognition, though, starting with _Wickard_. So the business of communicating data across state and international boundaries would not ordinarily be considered interstate commerce, if not for rotten liberals ruining things for pig farmers everywhere? That’s what you’re going with? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/451 "2017-12-20T03:09:05Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So the business of communicating data across state and international boundaries would not ordinarily be considered interstate commerce, if not for rotten liberals ruining things for pig farmers everywhere? > > That’s what you’re going with? Not growing wheat affects interstate commerce? That’s why you’re going with? ---
**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 20, 2017, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/452 "2017-12-20T03:16:05Z")
> [@RickG](#): > > I have yet to see an adequate response from **Bricker** , **D’Anconia** , **ITR Champion** , et al. to what I think the fundamental argument is. > > We have evidence that, before the 2015 Title 2 regulations were put in place, that broadband providers _did_ interfere with internet services that competed with their own content or services–that’s why the regulations were promulgated in the first place. Most of the large ISPs are _also_ content providers and have incentives to discriminate against competitors, not for broadband service, but **content**. The nearest I can tell from the anti-NN posters here, there is no adequate response, or they devolve to “regulations are bad” or they think that the interference that led to NN in the first place is not compelling enough, or they just ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/453 "2017-12-20T03:34:26Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Not growing wheat affects interstate commerce? That’s why you’re going with? ISPs are indeed not growing wheat. And you’re saying… what? That businesses that don’t grow wheat cannot be engaged in interstate commerce? This conversation sounds like a retarded mix of Monopoly and Settlers of Catan. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/454 "2017-12-20T04:20:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > ISPs are indeed not growing wheat. > > And you’re saying… what? That businesses that don’t grow wheat cannot be engaged in interstate commerce? > > This conversation sounds like a retarded mix of Monopoly and Settlers of Catan. Much like all of your conversations. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/455 "2017-12-20T05:14:42Z")
I said enough with the personal cracks. You should learn to listen. Warning issued. Don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/456 "2017-12-20T05:58:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > … Lines of argument that NN is for the greater good, or the internet should be owned by everyone, or internet access is a universal right are especially poor. Just as, why repealing NN would be better for the consumer is also poor.… What I see is this: at present, major ISPs get their revenue from their subscribers. They perceive that there is an additional source of potential revenue from the back-end, the services that their subscribers are using. Net neutrality prevents them from tapping into that back-end revenue source – essentially, charging the web sites out there for access to their network. Once they have the leverage to do that, they will. And it will not matter whether or not there is competition; everyone will have to do it, in order to keep their footing. Most of us will not observe this change, because it will be basically out of view. Some sites will have to shut down because the vig is too much, while others will stay afloat by increasing their advertising/clickbait load, probably to the point where ads become more intrusive, more difficult to avoid and content will shrink relative to them. That page you used to be able to read by scrolling will become one that has a half-dozen “next”/“back” buttons, in order to maximize your ad exposure. The ethical/ideological question you face is whether it is acceptable to block someone’s access to a potential revenue stream. Bearing in mind that the increase in revenue will make the major ISPs even more powerful, because money is power in America’s political system. More powerful major ISPs will cull whatever competition there currently is in that particular marketplace, will reduce the ranks of available services on the internet (somewhat, at least), and, by making nearly all of the content ad driven, will constrain what is in the content (cf. commercial media, which must tread carefully around stories that might be bad for their advertisers). The question is, do the ISPs “deserve” to be able to pull in this additional revenue? Do the subscribers “deserve” to have access to a wide-open, wild network that has not been sanitized by market forces? There you have a salient argument in favor of NN. You decide whether it may have any merit. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/457 "2017-12-20T11:39:49Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > So we can safely infer that it was a diversionary tactic. No. It was participation in the thread. Now, drop it or continue it as you please, but the fact remains that I answered a point made in a post, the answer hurt the views you wish to advance, and so you tried desperately to rule the answer out of bounds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/458 "2017-12-20T11:41:18Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > How about an answer to your post 380: > > The answer is - Yes it can. > > Maybe you can provide an answer to several similar posts: “Can explain why you think it’s potentially a good thing?” without using “less regulations are better” as a reason. “Less regulation is better,” is the reason. Why am I not allowed to use that as a reason? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/459 "2017-12-20T11:51:15Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Reference to the preamble in rulings: > > [Jacobson v Massachusetts](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/) > > [Ellis v City of Grand Rapids](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/257/564/1600532/) Of course I cannot speak for D’Aconia, but I pointed out that the preamble was not a source of federal power. I didn’t suggest that no court decision had ever mentioned its words. Jacobson upheld the state power of plenary legislative authority, if I recall correctly (on mobile now) when Massachusetts sought to fine people who didn’t get inoculated. No federal power was in play. And of course Massachusetts doesn’t gain any legislative power from the federal preamble. I don’t recall hearing of this Ellis case and will look it up this morning. But I will offer a confident prediction now: it won’t be about the exercise of a federal power grounded in the Preamble, either, because I am confident that you don’t know what you’re reading, and simply did a search for the preamble’s words in court opinions, thinking that this might mean something. Always willing to learn, though, so perhaps I will discover a hidden Supreme Court case that vests federal power based on the Preamble. Then, a kosher pig will learn calculus. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2017, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/460 "2017-12-20T12:11:42Z")
But **Bricker** , this is surely an academic argument because I’m certain you agree that the commerce clause is the perfect authority for Congress to regulate ISPs if it wishes to. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=24)