# 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:** 29
**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 23, 2017, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/561 "2017-12-23T03:31:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My own view is that no one has a right to Internet service, but some discussion above suggests that other contributors to this discussion feel that Internet service is a civil right. Not quite. Your view seems to be that in a free market, consumers have the choice to use or not use a provider of services if those providers undertake actions that hurt said consumers. Other views suggest that consumers don’t really have that choice and a lot of consumers are beholden to 1 or 2 ISPs and are at the mercy of said ISPs. Does that represent an accurate summary of the views of yourself and others? ---
**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 23, 2017, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/562 "2017-12-23T03:54:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Your question presupposes that we agree on what rule were imposed. Before I can answer that, I have to know what you mean by “rules that were imposed.” > > Do you mean rules that the FCC decided not to enforce through forbearance, but which exist by virtue of the Title II classification? I don’t think there’s any miscommunication, other than I asked what the government should have done that in your opinion would have addressed the issue in a way that was not out of proportion to the “abuses” (your term) that has occurred. Let me break this down and ask the question again: 1. There were abuses. 2. The government reacted. 3. You said they overreacted (in so many words). 4. I said I didn’t think so, and asked what the government should have done instead. 5. You proceed to ask me what government response I’m talking about. 6. I say that it is the one that you brought up to criticize in the first place. 7. And here we are. ---
**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 23, 2017, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/563 "2017-12-23T04:02:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > In your opinion, after these issues started causing problems, what would you suggest that the FCC or other government entity should have done? > [@Ravenman](#): > > I asked what the government should have done that in your opinion would have addressed the issue in a way that was not out of proportion to the “abuses” (your term) that has occurred. This seems to be a relevant question. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/564 "2017-12-23T07:20:11Z")
_Comcast delenda est._ ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/565 "2017-12-23T15:06:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My own view is that no one has a right to Internet service, but some discussion above suggests that other contributors to this discussion feel that Internet service is a civil right. Civil right? Depends on how you define it. Legalistically or constitutionally, probably not, but colloquially, yeah. Is having phone service, electricity, running water, a safe food supply, and passable roads a civil right? Is your view that no one has a right to those and other services that are provided by or regulated by our government? If so, then you are consistent that no one has a right to anything that they cannot physically secure the rights to themselves, as was the state of humanity for most of its past. I don’t know that that is a good view to take if we are talking about having a society and civilization where people work together towards greater goals than they can accomplish themselves. If not, then what is the difference? I would argue that the internet has become something that you need to have access to in order to have any chance of participating in today’s economy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/566 "2017-12-23T16:13:21Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Not quite. Your view seems to be that in a free market, consumers have the choice to use or not use a provider of services if those providers undertake actions that hurt said consumers. Other views suggest that consumers don’t really have that choice and a lot of consumers are beholden to 1 or 2 ISPs and are at the mercy of said ISPs. > > Does that represent an accurate summary of the views of yourself and others? Much more accurate than other attempts to summarize my arguments here, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/567 "2017-12-23T16:15:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t think there’s any miscommunication, other than I asked what the government should have done that in your opinion would have addressed the issue in a way that was not out of proportion to the “abuses” (your term) that has occurred. > > Let me break this down and ask the question again: > > 1. There were abuses. > 2. The government reacted. > 3. You said they overreacted (in so many words). > 4. I said I didn’t think so, and asked what the government should have done instead. > 5. You proceed to ask me what government response I’m talking about. > 6. I say that it is the one that you brought up to criticize in the first place. > 7. And here we are. Fair enough: my answer then is the government should have sought targeted regulatory authority for ISPs, and crafted rules specific to the abuses mentioned, as opposed to classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II. ---
**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 23, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/568 "2017-12-23T16:58:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fair enough: my answer then is the government should have sought targeted regulatory authority for ISPs, and crafted rules specific to the abuses mentioned, as opposed to classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II. I appreciate that you’re attempting to answer the question, but I just don’t understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that the FCC could have taken some other enforcement action? Can you give me a sense of what sort of action would have been more appropriate, in your view? Are you saying that the FCC should have waited until Congress passed some legislation? As I understand it, the title II decision was made in part because of lack of congressional action - does that mean the FCC should have kept waiting for Congress to clarify a national policy on NN? ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/569 "2017-12-23T17:44:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I would add to that threshold that at least 90%ish percent have at least 2 choices. It could be argued that you(we) already do. There may be plenty of places where cable company broadband over coax doesn’t overlap with phone company broadband over copper but nearly all those places have cell coverage. The backbone 2020 “plan” from AT&T’s CEO Randall Stevenson includes streaming over wireless. That’s probably gonna be done over 5g cell service. If your holding out for phone and cable companies to run fiber so it covers every house in the US your wasting your time. Short of some multi trillion dollar government infrastructure project with heavy oversight, that’s never going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/570 "2017-12-23T18:02:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fair enough: my answer then is the government should have sought targeted regulatory authority for ISPs, and crafted rules specific to the abuses mentioned, as opposed to classifying ISPs as common carriers under Title II. I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean in practice. What, like, “It your company name’s Verizon, you don’t get to do {this shady shit] we know you’re trying to do right now” ? That’s targeted all right, but… yeah. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/571 "2017-12-23T18:03:02Z")
> [@Bruce\_Wayne](#): > > It could be argued that you(we) already do. There may be plenty of places where cable company broadband over coax doesn’t overlap with phone company broadband over copper but nearly all those places have cell coverage. The backbone 2020 “plan” from AT&T’s CEO Randall Stevenson includes streaming over wireless. That’s probably gonna be done over 5g cell service. If your holding out for phone and cable companies to run fiber so it covers every house in the US your wasting your time. Short of some multi trillion dollar government infrastructure project with heavy oversight, that’s never going to happen. I don’t see wireless as replacing wired technologies until they are actually equivalent. Can I get the same speeds, ping times, services and quotas I can get on wired as I can on wireless? I am not “wasting time” holding out for there to be several broadband options, I am saying that that scenario is not likely to happen. As it is unlikely to happen, that is why we need regulations on the oligopolies or monopolies that are serving our communities. Long ago, the govt did declare communications to be a necessity, and regulated the telephone company in requiring them to hook up every single home in the United States. There were houses that got phone service before they got electricity. So, really, in order to get every house hooked up to a broadband service would not require a multi trillion dollar government infrastructure project either. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/572 "2017-12-23T18:08:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that’s the point, then what makes you think that “it’s harder,” and “the companies do know how and where to pressure,” What makes me think that? Now what you say here then means that you did not read the article, nor even the quote provided. > [@Bricker](#): > > is a standard that justifies regulation to address? Be concise and specific, citing your sources. First, once again one has to point that there is an ongoing narrative that the right wing media told people like you that is a **false** one: > **[Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False](https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbympa/net-neutrality-fcc-inspector-general-report)** > > The story of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet was refuted by an Inspector General investigation whose findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote. > [@](#): > > **Internal FCC Report Shows Republican Net Neutrality Narrative Is False > The story of net neutrality as an Obama-led takeover of the internet was refuted by an Inspector General investigation whose findings were not made public prior to Thursday’s vote.** > [@](#): > > A core Republican talking point during the net neutrality battle was that, in 2015, President Obama led a government takeover of the internet, and Obama illegally bullied the independent Federal Communications Commission into adopting the rules. In this version of the story, Ajit Pai’s rollback of those rules Thursday is a return to the good old days, before the FCC was forced to adopt rules it never wanted in the first place. > [@](#): > > Since 2014, Republicans have pointed to net neutrality as an idea primarily promoted by President Obama, and have made it another in a long line of regulations and laws that they have sought to repeal now that Donald Trump is president. Prior to this false narrative, though, net neutrality was a bipartisan issue; the first net neutrality rules were put in place under President George W. Bush, and many Republicans worked on the 2015 rules that were just dismantled. > > What happened, then, is that Republicans sold the public a narrative that wasn’t true, then used that narrative to repeal the regulations that protect the internet. All that needs to be taken into account to point out that yes, the FCC saw a need to regulate, and no, it was not just a partisan issue then; the inclusion of partisanship once again has to be blamed on sources of information that had an interest on making it so. So besides the issues pointed before that led to the regulations, the reasons why the regulations are being dropped are not only because of ideological reasons, but because the same industries that will gain profit from dropping the regulations also influenced the process and continue to do so. And to do that the current leadership of the FCC had to wilfully ignore the majority of Americans and most of the experts. Even before, Fortune Magazine had the opinion that no regulation was needed, but the (in practice) monopolies of the cable companies and abuses seen told them that regulation was needed. > **[How the cable industry became a monopoly](https://fortune.com/2015/05/19/cable-industry-becomes-a-monopoly/)** > > Regulators fear the risks of broadband provider consolidation will outweigh the potential benefits for American consumers. > [@](#): > > Relaxing on Mother’s Day earlier this month gave me time to think about the most important skill I learned from my mom: to always be a good listener. The cable industry, which now thinks of itself as the broadband industry (their annual convention was renamed the Internet and Television Expo), has not been a good listener. > > In fact, the industry appears to be completely deaf to what has been coming out of Washington D.C. from regulators all the way up to President Obama himself. While in late 2013, we did not believe Title II reclassification of broadband (how the FCC regulates other telecommunication services such as the telephone) was necessary to protect the Internet and foresaw no meaningful regulatory issues with Comcast (cmcsa, -0.05%) buying Time Warner Cable, a tremendous amount has changed since then. The dramatic shift in the political climate and consumer sentiment drove us in late 2014 to view Title II broadband reclassification as inevitable, convinced us that Comcast/TWC would be blocked in February 2015, and now leads us to believe Charter Communications will not be able to buy TWC, not to mention the possibility that the Department of Justice may look to break up Comcast. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, online video consumption is growing rapidly, posing a direct threat to the core cable video business. This has forced regulators to take a very active approach to protect consumers from the risk of poor broadband provider (ISP) behavior. So, whether you agree with the premise or not, you can see why regulators are so concerned about industry consolidation–such activity offers significant long-term risks and no clear consumer benefits. > > The cable industry needs to start listening to these concerns before they try to force deals that the government does not believe are in Americans’ best interests. All need to be aware of that and realize that the real astroturf came from the ones that do want to keep their monopolistic positions, and that the current government is not in favor of the consumers but in favor of the corporations that do not want to see competition. ---
**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 23, 2017, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/573 "2017-12-23T18:37:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My own view is that no one has a right to Internet service, but some discussion above suggests that other contributors to this discussion feel that Internet service is a civil right. Whether you choose to call Internet access a “civil right” or something else isn’t as important as acknowledging that it’s an essential service in a modern society, something that’s been recognized by the UN and by many national governments. It’s not just the fringe view of a few posters. And that’s why it needs to be regulated as such. You seem to be trying out different arguments and all of them are failing. You’ve tried to argue that there’s no demonstrated need for regulation. The history of abuses documented here says otherwise. You’ve tried to argue that the industry is a free market and not a “natural monopoly”. It’s been shown to you that this is manifestly false, for economic and technological reasons, and that’s why most areas have limited choice and competition and some have no choice at all. That’s also why the relatively small number of players frequently colludes in the manner of an oligopoly. Where I am it’s basically Bell with their DSL service or whoever operates the local cable monopoly, and they are in lock-step, as nearly identical as can be given the different technologies. When one introduces either a new feature, a new pricing policy, or some asinine abusive restriction, the other does exactly the same thing at the same time. And now you’re trying to argue that the Internet is not important enough to be regulated. The world doesn’t agree. The very idea is absurd. We live in the age of the Internet: in news, commerce, education, entertainment, communications and general information the Internet is what defines our times. To be without it is to not be a full participant in society. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/574 "2017-12-23T19:55:43Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > It is a basic right in my society because the society aspires to the principle of equality of opportunity. But then you live in a basket case of racism so it’s to be expected. Layer 3 routers are racist? 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 23, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/575 "2017-12-23T19:59:16Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If not, then what is the difference? I would argue that the internet has become something that you need to have access to in order to have any chance of participating in today’s economy. So is a credit card. Do people have a civil right to credit? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/576 "2017-12-23T20:08:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I appreciate that you’re attempting to answer the question, but I just don’t understand what you mean by this. > > Are you saying that the FCC could have taken some other enforcement action? Can you give me a sense of what sort of action would have been more appropriate, in your view? > > Are you saying that the FCC should have waited until Congress passed some legislation? As I understand it, the title II decision was made in part because of lack of congressional action - does that mean the FCC should have kept waiting for Congress to clarify a national policy on NN? The FCC should have reported to Congress that legislation was needed in its view to curb the following abuses, and asked for enabling legislation. You seem to be saying that sure, that might have been better but Congress didn’t act. So obviously the FCC had to do SOMETHING! And to that I say no: we have a system in which Congress makes laws, and the FCC makes rules to implement those laws. The FCC should not assume the mantle of lawmaker. Now the FCC has acted in a way you don’t like, and somehow that’s not legitimate, but when they act in a way you like, it’s peachy. This is the kind of flexible standard that drives me nuts. In any event, that’s my answer: Congress should have enabled FCC reach here, and the FCC should have proposed rules via the usual Administrative Procedure Act mandated notice-and-comment process. They didn’t get that response from Congress, so they pulled a fast one and reclassified ISPs under a law from 1934, and then claimed “forebearance,” would be used to not apply lots of the mandatory rules that classification entailed. I oppose this. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/577 "2017-12-23T20:12:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So is a credit card. Do people have a civil right to credit? Umm, I would certainly think so, as there have been cases of credit issuers sued for racially discriminatory lending practices. If credit didn’t exist, then no, no one would have a right to it. But, as it does exist, then everyone does have a right to use credit responsibly and build their credit score to be able to further leverage their earning potential and extend their wealth. Other than credit history, expenses, and income, do you think that there is anything that should allow you to discriminate against one borrower over another? No? Then yeah, it’s a right. Yes? What would that be then? I’m not sure where you are trying to go with this analogy, but I am thinking it is probably going to be another dead end. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/578 "2017-12-23T20:13:04Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Whether you choose to call Internet access a “civil right” or something else isn’t as important as acknowledging that it’s an essential service in a modern society, something that’s been recognized by the UN and by many national governments. > > . > . > . > > And now you’re trying to argue that the Internet is not important enough to be regulated. The world doesn’t agree. Then what’s the concern? The world will handle it! Surely the world outranks the FCC. When may we expect a replacement net neutrality rule from the world? Will there be a signing ceremony? Go ahead. Pluck your new rule from the World Tree upon which you apparently believe it grows. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/579 "2017-12-23T20:18:26Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Umm, I would certainly think so, as there have been cases of credit issuers sued for racially discriminatory lending practices. > > If credit didn’t exist, then no, no one would have a right to it. But, as it does exist, then everyone does have a right to use credit responsibly and build their credit score to be able to further leverage their earning potential and extend their wealth. > > Other than credit history, expenses, and income, do you think that there is anything that should allow you to discriminate against one borrower over another? No? Then yeah, it’s a right. Yes? What would that be then? > > I’m not sure where you are trying to go with this analogy, but I am thinking it is probably going to be another dead end. I certainly agree that no ISP should be able to racially discriminate. But those who extend credit may refuse to extend it to people for reasons having nothing to do with race, yes? Nowhere in this thread is the proposition that ISP Net Neutrality is a racial issue. So that wasn’t the analogy I was offering. Credit offerors can refuse to give credit to people for all sorts of reasons. I’m asking if the person who is denied credit because he has a low-paying job and a high debt-to-income ratio and a history of missed payments is being denied a civil right. Is he? Since credit cards are an indispensable tool of our modern economy, just like the Internet. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522/580 "2017-12-23T20:19:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now the FCC has acted in a way you don’t like, and somehow that’s not legitimate, but when they act in a way you like, it’s peachy. > > This is the kind of flexible standard that drives me nuts. That’s only because of your interpretation. The FCC acted in a way that I liked, and I felt that that was legitimate. Later, when the FCC acted in a way I didn’t like, no one claimed that it was not legitimate. No one has claimed that they didn’t have the ability to reverse their earlier decisions. We only declare that it is against the best interest of the people of the United States. It is a poor decision, it is a wrong decision, it is a decision that will lead to sub-optimal outcomes, it is a decision that is bought and paid for by large corporations, those sorts of accusations have been validly leveled at the FCC and their decision. Nothing about their authority to make that decision. If anything is driving you nuts, it is your insistence on making up motivations for your interlocutors that are at odds with how they actually act. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-rule/804522.md?page=30)