Net neutrality is all but dead. Here's what happens now.

Everyone take a moment of silence please — the free and open internet is all but dead.

In December 2017 the FCC, under chairman Ajit Pai, voted to repeal net neutrality, signaling the end of the open internet as we know it.

The decision was controversial at the time, with everyone from Alyssa Milano to Reddit calling out the FCC in the lead-up to the vote, but the the vote was just the first step toward repeal. To enact the change, the FCC would have to officially list the ruling and provide a timeline for it.

That listing came in February and, now we're even closer to net neutrality's funeral. The listing notes the repeal's effective date as April 23, but there's a big asterisk next to it. The effective date isn't actually the effective date for the most impactful parts of the repeal. We have to wait for an administrative step — a review by the Office of Management and Budget — and then there will be another published notice.

Net neutrality is a series of regulations, instituted by the Obama administration, designed to ensure that the internet is open and free. That sounds very conceptual but basically it means internet service providers (ISPs) like Comcast or Verizon can't slow down specific sites and charge companies for preferential treatment for internet access.

The dominant metaphor used to explain net neutrality is the image of a highway. Under net neutrality, the internet functions as a one-lane highway — everyone and everything flows at the same rate, on the same path (more or less). Every site, no matter how big or small, was given equal access.

"At the core, [net neuatrality] means all data and content on the internet must be given equal rights, whether you're a college student in a dorm room or a mega-conglomerate that uses up a lot of the web's speed for, say, streaming movies and TV shows," Mashable's Samantha Murphy wrote in 2015.

But without net neutrality, ISPs could institute fast and slow lanes, decide to block sites, and charge companies more money varying levels of access to their audience. In other words, hypothetically speaking, a company like Hulu could pay more money to load faster than Netflix, effectively purchasing a competitive edge.

The decision has largely been decried as a move that undermines innovation, making it harder for startups and younger companies to compete with existing corporations that can afford to cover the costs for preferential treatment from ISPs.

"The internet mostly evolved under net neutrality principles. This meant that the internet was something of a meritocracy. The best idea would conceivably win out," Mashable's Jason Abbruzzese wrote in 2017 following the net neutrality vote. "Without net neutrality, this could change, opening up the door to corporate domination of the internet."

For anybody looking for a more visual illustration, Burger King explained it using Whoppers.

So why are we ending net neutrality? On December 14, the FCC voted in a 3-2 decision to repeal the net neutrality legislation put in place by the Obama administration.

Opponents of net neutrality say net neutrality is an overextension of government regulation, that the internet doesn't need federal governance to function fairly.

Instead, the FCC board says that if there is a violation, those violations can go to the FTC.

Explaining the vote, Mashable's Jason Abbruzzese used a cops and courts metaphor. The FCC are the cops preventing crimes from happening. But the FTC is like a court, adjudicating after a crime has been committed.

"The FTC is more like the court system. If someone wrongs you, you have to take them to court. Then you have to wait. Then you have to hope you win. This is what the FTC is—a passive system," Abbruzzese outlined.

But I don't own a business. I just use the internet to browse. Does this affect me too? Yep! The repercussions of net neutrality could also be felt but individual internet users. After all, if an ISP institutes slower load times for your favorite sites, that means more time waiting for them to appear in your browser or app. In other words, without net neutrality, you may see more of those infamous internet buffering icons on your favorite websites.

Another thing that could happen is, in order to pay for a higher tier of internet access, services may start charging higher premiums to offset the increased cost of broadband.

Overall, the industries that will be affected by the net neutrality repeal run the gamut of services — from porn to health care ("These days, electronic health records are often kept in the cloud, and fast and reliable access to this data is vital to patient care," writes Mashable's Jack Morse).

So that's it? Net Neutrality is just over now? Fortunately, not all hope is lost.

First, just because the lack of net neutrality means, technically, ISPs can charge for preferential internet access doesn't mean they necessarily will. And some ISPs have already stated their commitment to keeping the internet open. For instance, Comcast senior executive VP David Cohen wrote a blog post stating, "Comcast customers will continue to enjoy all of the benefits of an open Internet today, tomorrow, and in the future. Period... We’ve said consistently we’ve not entered into paid prioritization agreements and have no plans to do so."

States and towns are sticking up for an open internet, passing local legislation to protect and free an open internet. New York's governor Andrew Cuomo, for instance, signed an executive order stating that "the internet is an essential service that should be available to all New Yorkers," and accordingly banned New York State's government from entering any contract with ISPs unless they agree to net neutrality principles. Montana governor Steve Bullock also signed an executive order stating that "the state of Montana will only do business with companies that adhere to net neutrality."

Meanwhile, over 20 state attorneys general — including AGs for New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and D.C. — have filed a lawsuit against the FCC and the United States of America.

"An open internet — and the free exchange of ideas it allows — is critical to our democratic process. The repeal of net neutrality would turn internet service providers into gatekeepers – allowing them to put profits over consumers while controlling what we see, what we do, and what we say online," said Attorney General Schneiderman of New York said in a statement about the suit.

The question that remains is how much can ongoing lawsuits and state legislation counter the repeal of net neutrality.

"In some circumstances, a federal agency like the FCC can “pre-empt” state and local laws and rules when they are inconsistent with federal laws and rules. Comcast and Verizon asked for this preemption after Congress repealed the FCC’s strong broadband privacy rules and some 16 states introduced laws that would protect users’ privacy. As usual, Pai gave these powerful companies exactly what they asked for," Gigi Sohn wrote for Mashable in November 2017.

Is there anything that I can do to advocate for Net Neutrality? The fight against net neutrality can seem like it's happening all above us: States and giant tech companies fighting the federal government. But there is a lot that we as consumers can do to stand up for net neutrality rules.

The first, obviously, is to stay informed of any changes that are happening. One way to stay informed about what changes companies are making following the net neutrality is to read the "terms of service," assistant professor of information at the University of Michigan told Mashable in December 2017, following the FCC vote.

"Next time Comcast, Verizon, AT&T update their terms of service (TOS) or privacy policy, what are they actually changing? It's probably not going to be super obvious and might just be things where they kind of loosen the language a little bit to allow them to do stuff they weren't allowed before, but that's the stuff to watch out for."

You can find a helpful explainer on how to be a responsible citizen of the internet in a post-net neutrality world here.

Ajit Pai and Trump saved the internet.

This net neutrality crap was a soros communist scam

great graphs . what site ?

Government agencies like the FDA,EPA , FEC, IRS etc. are a cancer and unconstitutional. amazing so many freepers and conservatives were fooled by this net neutrality crap that is just a lot of heavy handed government regulation and oversight.

Ronald Reagan was right : Government is not the solution to any problem government is the problem.

I'm glad Trump is reducing government regulations . They were choking the economy and our freedom. i’m amazed at the amount of freepers i had “debates” with on this net neutrality crap. Why do they love government regulations? government is a cancer as the gov schools and comey, clapper, sessions , venezuela etc. prove .

The number in the federal registry graph is especially
informative:

As you can see every democrat president greatly increased the pages of government regulation . Trump has reduced them the most Then Reagan reduced them. And Obama wow look at obama’s
last year that commie creep exploded the number of regulations that year more than any year ever. I guess he wanted to cripple the economy more. Those government regulations were choking the USA economy and our freedom. Net neutrality was supposed to choke the internet . Hope Trump is able to keep reducing regulations at this rate . from the graph looks like he is down to when clinton got elected who of course increased them a lot.

I hope that is enough to counter the FEd's agressive and imo out to get Trump raising interest rates.people tell me the fed is not political . oH yeah? look at a graph of rates. The Fed kept the rates near zero for practically all of obama 's 8 years. if that's not political then what is? so what we had under obama was a bubble fake economy fake stock market covered by fake news and fake science(global warming). we have been living in worse times than 1984 and the matrix. Hopefully Trump can pull us out but the fed is dangerous and the only thing that might ruin the party crashing their own fake economy

This gives me hope. Trump reduced in 1 year the number of pages of government regulations to around 60,000 the same as Clinton’s first year his lowest count. obama had that at 90,000 pages of government regulations.

Hope that’s enough from the FEd crashing their own fake economy they created politically for Obama as for 8 years they kept interest rates near zero creating a fake economy.
Now I know for hillary they would have kept them at zero or increased at a slower pace. don’t think they need to increase at this rate with only 2.0 gdp . so it’s politcal

https://cei.org/blog/trump-regulations-federal-register-page-count-lowest-quarter-century

Today, Friday, December 29, 2017, is the last federal workday of the year.

This presents an opportunity to round up all rules and regulations produced by agencies appearing in the calendar-year 2017 Federal Register

The calendar year concluded with 61,950 pages in the Federal Register this morning. Here’s the cover.

This is the lowest count since 1993’s 61,166 pages. That was Bill Clinton’s first year, and his own lowest-ever count.

rurgan, good posts, and I largely agree.

These graphs were from George Washington University at this link, which is sadly extremely Leftist (I am told, but never been there)

On the other hand, while I am sure that they at GWU don't see the increasing weight of legislative overhead as being a negative, people like you, I, and others of like mind do indeed see it as a cancer, and accurately, too.

I must admit that I like using leftist material to buttress a conservative point I may try to make. I enjoy listening to Dan Bongino, because he also takes satisfaction in using their own words against them. (A good example of this is the work by Heather MacDonald in her famous piece from the Wall Street Journal: The Myths of Black Lives Matter and her book "The War on Cops", both of which use government statistics to prove her points.)

Speaking for myself (and I know there are many who agree with me, though not all) I do not eschew all legislation. I am not an advocate of anarchy, I am an advocate of a constitutional republic, and to have one, we must have laws. What I am opposed to is a crushing, overbearing burden of laws that regulate down to the level of what we eat, paper we can use, or light bulbs we can buy.

So, like you, I do see hope in this. We have to start somewhere. Every huge mountain is climbed by starting out with a single step in the right direction.

As for conservatives who buy into "Net Neutrality" I think there are several reasons...the less flattering is that they are self-centered about what they want, and they like things for free (Internet speed) so they sign on. I don't think you can be for it and be a conservative at many levels. But there are also people who buy into it thinking that it should be treated like interstate highways with respect to funding. I think they are just wrong. They accept an incorrect premise to begin, and build off of that.

In both of those cases, it opens the Internet to censorship and government corruption, a Pandora's Box that once opened, will be very, very difficult to seal up again.

Again, good posts you wrote. I enjoyed reading them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.