FCC plans total repeal of net neutrality rules

[Rockfish1]

This allows oligopolists who serve a public utility function to decide what content their customers may have on the internet. I don't want ISPs telling me what online content I can access any more than I want the power company telling me which appliances I'm allowed to buy.

ISPs are a conduit to everything that exists online. The FCC's decision hands control of this conduit to ginormous corporations. They will then extract rents from us to do anything online. No one should have this kind of market power.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

This allows oligopolists who serve a public utility function to decide what content their customers may have on the internet. I don't want ISPs telling me what online content I can access any more than I want the power company telling me which appliances I'm allowed to buy.

ISPs are a conduit to everything that exists online. The FCC's decision hands control of this conduit to ginormous corporations. They will then extract rents from us to do anything online. No one should have this kind of market power.

You Libertarian!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What happens when I want to visit my favorite fake site "comcastsucks.com" and Comcast flips the off switch on the site so I can't visit it or they charge me more to access this site? I believe these types of problems are a reason for net neutrality.

What if I'm a gamer but now I'll have to pay more to play even though I use the same amount of bandwidth because I play on X site?

Why should the internet be different than my energy bill? I use X amount of energy using Y devices. Should I be charged more for using a certain device? I pay for the amount of energy I use and not how it is used.

Just some thoughts for the thread. Not sure how net neutrality is a bad thing.

Net neutrality, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

 

[sglowrider]

You might be misreading his post. I think he has a pretty good grasp on it, at least from the consumer POV.

You will land paying more based on the type of service. Google may start charging for their search service if they want to maintain their current QOS. Video streaming companies will definitely need to pay more and therefore, pass it down to the consumer.
Its not about the amount of bandwidth that you use but the type of service that you are requiring. As I mentioned before, every internet packet is already prioritised.

This is just an attempt to milk more from the customers and create additional barriers to entry for new innovations and startups.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

in 2004, Michael Powell, (son of Colin), was Chairman of the FCC.

Michael Powell now makes many millions a yr as big cable's number 1 lobbyist.

BIG CABLE'S NUMBER 1 LOBBYIST, TOP DOG! the very Chairman of the FCC that killed the ala carte you want.

you're obviously not very good at this, but that should answer your question as to why it didn't happen in 2004. it was because big cable bribed the FCC commissioners not to do it, just have they have since.

now they are bribing Pai and the other GOP commissioners to kill net neutrality, just as they paid off FCC commissioners to kill ala carte.

you didn't think Pai and the GOP were doing this because they think it is good policy did you???

on a side note, last yr the previous FCC tried to unlock the box, so everyone didn't have to rent a box and dvr from their cable/satellite provider. (as we could back in the "cable ready" days).

the GOP flat killed it.

they didn't kill it because it was bad policy, they did it because they were bribed by big cable to not do it.

want ala carte? while the FCC and regulation is deeply flawed by corruption, it's still your only, i repeat ONLY, chance of getting it, and you'll flat out never get it with a GOP FCC.

if you think cable will go ala carte out of the goodness of their heart, what in the world would make you think that???

only force will make them break up the bundle, and since all cable and satellite companies, even competing ones, and the programmers, all benefit from the forced bundle, absent a legislative remedy which won't happen, the only force capable of doing so is regulation and the FCC.

on a side note, in 2004 there actually were tech logistical problems with going ala carte.

those issues all became moot when cable went all digital, and bribery is all that stops ala carte today.

Dude, you're all over the place. You went from saying (wrongly) that it was out of the FCC's hands after 1996 to saying it was Michael Powell's fault in 2004.

People had been clamoring for this for years, before and after the TCA and before and after Michael Powell.

 

[sglowrider]

Dude, you're all over the place. You went from saying (wrongly) that it was out of the FCC's hands after 1996 to saying it was Michael Powell's fault in 2004.

People had been clamoring for this for years, before and after the TCA and before and after Michael Powell.

No one is clamouring for removal of Net Neutrality though other than cable companies, ISPs:

Facebook, Google and Netflix among those displaying message campaigning on future of the web

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...peal-internet-providers-verizon-a7836421.html

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No one is clamouring for removal of Net Neutrality though other than cable companies, ISPs:

Facebook, Google and Netflix among those displaying message campaigning on future of the web

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...peal-internet-providers-verizon-a7836421.html

Crazed is simultaneously trying to argue that he doesn't trust regulators to not do the bidding of the regulated, while also supported a decision that is being made with the full support of the regulated. Please don't expect anything he offers to make any sense.

 

[sglowrider]

Crazed is simultaneously trying to argue that he doesn't trust regulators to not do the bidding of the regulated, while also supported a decision that is being made with the full support of the regulated. Please don't expect anything he offers to make any sense.

Sticking to a jingoistic concept and yet not being practical, work-wise.

 

[Rockfish1]

Net neutrality, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

It's just a thing that the people you vote for are determined to stamp out.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Dude, you're all over the place. You went from saying (wrongly) that it was out of the FCC's hands after 1996 to saying it was Michael Powell's fault in 2004.

People had been clamoring for this for years, before and after the TCA and before and after Michael Powell.

you're clueless.

i said cable was effectively deregulated in 96, which it was, and that Powell, now top lobbyist for big cable, was FCC Chairman when the article you referenced was written.

that said, at the time of the article, 2004, there were still logistical barriers to ala carte.

those barriers no longer exist though, and haven't since cable went all digital.

as for why ala carte isn't an option now that the logistical barriers are no longer there, the number one current reason is corruption, and the fact that big telecom owns to many commissioners, especially the GOP commissioners.

that said, your best hope for ala carte is still the FCC, as legislative relief is less likely than regulatory relief, and cable sure ain't breaking up the bundle without a gun to their head.

they are not going ala carte on their own, for the same reasons that they will abuse a non neutral net.

it's more profitable. and they will always do what's more profitable when the choice is up to them.

you obviously know nothing about the cable industry, or capitalism.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Yes. So? Are you saying Hulu never worked well with service providers that had no interest in it?

Who owns Netflix? And why did it, likewise, predate the rule change?

My point is that people are suggesting that OTT only took off because of a rule change in 2015. And that's not true. It took off before that.

in it's current make up, over the top isn't so much a replacement for cable, but a replacement for Blockbuster, Family Video, and the premium channels. (HBO, Showtime, etc).

as for why over the top flourished when it did, it's because that's when it became doable from a tech standpoint.

Netflix started as a DVD rental by mail enterprise.

it went internet, when the technology enabled doing so.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

everyone is too focused on "net neutrality", when the real focus should be title II classification of the internet..

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Why do you have pull out this kind of nonsense? You're seriously equating net neutrality regulation with expropriation? Gimme a break.

All his posts in this thread are a joke. I’ve never seen someone argue so hard against something that helps consumers.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

This allows oligopolists who serve a public utility function to decide what content their customers may have on the internet. I don't want ISPs telling me what online content I can access any more than I want the power company telling me which appliances I'm allowed to buy.

ISPs are a conduit to everything that exists online. The FCC's decision hands control of this conduit to ginormous corporations. They will then extract rents from us to do anything online. No one should have this kind of market power.

It’s really gonna piss off Utah if they start charging a premium to get to porn sites.

I wonder what the extra charges will be to get to sports related sites, or news related, or education related. This is going to be what they’re allowed to do now.

 

[IUCrazy2]

That's probably closer to right. But, as I pointed out last night, understand that this practice has gone on in the regulated landline world for eons.

The end user never really knew it. But if you remember the days of, say, $0.10/minute long distance (which was a helluva bargain compared to what it had been in the pre-divestiture world), well part of that charge went to your local telephone company and part of it went to the local telephone company of the guy you called.

Is there really anything unfair or untoward about that? Or do you think the MCIs of the world should be able to freely use (and profit from) the BellSouths of the worlds local phone lines without compensating them?

I suspect that eventually, even if net neutrality stays in place, these back-end charges would become a reality.

Those last mile networks we all rely on for service aren't free. In fact, they're expensive as hell to maintain -- which means they have to be paid for one way or another.

They are paid for when you pay for the service to AT&T, Comcast, etc. It is not like they wire you up for a one time charge and then you use it how you wish. If you cut the cable cord with those guys and just stick with their internet option, the price you pay for internet doubles. For example, I had AT&T for internet and Dish satellite. When I switched my phone from Verizon to AT&T and my TV from Dish to Direct, they were able to cut my bill in half. They can do this because, despite all their protests to the contrary, most of their cost in running those end line wires to your house are a sunk cost that they overcharge you for (All they have left is maintenance of the lines...and when the lines to your house go bad, you get charged anyway). They also overcharge you for the TV service.

All the net neutrality talk is really just a way for a few mega corporations to ensure that they continue to have a strangle hold on their industry. There is little reason to innovate if you can choke out the competition. The only way I could see this working is if they go in at the same time and break up all these mega corporations. Comcast cannot own any broadcast stations or streaming stations. AT&T should not be allowed to buy Time Warner. AT&T has to sell Direct TV. I live in a populous area and I basically have two high speed internet options. I have 3 TV options outside of cutting the cord (and 2 of those are tied in with my internet options). If my only 2 internet options have a vested interest in throttling the speed of any one or anything that challenges their TV dominance, they basically get to split the customer base between the 2 of them.

Put me in the corner with the lefties on this one. This is corporatist bull shit which the leaders of the GOP have been doing for far too long. What is good for corporate America is not always what is good for America.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

They are paid for when you pay for the service to AT&T, Comcast, etc. It is not like they wire you up for a one time charge and then you use it how you wish. If you cut the cable cord with those guys and just stick with their internet option, the price you pay for internet doubles. For example, I had AT&T for internet and Dish satellite. When I switched my phone from Verizon to AT&T and my TV from Dish to Direct, they were able to cut my bill in half. They can do this because, despite all their protests to the contrary, most of their cost in running those end line wires to your house are a sunk cost that they overcharge you for (All they have left is maintenance of the lines...and when the lines to your house go bad, you get charged anyway). They also overcharge you for the TV service.

All the net neutrality talk is really just a way for a few mega corporations to ensure that they continue to have a strangle hold on their industry. There is little reason to innovate if you can choke out the competition. The only way I could see this working is if they go in at the same time and break up all these mega corporations. Comcast cannot own any broadcast stations or streaming stations. AT&T should not be allowed to buy Time Warner. AT&T has to sell Direct TV. I live in a populous area and I basically have two high speed internet options. I have 3 TV options outside of cutting the cord (and 2 of those are tied in with my internet options). If my only 2 internet options have a vested interest in throttling the speed of any one or anything that challenges their TV dominance, they basically get to split the customer base between the 2 of them.

Put me in the corner with the lefties on this one. This is corporatist bull shit which the leaders of the GOP have been doing for far too long. What is good for corporate America is not always what is good for America.

Maybe someday independent ISPs will become plentiful. At the moment, they are not. Removing net neutrality allows them to leverage power against competitors, it is anti-competitive.

Here is an easy solution, if a corporation owns content they must abide by net neutrality. If a corporation only provides a packet moving service, they do not have to follow net neutrality.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Maybe someday independent ISPs will become plentiful. At the moment, they are not. Removing net neutrality allows them to leverage power against competitors, it is anti-competitive.

Here is an easy solution, if a corporation owns content they must abide by net neutrality. If a corporation only provides a packet moving service, they do not have to follow net neutrality.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/21/doj-sues-att-biggest-anti-trust-action-since/

Not necessarily net neutrality but this does touch on the vertical acquisitions we were discussing.

There are conservative arguments to be made against the corporate consolidation of power. Hot Air does a pretty good job of delivering some of them (along with background).

I think this particular paragraph puts forth a compelling argument:

Republicans may feel uncomfortable taking a more aggressive policy on antitrust enforcement, but it does fit with a dedication to small government and federalism. Increasing consolidation in the marketplace concentrates economic power into fewer hands, and economic power eventually will get expressed in political terms. Our massively complicated tax codes and regulations serve as traditional vehicles for rent-seeking behaviors by corporations less interested in free markets than in squelching competition.

 

[UncleMark]

Maybe someday independent ISPs will become plentiful.

Not sure that's possible unless we can get to totally wireless, technologically.

Here is an easy solution, if a corporation owns content they must abide by net neutrality. If a corporation only provides a packet moving service, they do not have to follow net neutrality.

That would still allow them to sell their different tiers of service to the highest bidder, or not. Think of it as paying protection money. "Sure would be a shame if Netflix had shitty throughput."

 

[sglowrider]

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.bc672c4ad2c9

"Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.

The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers."

 

[UncleMark]

FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-net-neutrality-rules/?utm_term=.bc672c4ad2c9

"Under the agency’s proposal, providers of high-speed Internet services, such as Comcast, Verizon and AT&T, would be able to block websites they do not like and charge Web companies for speedier delivery of their content.

The FCC’s effort would roll back its net neutrality regulation which was passed by the agency’s Democrats in 2015 and attempted to make sure all Web content, whether from big or small companies, would be treated equally by Internet providers."

Yabbut, what about Comcast's God given right to gig Netflix? Huh? Huh???

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/21/doj-sues-att-biggest-anti-trust-action-since/

Not necessarily net neutrality but this does touch on the vertical acquisitions we were discussing.

There are conservative arguments to be made against the corporate consolidation of power. Hot Air does a pretty good job of delivering some of them (along with background).

I think this particular paragraph puts forth a compelling argument:

Republicans may feel uncomfortable taking a more aggressive policy on antitrust enforcement, but it does fit with a dedication to small government and federalism. Increasing consolidation in the marketplace concentrates economic power into fewer hands, and economic power eventually will get expressed in political terms. Our massively complicated tax codes and regulations serve as traditional vehicles for rent-seeking behaviors by corporations less interested in free markets than in squelching competition.

The DOJ's case against the AT&T/TW merger is incredibly weak -- which means that it's not terribly fanciful to guess that there's something to the Trump/CNN charge.

Particularly considering that the district judge they got was the same one who approved the Comcast merger, I'd guess that the DOJ's chances of successfully blocking this border on zero.

 

[sglowrider]

Yabbut, what about Comcast's God given right to gig Netflix? Huh? Huh???

Or dictate blocking 'fake news' sites.

 

[UncleMark]

Or dictate blocking 'fake news' sites.

That's an interesting thought. I wonder what would happen if Comcast decided they wanted Breitbart to pay protection money? Or WaPo?

 

[IUCrazy2]

The DOJ's case against the AT&T/TW merger is incredibly weak -- which means that it's not terribly fanciful to guess that there's something to the Trump/CNN charge.

Particularly considering that the district judge they got was the same one who approved the Comcast merger, I'd guess that the DOJ's chances of successfully blocking this border on zero.

Probably so, that is not to say that Trump may have stumbled on a good idea despite his actual reasoning.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Maybe someday independent ISPs will become plentiful. At the moment, they are not. Removing net neutrality allows them to leverage power against competitors, it is anti-competitive.

Here is an easy solution, if a corporation owns content they must abide by net neutrality. If a corporation only provides a packet moving service, they do not have to follow net neutrality.

as to your suggestion that providers must follow net neutrality only if they own content, that won't ever work to achieve the openness we wish to achieve.

every provider would come up with 10 work arounds to circumvent that in the first 5 minutes.


as to the unregulated monopoly ISP issue,

multiple infrastructures all over the city, all going after the same finite number of homes and businesses, is economically and logistically impractical.. each new entrant would blow up the infrastructure's economies of scale and thus cost, and there is only so much space on that utility pole. (not enough to hang multiple more infrastructures).


that leaves 2 practical options.

A), a fully regulated monopoly, including price regulation, as cable once was.

but as regulation gets "captured" by the moneyed interests, poor behavior and pricing could still exit.

B), totally divorce the infrastructure operation from the ISP operation, and ban ISPs from any equity interests in content or infrastructure.

you have a regulated company that does nothing but build and maintain the infrastructure, and multiple ISP's pay some regulated per sub metered access charge to the infrastructure provider to utilize that infrastructure.

then multiple ISPs can compete for your business, without having to each build and maintain their own infrastructure.

no ISP can have any equity interest in any content or infrastructure, and all must follow net neutral policies..

no ISPs can sell voice or cable or any other "utility" in the same market as they sell internet.

this should be the model we pursue, but the entrenched telecom giants will fight it to the death on every front.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The DOJ's case against the AT&T/TW merger is incredibly weak -- which means that it's not terribly fanciful to guess that there's something to the Trump/CNN charge.

Particularly considering that the district judge they got was the same one who approved the Comcast merger, I'd guess that the DOJ's chances of successfully blocking this border on zero.

actually, the case against AT&T-TW is ridiculously strong, but that never seems to influence the DOJ what so ever anymore, and Comcast-NBCU never should have been approved either.

nor should have AT&T/Directv, (beyond ridiculous to let that happen), Comcast-AT&T Cable, Charter-TWC, and no way should Sinclair-Tribune Broadcasting be allowed to happen.

nor should broadcasters be allowed to have multiple stations in any one market, or have cross ownership with radio and print in one market.

nor should the airlines have been allowed to consolidate to the point they were, making for the very poor flying experience today compared to more competitive days.

nor should big oil been allowed to consolidate to the point it was.

the moneyed interests' take over of govt pretty much blew up sane anti trust oversight.

what's going on with big telecom is the most troubling though.

reality is, if we had to pinpoint who "owns" the internet, it's Comcast, AT&T, Charter, Verizon.

Google, Facebook, Amazon, could disappear tomorrow, and the net wouldn't skip a beat.

but your provider has you by the balls, they control the internet.

Comcast, AT&T, Charter, Verizon, also literally outright own or control virtually all the mainstream media. (even C-SPAN is 100% funded and distributed by big cable).

so the entities that own the internet, also own or control virtually all the mainstream media. (and probably your mobile service to boot).

there's a concentration of power that should alarm everyone, and one even politicians have to fear.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

actually, the case against AT&T-TW is ridiculously strong, but that never seems to influence the DOJ what so ever anymore, and Comcast-NBCU never should have been approved either.

nor should have AT&T/Directv, (beyond ridiculous to let that happen), Comcast-AT&T Cable, Charter-TWC, and no way should Sinclair-Tribune Broadcasting be allowed to happen.

nor should broadcasters be allowed to have multiple stations in any one market, or have cross ownership with radio and print in one market.

nor should the airlines have been allowed to consolidate to the point they were, making for the very poor flying experience today compared to more competitive days.

nor should big oil been allowed to consolidate to the point it was.

the moneyed interests' take over of govt pretty much blew up sane anti trust oversight.

what's going on with big telecom is the most troubling though.

reality is, if we had to pinpoint who "owns" the internet, it's Comcast, AT&T, Charter, Verizon.

Google, Facebook, Amazon, could disappear tomorrow, and the net wouldn't skip a beat.

but your provider has you by the balls, they control the internet.

Comcast, AT&T, Charter, Verizon, also literally outright own or control virtually all the mainstream media. (even C-SPAN is 100% funded and distributed by big cable).

so the entities that own the internet, also own or control virtually all the mainstream media. (and probably your mobile service to boot).

there's a concentration of power that should alarm everyone, and one even politicians have to fear.

Wow!

 

[sglowrider]

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

View embedded media

How can the FCC refuse the request? Don’t they work for the “law and order candidate”?

 

[IUPaterade724]

Quite frankly, it's both.

But this isn't Venezuela -- we don't expropriate private assets. And last-mile networks are (mostly, not exclusively) private.

You can't liken these things to leased radio spectrum.

Funny, I believe that's exactly where our internet is heading. Everything bundled and package. Social media, video streaming, new networks etc... will be bundled with an additional price. There is no regulation in place to stop this. ISPs will be free to throttle your streaming video and gaming services as they please with the abolition of the 2015 regulation. You will just have to pay MORE to get that bandwidth back on top of the additional fees you will already be paying for the gaming and streaming packages they've bundled to you.

the Portugal Model
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

 

[twenty02]

As long as we get competition within ISPs....I'm less concerned about net neutrality.

I really already have 2 ISPs (Comcast and Verizon wireless). If 5G comes to pass anytime soon....the physical lines into homes becomes more and more irrelevant...particularly in urban areas (rural is a different animal). Google and others continue to expand their own fiber networks.

Legacy companies like Comcast see the future looks bleak for their current business model...and likely why they are so desperate to get this rule killed sooner rather than later.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As long as we get competition within ISPs....I'm less concerned about net neutrality.

I really already have 2 ISPs (Comcast and Verizon wireless). If 5G comes to pass anytime soon....the physical lines into homes becomes more and more irrelevant...particularly in urban areas (rural is a different animal). Google and others continue to expand their own fiber networks.

Legacy companies like Comcast see the future looks bleak for their current business model...and likely why they are so desperate to get this rule killed sooner rather than later.

I was watching some TV on my phone the other day, and suddenly got a data limit warning. Apparently, my wifi had conked out (like usual), and my phone had been operating on 4G for some time. I hadn't even noticed.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Funny, I believe that's exactly where our internet is heading. Everything bundled and package. Social media, video streaming, new networks etc... will be bundled with an additional price. There is no regulation in place to stop this. ISPs will be free to throttle your streaming video and gaming services as they please with the abolition of the 2015 regulation. You will just have to pay MORE to get that bandwidth back on top of the additional fees you will already be paying for the gaming and streaming packages they've bundled to you.

the Portugal Model
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

Meh, I doubt anything like that will come to pass. If it does, even briefly, it leaves things wide open for entries who will make much better offers.

Frankly, I don't even know how long wireline-based Internet access will remain dominant. There's no wireless platform yet that can compete with fiber's throughput. But things change fast in that world.

I've been seeing a lot of almost dystopian visions of what will come of the Internet if this happens (and remains). I'll be very surprised if the reality will be anything like that.

 

[twenty02]

I was watching some TV on my phone the other day, and suddenly got a data limit warning. Apparently, my wifi had conked out (like usual), and my phone had been operating on 4G for some time. I hadn't even noticed.

I have always had unlimited*...so never paid much attention to it. I kept a Verizon grandfathered plan for years when they were going extinct. Verizon 4G speeds at my old house were faster than my ATT Uverse

*I understand that they can start throttling at 22G per month now....but I've been well over that and never noticed it actually happening.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have always had unlimited*...so never paid much attention to it. I kept a Verizon grandfathered plan for years when they were going extinct. Verizon 4G speeds at my old house were faster than my ATT Uverse

*I understand that they can start throttling at 22G per month now....but I've been well over that and never noticed it actually happening.

I had a grandfathered unlimited iPhone for years, but eventually the battery died.

 

[twenty02]

I had a grandfathered unlimited iPhone for years, but eventually the battery died.

Yeah, I kept buying used phones when my old ones died or were obsolete, just to keep the unlimited. Then I eventually bought a full priced new phone....and paid for the "total equip coverage" or whatever it's called. Whenever a phone now dies on me, Verizon replaces it. And while they technically only have to replace it with the same model (refurbished), they almost have always sent me a brand new, current generation model.

I've been using LG phones....think I bought the LG G3 new...and am now up to a G5 without ever buying a new phone. Probably helps that the G series phones...while being LGs flagship line and have good performance, have also long been plagued with reliability issues. So Verizon doesn't even bother wasting $$ sending out a prior generation model.

The G5 has gone almost 2 years now without issue, so they must be getting better.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Language analysis now suspects over a million fake submissions. It could be "in the millions" . Reading some of the fake comments is interesting.

 

[sglowrider]

How can the FCC refuse the request? Don’t they work for the “law and order candidate”?

You mean 'my law & order' candidate?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You mean 'my law & order' candidate?

Trump probably meant he loves watching Law & Order.

 

[sglowrider]

Funny, I believe that's exactly where our internet is heading. Everything bundled and package. Social media, video streaming, new networks etc... will be bundled with an additional price. There is no regulation in place to stop this. ISPs will be free to throttle your streaming video and gaming services as they please with the abolition of the 2015 regulation. You will just have to pay MORE to get that bandwidth back on top of the additional fees you will already be paying for the gaming and streaming packages they've bundled to you.

the Portugal Model
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutrality-portugal-how-american-internet-could-look-fcc-2017-11

The FCC's abandonment of network neutrality will end the internet as we know it:

Portugal's internet shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html