U.S. FCC chairman wields weed whacker, takes first steps against so-called ‘net neutrality’

“The Federal Communications Commission’s new Republican leadership has rescinded a determination that AT&T and Verizon Wireless violated net neutrality rules with paid data cap exemptions,” Jon Brodkin reports for Ars Technica. “The FCC also rescinded several other Wheeler-era reports and actions.”

“The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau sent letters to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile USA notifying the carriers ‘that the Bureau has closed this inquiry. Any conclusions, preliminary or otherwise, expressed during the course of the inquiry will have no legal or other meaning or effect going forward,'” Brodkin reports. “The FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau also sent a letter to Comcast closing an inquiry into the company’s Stream TV cable service, which does not count against data caps.”

“Pai opposed Wheeler’s zero-rating investigation, saying that free data offerings are ‘popular among consumers precisely because they allow more access to online music, videos, and other content free of charge.’ He has also vowed to overturn the FCC’s net neutrality rules and hasn’t committed to enforcing them while they remain in place,” Brodkin reports. “‘While this is just a first step, these companies, and others, can now safely invest in and introduce highly popular products and services without fear of commission intervention based on newly invented legal theories,’ Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly said today.”

“Pai issued a statement of his own, saying the FCC’s previous leadership ‘released a series of controversial orders and reports’ during ‘the waning days’ of the Obama administration,” Brodkin reports. “‘In some cases, commissioners were given no advance notice whatsoever of these midnight regulations,’ Pai said. ‘In other cases, they were issued over the objection of two of the four commissioners. And in all cases, their release ran contrary to the wishes expressed by the leadership of our congressional oversight committees. These last-minute actions, which did not enjoy the support of the majority of commissioners at the time they were taken, should not bind us going forward. Accordingly, they are being revoked.’ Yesterday, Pai announced a new initiative to publicly release the text of rulemakings before they are voted on, something he unsuccessfully pushed Wheeler to do.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote back in August 2006:

We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so such regulation can often have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net as neutral as it is today.

And as we followed up in September 2009:

That we have the same Take over three years later should be telling. Government regulations are not a panacea, neither are the lack thereof. It’s all about striking a proper balance where innovation can thrive while abuses are prevented.

Make that “the same Take over a decade later.”

Interns: TTK!

How so-called ‘net neutrality’ will fare under President Trump – January 26, 2017
New FCC chairman Ajit Pai vows to take a ‘weed whacker’ to so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 24, 2017
President Trump elevates Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman – January 23, 2017
Outgoing FCC chief Tom Wheeler offers final defense of so-called ‘net neutrality’ – January 13, 2017
Under President Trump, Obama ally Google may face policy setbacks, including roll back of so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – November 18, 2016
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015
Legal battles loom over FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC OKs so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules on party-line vote – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ expected to unleash slew of court challenges – February 26, 2015
EFF: ‘We are deeply concerned; FCC’s new rules include provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach’ – February 25, 2015
The U.S. FCC’s Orwellian Internet policy – February 25, 2015
Democratic FCC commissioner balks at so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 24, 2015
FCC chief pressed to release proposed regulations governing so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 23, 2015
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Obama’s plan a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet – February 10, 2015
Congress launches investigation as Republicans claim Obama had ‘improper influence’ over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 7, 2015
FCC chairman proposes to regulate ISP’s under Title II – February 4, 2015
U.S. congressional Republicans’ bill aims to head off Obama’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ plan – January 17, 2015
U.S. Congressional proposal offers Internet rules of the road – January 15, 2015
U.S. FCC says it will vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’ in February – January 3, 2015
FCC hopes its rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ survive inevitable litigation – November 22, 2014
Obama-appointed FCC chairman distances himself from Obama on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 12, 2014
What does so-called ‘net neutrality’ mean for Apple? – November 12, 2014
AT&T to pause fiber investment until net neutrality rules are decided – November 12, 2014
There’s no one to root for in the debate over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. FCC plays Russian Roulette with so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner: Republicans will continue efforts to stop misguided scheme to regulate the Internet – November 10, 2014
Tech Freedom: Obama cynically exploits confusion over Title II, misses opportunity to lead on legislative deal – November 10, 2014
Obama want FCC to regulate the Internet; Cruz calls it ‘Obamacare for the Internet’ – November 10, 2014


  1. Is this another in the moves that Donald Trump is making to control the internet and usher in a new irrevocable dictatorship for the US of A?

    If you can give control to big business and let them run the country then the middle class will somehow benefit and the poor will just litter the gutters and finally be dispensed with. Christians love it.

    1. Sit back, relax, take a deep breath, and takeituptheass lib. You lost. Elections have consequences. Trump doesn’t need a phone and a pen. He only needs a pen.

        1. The don doesn’t understand the anything. He is a vastly bigger clown that those he hurls hollow insults at. No discussion of facts, policy or issues just name calling and tired old crap. It’s all he has along with some Alternative facts and fake massacres.

            1. One of Trump’s key positions that helped him win the White House is that Rafael Cruz helped assassinate JFK. It is an oft stated position of Trump’s. It is expected he will soon have the DOJ round up Cruz and have him hung.

            2. Good denial of reality. He said it on Fox and Friends the day before the Indiana primary. He repeated after the Republican convention. He referred to a “fake news” story from the sleazoid National Enquirer which is owned by a sleazy friend of his, who published the story with the fake picture. All lies. All Trump. Repeated for effect. Like a good Alinskyite.

            3. So, Botvinnik gets a real news story with Trump’s words saying Cruz was involved and he denies the words. Botvinnik is a typical Cult Member. He is as bad as the Obama Cult Member. Botvinnik knows Trump did what he did, but he is OK with Trump lying. It is that simple.

            4. Try: http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/05/03/watch-trump-calls-out-cruzs-father-old-photo-lee-harvey-oswald

              Granted, Donnie does not explicitly state that “Rafael Cruz helped to assassinate JFK.” But, if you go to 5:10 on the Fox video he does the typical Donnie FUD thing…he repeatedly questions why Rafael Cruz was with Lee Harvey Oswald just prior to the assassination. He implies a serious connection. And that is without any credible evidence that the person in the photo is actually Rafael Cruz.

              So, there you go, botty. More FUD from Donnie on Fox video, no less. You will undoubtedly attempt to weasel your way around it, but it won’t work. There are literally thousands of videos and tweets involving Donnie that show what an imbecilic and lying asshole he is, and you can keep on denying while he screws this country.

            5. Kent, here I thought it was the Dems putting forth a lying, narcissistic, criminal, borderline treasonous, entitled, elitist candidate who thought her body parts would work just as well as skin color did in ’08 that had a little something to do with helping Donald Trump’s win.

      1. Excellent ‘The Don’. I couldn’t have summarized the current corruption called ‘The Republicans’ and better:


        Oh and if we had had an actual democratic election, the votes of We The People as a whole would have determined the current President. That didn’t happen, did it.

        How much did the Trump lose by?

        [And no kids, I didn’t/wouldn’t vote for the Clinton either. Both parties are worthless]

            1. No, it wouldn’t matter to me.

              I know exactly why the Constitution calls for this election process and think it is still best for the states.

              Matter of fact, I wish they would repeal the 17th Amendment and make senators less “buyable”.

          1. In the constitutional republic that the United States is, presidents are elected by the electoral college since its inception.

            12th Amendment, 535 electoral votes, 535 senate and house members.

            But, Derek, The Great Equivocator, who stands for nothing, says John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine and the great James Madison GOT IT ALL WRONG.

            You lose, STFU.

            1. You do insist upon ignoring what people say then going manic by reiterating what was already said.

              DUH Mr. Bot. Note, dare you, how I provided a link to information about the Electoral College over at Wikipedia? Dare you? It’s right there! See it now? Don’t want to see it? Willful ignorance? Is that your dementia-of-the-day?

              I, as usual, don’t give a rat’s about ‘win’ or ‘lose’. It’s about confounding ignorance with knowledge. Perhaps that’s outside your comprehension.

              As usual, you can’t stop stupid. Please stop being stupid.

            2. The Electoral College was implemented for a couple of reasons. First, the information technology and transportation system was not available to gather the popular vote in a timely manner. So delegates were elected as proxies to represent the voters and make the long trips to elect the President and Vice President. Incidentally, the Vice President was originally the person who received the second most votes, regardless of party affiliation.

              I believe that there was a second reason that the Electoral College was developed. The intellectuals of the time did not fully trust the populace to directly elect the top officials. So the Electoral College formed a buffer in which those in power could sway the results, if deemed necessary.

              In any case, the Electoral College is no longer required. We can easily compile the popular vote in real time from coast to coast. In addition, the Trump election proves that the Electoral College vote is not necessarily superior to the popular vote in terms of choosing a President.

              Botty, your reason and logic and memory and willingness to face the truth are all horribly flawed. “Yuge” flaws.

            3. “Appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy.

              For evidence of why that is so, James Madison owned at least 100 slaves when he died. Does that make slavery moral or right?

              So, appealing to James Madison (or any other authority) rather than defending your position with logical arguments is a waste of everyone’s time. Something you specialize in, apparently.

          2. You could benefit by looking a bit more in Wikipedia to see not just “what” is the Electoral College, but “why” we have it. It was created to prevent the Tyranny of the Majority. And thank God it exists because we’ve seen since the election that the current Left will do anything to oppress dissenting viewpoints. But before you or anyone else write it off as just a tool of the Right to steal Hillary’s election, I’ll remind you that the Electoral college has worked in both directions over the past 200+ years to keep the political pendulum from swinging to far one way or another—to keep one majority or another from oppressing the minority. Last November you just witnessed a change in the direction of that pendulum.


            1. … And that’s a stupid, needless assumption on your part. I didn’t bother beyond your first sentence.

              Instead, take hold of the blatantly obvious inference that I personally do NOT have any appreciation for the Electoral College system. Got that? I’m not ever going to have any appreciation for it either. Does that penetrate?

            2. An amendment to end the Electoral College is nothing new. It has been proposed multiple times in the past and I believe that it will eventually happen. Until then, it is the rule of law.

              Another rule of law, botty…the right to free speech. We don’t have to STFU for you or anyone else. It isn’t as if you and Fwhatever held you tongues when it came to calling Obama names. You were also rather free with the FUD, and that has not changed.

          3. The popular vote is not relevant in this particular situation. You don’t like it? Work to change the constitution. It is what it is. Why do let guys like Donny and Botty get under your skin? That’s their entire purpose. You’ve lost to them before you even begin. You meet them on their playing field and you are surprised at the result. How shocking.

            What matters is America and it’s people and aside from immigration issues, it’s already become quite clear the swamp is bigger than ever and the middle class is going to get it up the anal cavity worse than ever before.

            Every singe already weak protection and method of recourse they had is already in the process of being stripped away. And they are so hung up on the Islam/terror issue their stupidity prevents them from seeing what Trump’s plan really is or recognizing there isn’t ever going to be enough lube to make the pain coming their way go away.

            On a personal level, Trump is likely to be very good for me. My tax bill is likely to fall and my investments will face very little regulation as they move forward.

            The 1% will love him as long as he doesn’t send us into recession.The part of the other 99% that voted for him is likely to regret it until they day they die.

            Watch the 1% and Trump’s “own party” will turn on him as 2018 elections approach if the numbers aren’t making them happy. In about 18 months when the ramifications of his actions aside from immigration become apparent, they may begin to fear losing their meal ticket in November. Just wait until they start scurrying about like little mice in a cage afraid of being shipped off to the lab.

            You want some good insight on Donald? Go read/listen to what his good friend Howard Stern (who has known him personally and professionally for over 25 years) said about him earlier this week. It’s insightful and it’s also what NYers who have had a ringside seat since the 70s know. If the rest of you absorb it and understand who he really is under that thin skin you’ll come out of this in pretty good shape. Most of those who voted for him aren’t gong to despite what they think right now.

            1. blahblahblah… I DO work to change the US Constitution. You’re reading part of my work to that end right now!

              Howard Stern?! Insightful?!

              Move along. I’m talking way above your head. I’m not attempting to be arrogant. I’m simply disgusted with your post.

          4. U are aware US is on the electoral colage system, right.. and has been since late 1700′ ……

            Whats all this could have , would have, should have ..etc..

            He is the president now.. elected using the same process as Obama, Bush, Clinton… Reagan ..etc,
            For those who like him , great! .. for those who dont .. well wait 4 years and you’ll get your chance again,…

            Acting like crybabies does not do anything but make one ..well look like a cry baby.. and polorize and devides the country further… the biggest problem in US, imo.

            How about every one chill for a while….?

            Now for a little humor.
            Progressive – A person who believes in an individual’s views, rights, and opinions…..as long as it is the same as theirs.😜😂

            1. Oh Jimbo … How quickly and conveniently your memory of the last eight years fades away. Were you even old enough to vote in the three or four previous elections? There is little going on here that hasn’t gone on after every election no matter who or what party won. It’s actually a perfect example of what Democracy (sans the anarchist crap going on in some places) is about and requires to survive.

              Has anyone every actually seen a certified copy of Trump’s birth certificate? Is there evidence he’s a real American?

              It’s “polarize”, not “polorize” and “college”, not “colage”

            2. OMFG. READ the Wikipedia link I provided.

              It’s amazing how many people ignorantly RANT just to ignorantly RANT while ignoring the INFORMATION is right directly provided to them.

              I didn’t bother with the rest of your 💤💤

          5. Lib Doofuses also think that the Super Bowl team that gets the most total yards wins, even when they score fewer points.

            The campaigns ran their races in order to win the most electoral votes. Because that’s how you win the race. Racking up a bunch of meaningless votes in The People’s Republic of California ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit, morons.

          6. Next time the Dims should go after the Electoral College vote instead of the Popular Vote as this is the United States of America and not the 48 states controlled thanks to the ignorant masses of select counties in California and New York America.

          7. There are a severely disproportionate number of people on the coasts, my home state couldn’t hope to match them in the popular vote. Let it be known: we don not WANT what California or New York want, our needs are very different for a wide variety of reasons. Said needs and desires would get absolutely trounced every time without the electoral college. Is it perfect? No. Does it do what it is intended to in instances such as I have described? Yes, absolutely.

        1. I heard the same tripe about Ronald Reagan when he first got in office and probably from a lot or your parents! The chanting social justice warrior nut doesn’t fall to far from the tree.

    2. RC, you got it. If you have money, anything you want is ok. If you are poor like the don, you will get scr*ewed and you better like it. KING trump hates it when you say he is wrong, so the best thing to do is like china, control the media. And his buddies who own concast, att, etc will happily go along with it.

      KING trump, Love him or leave. /s

          1. No, it’s the fact that you and most others have no idea the full text the quote was pulled from.

            You don’t care about the rest of the meaning, just use it out of context and move on.

            Typical shallow leftist IQ. Move on, nothing to be preened here….

            1. Tell the rest of them because I know exactly when and what context it was said.

              Maybe you need to move on to the someone your crap works on. You have no idea what my politics are, who I voted for and what policies I support. I find stupid abhorrent no matter what side of the fence it resides on.

              Your act is pathetic and not nearly up to the standard Botty has set. You and there rest are lame pretenders when measured against him.

              Now take your own advice and move on to someone you can intimidate and run over. I’m not your guy little man.

            2. “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Dwight Eisenhower

              Contextual enough?

    1. 7 Possible Consequences Of Losing Net Neutrality

      1) Getting to your favorite sites could be difficult.
      2) You may lose access to content completely.
      3) Denying you access to the competition.
      4) Companies could set up paywalls for consumers.
      5) Small business and start-up websites may not be able to compete.
      6) Providers can charge more for service without additional benefits.
      7) Your content may be cut off from the rest of the world.

      Yeah, that’s what We The People want. <-NO IT'S NOT


      1. If that was the actual meaning of the last administration’s version of “Net Neutrality”.

        Just because that is how you see it (and it may be a good version) doesn’t mean the shithead Obama meant it that way (so glad he is gone so I can cuss him and not feel guilt about it being toward the President!!!!)

        1. How much money do you make per word when you spew propaganda? Have you done the calculation?

          And look, again assumptions being made that I had any high regard from Obama.

          And look, again, another ranting post here at MDN used as an excuse to HATE whatever. Enjoy your hate. Go have a party with First-Then while the outcome of your ignorance and propaganda puppetry is made manifest. I’ll be sure to point at dummies like you as it all falls down. Look forward to it.

          1. Sorry you couldn’t understand, forgot about your IQ blinders.

            I was agreeing with your desire for some good in NN while pointing out Obama’s version was not for protecting what you see as reasonable but instead for government oversight and control.

            Working at a small ISP for 20 years I see all aspects of what has to be done to keep customers happy and from leaving to go to our competitors (of which there are many, no blinders here).

            So keep that head buried in the sands of paranoia, Derek.
            Just remember it’s hard to understand people when you can’t hear….

      1. 1) I voted in the 2016 US election. 40% of eligible US voters didn’t.

        2) The majority of We The People elected the Clinton by 2,597,156 votes. [I was not one of them]

        3) The Electoral College isn’t democratic. It automatically made the Trump our President despite the voting results.

        4) As for me, my personality has no tolerance for politics or politicians. I also have no tolerance for the human failings called war and inhumanity. These fact ticks off politicians, resulting in them making certain I am never in any election. In Jungian/Myers-Briggs personality system terms, I’m an INTJ. Look me up some time.

        1. Points of Clarity:
          1. In elections only votes cast matter. Non-votes are irrelevant.
          2. The majority of “we the people” did NOT vote for Hillary. She received 47.9% of the popular vote, which is a plurality, not a majority.
          3. The Electoral College is not democratic because the US is not a democracy. We are a Republic of 50 states, and the Electoral College provides balance so that high-populace states like California, Texas and New York aren’t the only voices heard or represented. It’s is actually quite brilliant.

          1. Exactly right on points 1 & 3. Absolutely wrong on #3.

            In keeping with your first point, you already made your 2 point a moment of hypocrisy and ignorance. “Non-votes are irrelevant”. Only votes count. Clinton overwhelmingly won a majority of votes cast and those are the only ones that count when determining who won a majority in the election.

            1. There is not a single national election for president, as a whole…it is fifty state elections for president whose electors are totaled and that determines the presidency…so, had you taken junior high American civics, you would know that both Spark and The Founding Fathers are correct on all three points.

            2. Dude, are you that dense?
              She won 48% of the popular vote <– not a majority.
              Trump had 46% of the popular vote.

            3. Alright, you’ve made your point. Clinton won the 2016 vote count…and the door prize is early retirement.

              Lets congratulate her on a well deserved victory and move on to some other topic that might actually matter.

          2. I know. But these are all excellent points. I understand the concepts of states versus the totality of citizen voters built into the US Constitution. But we have a wonderful example with the ‘win’ of the Trump as to the outrageously ridiculous outcomes possible within this system.

            Perhaps we should come up with other term for ‘voting’ and ‘election’, because that’s NOT exactly what they are in the USA. We also need to dump the term ‘Republic’ because, as I’m pointing out, that is NOT what we are due to the consideration of states above total number of voting citizens.

            [For those concerned, here is a definition of ‘Republic’:

            a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

            What Spark and I are talking about in the USA is a state where the supreme power is held by the individual STATES, not the totality of the citizenry. I don’t know what to call what we have in the USA other than just ‘US’. Within whatever this is, there is a, shall I say, ‘handicap’ handed to smaller states such that they can vote ‘louder’ than bigger states.

            Hannagh, how would you describe this situation?]

        2. i am not american, but if you didnt vote for one of your 2 parties (its a two party dictatorship, believe it or now) then you basically threw away your vote. did you vote for super flower hippy girl? you threw away your vote. think of all the people who threw away their vote. your country is fucking dumb sometimes… but thats exactly how the powers want you.. dumb docile and drip fed.

          1. Hey, forget about throwing away a vote on super flower hippy girl. Only about 50% of Americans even voted. Half the potential voters didn’t even exert themselves enough to waste a vote. Most of this group are who you now see out in the streets complaining about the results.

            1. Botvinnik is thoughtful, and thought provoking. I, for one, enjoy reading his posts even if he doesn’t always speak for me 100 percent of the time. Can’t deny he’s a bright fellow. That’s a lot more than can be said for some of the other posts and posters Michael.

          2. No kiddo. What I did was live up to my standards. I demand third parties rise in the USA and that the two party system fall so it can’t get up. I support third parties. I don’t ‘throw away’ my vote on worthless garbage political parties.

            YOU are what we call ‘an enabler’ of the worthless two-party system in the USA the screwed my country over into the state it’s in right now.

            Don’t be an enabler of bad things. That’s a bad idea. Work for a better world or shut up and wallow in the worse world you helped maintain.

            Get it yet?

            1. I would say Foghorn Leghorn , but that’s Firsty, so no.

              Considering that a narcissists follower would be less effective than the narcissist himself, I would say you Botty! Even you would be better!

            2. Derek,

              I agree with much of what you say, but on my first day of Political Science class almost fifty years ago the professor explained why third parties will never be a significant factor in a US election. It comes down to an electoral system that rewards only the single candidate who can win a plurality and gives nothing to anyone else. In order to be elected, candidates have to form a broad coalition of varying interests that can achieve a plurality, just as Mr. Trump allied Wall Street with Main Street.

              The candidate with the broadest coalition always wins—it is mathematically certain. All of those who are not a part of that currently-ruling coalition necessarily band together to try and form an equally broad alliance. The second-largest coalition at least has a shot at achieving a plurality, but third parties are never going to get anywhere. The only exception in American history is when the Whig coalition collapsed in the late 1850s and the Republicans rearranged the pieces into a plurality that dominated national elections for decades to come.

              Most other parliamentary democracies have voting systems that provide a seat at the table for minority voices. They have proportional voting or regional parties. Even in America, we used to have a fair number of multi-seat districts in city and state elections where the second-place candidate could still win a seat (which is how the Electoral College worked before the 12th Amendment), but most of them have been wiped out by the one-person-one-vote principle.

              Third parties are never going anywhere in this country without changes in the electoral system that would require constitutional amendments. Those will never gain approval in a two-party Congress or ratification by two-party legislatures.

            3. True. The cost of entry for a new party in the US is exceedingly high.

              The outcome, however is the broadening of each parties platform as each voter picks their “lesser evil”. There really isn’t as big a delta between Democrats and Republicans, as there is between parties in Parliamentary systems.

            4. …rewards only the single candidate who can win a plurality and gives nothing to anyone else.

              Not exactly. Third parties require, at least where I live, a minimum number of votes within an election in order to be put on the ballot for the next election. Therefore, voting for them allows them to essentially continue. That’s where my vote went.

              As I am ever ranting, we are stuck with two thoroughly dysfunctional, UNrepresentative parties. Instead, they represent corruption, corporatocracy, money, special interest, lobbying, ad nauseam. They are required to be dumped and destroyed (to be alliterative). I see no sign of internal improvement in either. Anything that will force their replacement with actual representative parties is fine with me. I won’t be voting for either ever, if I can help it. That’s my tiny contribution as well as my chattering about it endlessly.

              Thank you for providing a very good summary of the situation here in the USA regarding third parties. It’s much more informed than anything I could write.

        1. Both sides will never understand that Trump election is just how bad both parties have become. Hillary was undoubtedly the worst candidate in history. Trump is a close second. I, for one, voted against Hillary; not for Trump. The hope, however feeble it may be, is that things will change.
          Trump would do well to understand that. Not sure his narcissistic self ever will.

            1. You are walking that fine line.

              Yes we are a Republic, which confers inalienable rights to the individual, as opposed to democratic “group think”. Sovereignty is conferred upon each individual on their own or through a duly elected representative. Republics protect minorities from oppressive majorities. That’s why the Bill of Rights exists.

              So where does “Democracy” come in?
              The answer to that is straightforward. Representatives are democratically elected. In other words, they at elected by “group think”.

              So we are a Democratic Republic (for now).

      1. Please, go suck up to the corporatocracy. Lose your soul, humanity, creativity… And since when did I ever say anything nice about the Clinton.

        All you poliTards: Trapped in a 1-dimensional world.


        That’s why you can’t comprehend what I say.

  2. From what I can see, having read the article, this does nothing to overturn the regulating of broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications act. It seems to have to do with a couple of data cap inquiries in which there was no real consensus. I think describing these actions as “taking a weed whacker to net neutrality” is a bit over the top, and certainly misleading.

    1. Bob, why do you think prices will go down. Once there is no control (or regulations) on the internet, you pay what they say. Competition is anti-republican and the big companies and their CEOs make the rules.

      KING trump makes the rules.

    1. I submit to you that Donald Trump, duly and legally elected president of the United States, whose campaign was mostly funded out of his own pocket until his nomination is the not the fascist. The fascists are the Sorosian mercenary thugs, arrayed in masks and hoodies destroying universities, attacking women, vandalizing private property and obstructing air and road travel while chanting obscenities…all “celebrated” by the corrupt Yellow Stream Media.

      I further submit that those who passively support these hoodlums while decrying “the end is near!” are the true “cowards.”

      Auramac, you are that coward.

      1. “thugs, arrayed in masks and hoodies destroying universities, attacking women, vandalizing private property and obstructing air and road travel while chanting obscenities…all “celebrated” by the corrupt right wing Media.”

        A great description of the groups that got Trump elected.

            1. What happened between then and now that made them align with the Republican Party? Because they offer little to no support to democrats now (as shown by the most recent election).

      2. “The fascists are the Sorosian mercenary thugs, arrayed in masks and hoodies destroying universities, attacking women, vandalizing private property and obstructing air and road travel while chanting obscenities…all “celebrated” by the corrupt Yellow Stream Media.”

        That’s not fascism, you stupid fuckhead; that’s anarchy. TRUMP and BANNON are the fascists. Get a clue.

  3. You only need to look at the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit against Time Warner Spectrum to see why net neutrality must be upheld. TWC advertised fast access to Netflix without buffering or pauses. But they starved their interconnect to Netflix to extort payments from Netflix.

  4. Net Neutrality is like affordable public transportation; Anyone can use it but the wealthy will alwayus afford to use alternative forms of transportation like, you know, private jets and new cars.

    So, in the FCC’s case, he wants to shut down an affordable public service because he and his friends have little empathy.

    But it’s also an issue of innovation; Start ups will have to through the orifice of some rich guy to bring their potentially innovative ideas to fruition which will be an artificially imposed barrier.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.