WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

The agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone service.

The action reversed the agency’s 2015 decision, during the Obama administration, to have stronger oversight over broadband providers as Americans have migrated to the internet for most communications.

Continue reading:  F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

22 thoughts on “F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

      • I hope not! How do you think if might affect us?

        From some of the stuff I’ve read, it seems like businesses on the internet will be the ones most affected. But the whole thing is confusing.

        Liked by 1 person

        • If you recall when the Obama administration implemented net neutrality rules and there were unsuccessful legal challenges to it, the big communications companies were beginning to tailor their high speed broadband services to the large corporations and individual customers who could afford it. This had a detrimental effect on web access and speed for those who couldn’t pay the higher rates. Additionally, certain sites were arbitrarily restricted or blocked which triggered a lot of public outrage. Net neutrality resulted as an effort to level the playing field for all customers, and to foster the expansion of publicly-owned internet services which would provide competition against the corporate giants.

          Now that the rules are gone, those earlier trends will likely return with a vengeance; and, those public internet services which were created could be threatened.

          Liked by 3 people

      • Eventually, but I think YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter will be the first things they start charging more for out of the gate. “Let’s see, our basic internet package gives you Google for 49.95 a month. Now, if you want our second tier package, which includes YouTube and Twitter, that’ll be an extra 29.95 per month. Otherwise, you can try to use them on your basic packager but at speeds far slower than dial up. Thanks, and may God bless Donald Trump and the Republican Party for making all this possible.”

        Liked by 3 people

  1. Robert, I’ve just read the article “Net Neutrality – The End Of Google’s Biggest Subsidy” by Tom Luongo who lives in rural North Florida.

    He claims that “Net Neutrality was a trojan horse designed to replicate the old shout-based advertising model of the golden age of print and TV advertising. It was a way to control the megaphone and promote a particular point of view.”

    Now I’m confused. You can check out the article at

    Liked by 2 people

    • I’ll check it out later when I have some time, but the idea is counterintuitive to say the least. Control over internet communication is best accomplished through corporate consolidation and deregulation which are both the opposite goals of net neutrality. Furthermore, the communication giants like Comcast vigorously fought against net neutrality. Why would they do that if they were the primary beneficiaries?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Okay Ros, sorry it took so long for me to check out that article. The author, Tom Luongo, has a “journalistic” perspective which obviously reflects political conservatism and economic neoliberalism. His blog and podcast is Gold, Goats ‘n Guns, and he contributes to Seeking Alpha (a Wall Street content service for financial markets) and something called Halsey News Network. He has also posted articles which attempt to discredit climate change science.

      Regarding his piece on net neutrality, I found it as highly opinionated, unsubstantiated, and drawing preconceived conclusions. His assertion that consumers drive bandwidth speed is evidentially absurd, and that net neutrality destroyed this dynamic (in just 2 years) is profoundly ludicrous. He also claims that net neutrality enriched Google at the expense of ISP infrastructure – a ridiculous notion considering Google’s pre-net neutrality business success. He goes on to blame net neutrality for subsidizing intrusive advertising, phishing scams and on-demand porn! Seriously? These things didn’t exist before? Oh yeah, he demonizes government as being controlled by the “bad guys,” and blames net neutrality for poor internet service in rural areas without explaining why. I think it’s pretty obvious what Luongo’s true motives are here, and it has nothing to do with benefiting consumers.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.