The FCC Plans To Kill Net Neutrality On June 11

News
By Nathaniel Mott
published

It's been five months since the FCC voted to repeal Obama-era net neutrality protections. Now the commission has announced that it plans to do away with these regulations on June 11, which is 30 days after the order revoking the rules will be finalized and published in the Federal Register.

Ordinary citizens, tech companies, and rights organizations have all protested the FCC's plan to revoke net neutrality protections ever since commissioner Ajit Pai revealed it. At one point, the FCC website's comment section crashed because so many people were commenting, although many of those "people" were bots using stolen identities to support Pai's proposal.

Yet those complaints weren't enough to stop the FCC.The FCC has used the last five months to finalize the proposal, presumably with the intent of making it as hard as possible to continue to protest the repeal.

Here's the good news: Democratic senators are scrambling to start a vote to block the FCC's repeal. Reuters said a vote could happen as early as next week, and thus far 50 senators (47 Democrats, two independents, and one Republican) are planning to stop the FCC's plan from moving forward. If that happens, the net neutrality protections should remain in place, which is what the majority of Americans wanted to begin with.

The U.S. Senate isn't the only group working to stop the FCC's repeal. On May 9, digital rights organizations and tech companies kicked off the Red Alert for Net Neutrality movement, which aims to remind internet users to contact their representatives and let them know to oppose the FCC's plan. State lawmakers have also voted to block the FCC's repeal and, in some cases, introduce their own net neutrality protections.

These efforts have one month to show results. Otherwise, the FCC's plan to gut net neutrality will move forward, and unless the political climate drastically changes during the mid-term and/or next presidential elections, it could be a long while before they return.

Nathaniel Mott
Nathaniel Mott
Freelance News & Features Writer

Nathaniel Mott is a freelance news and features writer for Tom's Hardware US, covering breaking news, security, and the silliest aspects of the tech industry.

14 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Giroro
    I don't understand why certain republicans keep trying to turn net neutrality into a partisan issue. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose, just like everybody else.

    A lot of these "liberal media" sources that they are always complaining about are owned by the giant telecom companies - CNBC is owned by Comcast, for example.
    Really, I truly don't understand why a "conservative" talk show or website would fight to give their direct competition the power to dictate whether or not they are allowed to continue having a website/podcasst/video streaming/ campaign website etc.

    Were Title II regulations a perfect way to implement net neutrality? Not really. But its far far better than the 'nothing' that Congress is currently proposing as an alternative.
    Reply
  • 237841209
    Why are there still ordinary citizens that support the removal of net neutrality if they don't gain anything from it and rather, lose a lot?
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    Overly political posts will be removed. Let us stick to the topic. Thanks.
    Reply
  • kuhndj67
    The reason regular people are being convinced to support the removal is the same reason people are often convinced to support things that aren't in their best interest... FUD. It's actually pretty easy to do... you spam communications tools (media, social media, etc...) with misinformation crafted to create doubt. Once there's enough BS clogging comms channels and non-experts are confused... they tend to be easy to lead by having an appealing socially engineered story - and the truth of the situation is entirely irrelevant.
    Reply
  • Math Geek
    honestly surprised it took this long for them to do this. there is money to be made by removing the restrictions and we all know this is all that matters to the ones pushing it through.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    20957699 said:
    Why are there still ordinary citizens that support the removal of net neutrality if they don't gain anything from it and rather, lose a lot?
    Probably something to do with the constant drumbeat that government regulations are bad. Unfortunately, not many people remember the era of acid rain, thick smog, and automobiles that were basically deathtraps on wheels.

    The problem with regulations is that when they work like they're supposed to, the general public isn't aware of them. So, most people only hear about regulations when they're problematic or ineffective and this cements the association that regulations = bad. And therefore, it seems pointless to try to fix, improve, or streamline them, rather than just dropping them altogether.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    Well there needs to be a balance between government regulations and free enterprise in a capitalist society. We already have so many government entities in place to prevent anti-trust violations, illegal actions, food safety, wildlife conservation, product safety, etc. The question is where is the line drawn between over government regulation and out of control corporations. Then you have said government entities in place who are supposed to protect us but they failed to do their job.

    There are countless more examples out there like that of government beaurocratic failures in doing the exact thing they were supposed to do. Putting 100% faith in government to protect us is no better than saying dump all government regs and put faith in corporations to do the good deed.

    Draconian government regulations for example making unrealistic tax mandates on corporate carbon emissions are no better for the consumer than a Verizon and AT&T merger would be (both cost prices to rise). All new cars will require backup cameras in the US as one example. Seriously. That only adds cost to vehicles. I can turn around and look behind me just fine when backing up as well as LOOK behind my vehicle for children which is what triggered this. Thank you government for tacking on $1,000 to my next car's price. And I'm still suspect on the origins of what NN's true intent was anyway. The opinions on it are largely split down political affiliation.

    US history is rife with government Trojan Horse regulations that were really an ulterior motive (more control over private lives and the free market). It is also rife with corporate lobbyist paying off politicians to look the other way. So again, where is the line drawn controlling each other? Who monitors the government? Themselves? Fox guarding hen house just like corporations regulating themselves! That, in my opinion, is where the direction the conversation needs to go towards.
    Reply
  • Karadjgne
    So as it stands right now, I can get on the net and go anywhere, without being forced or coerced in any particular direction. Sounds good to me.

    If I want a white list, I'll implement one. If I want a Black List, I'll implement one. Self regulation shouldn't be that difficult.

    Seriously don't think I need Uncle Sam telling me that I'm only allowed to view certain Porn sites because they pass regulations. And just who will decide what those regulations will be? Some pencil pushing, Bible bashing, Eco fanatic?

    Repealing Net Neutrality is akin to suggesting that the Freedom of Information Act really doesn't apply to anyone but the Government.
    Reply
  • fedguy
    https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net-neutrality-missing/
    Reply
  • bit_user
    20959172 said:
    There are countless more examples out there like that of government beaurocratic failures in doing the exact thing they were supposed to do. Putting 100% faith in government to protect us is no better than saying dump all government regs and put faith in corporations to do the good deed.
    This is the false dichotomy. It's not that either government regulations or corporations are bad or good - they're both devices that can do as much good or harm as the care with which they're used.

    20959172 said:
    US history is rife with government Trojan Horse regulations that were really an ulterior motive (more control over private lives and the free market). It is also rife with corporate lobbyist paying off politicians to look the other way. So again, where is the line drawn controlling each other? Who monitors the government? Themselves? Fox guarding hen house just like corporations regulating themselves! That, in my opinion, is where the direction the conversation needs to go towards.
    I think we agree. IMO, the whole conversation about more or less regulation is simplistic and misses the point. What we need are the right regulations. They way to do that is with transparency and accountability, so we can see what's working and what isn't. That way, anything that's not effective or is doing more harm than good should either be improved or scrapped.

    We all know that politicians of all stripes don't love oversight. Government is an easy tool for them to benefit their constituency and attract/reward supporters. That's why transparency is hard to achieve and can only be achieved and sustained if it remains a priority of voters. Of course, they know this and employ wedge issues to divide and distract us.
    Reply