That was one positive "states rights" thing I was looking forward to, but they chickened out? It's their state law, why not enforce it.
It's also been some time so it would be good to see how the predictions panned out. Some of those were pretty grim:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/net-neutrality-in-2017-... [warning: auto-playing video]
> "That means if Bing offers Comcast a hefty penny, you’ll never make another Google search for as long as you live. Yeah, it’s that bad."
I can't say I have seen any changes in the 2 or 3 services I have. It could be because there are competitors in the region and they'd be afraid to rock to boat too much. Maybe in other parts it was much worse.
Saw some good news though - last year internet speeds increased nearly 40% in the US.
This is within the "Moore's law applied to network hardware" range and is not unusual.
It's also somewhat misleading because of how they're measuring (mean download speed), because customers have recently been abandoning DSL for (faster) cable. But if a 10Mbps DSL customer switches to 20Mbps cable, it shows up in the numbers as a 100% speed increase even if the cable network is no faster than it was before, or is faster than before but by significantly less than the 100% they're getting counted as.
In other words, it's claiming the destruction of competition as a consumer benefit because the market share loss of the dying competitor brings up the average.
That's because the legal battle isn't over yet. If you were planning to take advantage of no more net neutrality, would you do it while a legal challenge is pending? The last thing you'd want to do is give the opposition evidence in favor of their position.
And that just a single company.
I'm especially mad, because I am a Dish customer and don't have HBO since November.
Yes, of course. Why else would a communications company and a content company merge? It only makes sense if the can leverage each-others natural advantages. With strong NN regulations, AT&T would need to provide everyone with same opportunities they are providing Time Warner.
Why else would a communications company
and a content company merge?
Not that they didn't do it before, but they'd always say sorry and stop for a while when someone noticed.
Likely they've already doubled down on demanding payment from companies like Netflix for not throttling them.
They aren't going to rush it, they care about PR up to a point... But companies like Verizon and ATT will absolutely frog boil consumers, small businesses and innovators under the current laws... Their histories make that pretty clear.
U.S. mean download speeds are twice as fast as the U.K., and mean upload speeds are three times as fast. (The U.K. data is about 9 months older, but it's a helpful comparison nonetheless.)
They gave the internet away to evil corp. There has been no good news since then, except maybe for this recent push by Dems.
ISPs like verizon and att should be disbanded. Theyve proven to us once and for all they cant be trusted. We need national free highspeed inet.
I think a public option is great but it’d also be excellent to support smaller local ISP’s by forcing big telcos to sublet the last mile of coax and fiber to competitors.
Some might argue that lower speeds for higher prices were creating "meaningfully poor experiences" for users, but I think there is one important distinction. Let's imagine an upstart competitor comes in and offers some perk, such as lower prices for higher speeds. And the local monopoly ends up matching these offers, as they did in the case of Google Fiber. Is this action perceived as a 'de-crippling' of their system, or as an upgrade of their system? In reality it's almost certainly the former, but in practice it's going to be perceived as the latter. That means they actually gain public props for anti-competitive behavior following what is effectively price-gouging.
By contrast if some company is actively and outright blocking a site, then de-crippling would not be seen as an 'upgrade', but instead as what it is -- 'de-crippling.' And so it's likely that the competitor would be the one gaining the public props (and subscriptions). And in reality, it's possible that our incumbent monopoly might not even be able to de-cripple themselves due to a contract with e.g. Microsoft.
And it was easily detectable and your average consumer can figure out who to attribute it to. Remember when Comcast was finally caught injecting poison packets to sabotage Bittorrent connections?
There are far subtler ways to be evil and maintain some plausible deniability against the average consumer, you don't need to sabotage every operation, just enough. Government lawsuits are partly about giving weight to the concept that something screwy is going on.
> This would enable a competitor
Like that competitor to Comcast, who rapidly -- oh, wait, that didn't pan out. Don't ignore barriers-to-entry, which are hugely significant in the ISP market.
P.S.: In addition to the "direct intervention" side, there's also cases of spying and misusing privileged information. While that's on the decline due to increased HTTPS, the legal front is just as important as the technological one.
Probably easier to pull that style of thing in under existing fraud legislation than tie it to anything net-specific.
Even if there is no objective test, it is reasonably easy to make that sort of lie illegal. Free markets rely on companies being honest about what they sell, and I expect there would be pretty broad support for a law that says companies can't lie about what their products are (if there isn't such a law already).
If Comcast wasn't making it clear that they were sabotaging BitTorrent, that should be illigal by virtue of them willfully accepting money while not providing the service.
There is no cheap way to enter many/most/all of these markets. This isn't a world of cheap VC cash, because there is no chance of winning a lottery. Google of all people couldn't make this make sense. Sure, they would have had a better pitch if they were competing with incumbants who did things like block Google Search. Except it's even more trivial to unblock Google Search than it is to offer better service. This gets worse when you consider the possibility of not outright blocking, but intentionally slowing services.
So yeah. If Google couldn't make Google Fiber work, there is no way any new competitor is going to spring out of nowhere. The reality of the competition hasn't changed - incumbants are at a massive advantage even compared to most incumbants. Infrastructure is a massive barrier to newcomers, and any competitive aspects that can be used to differentiate one offer from another can be trivially and immediately matched by the incumbants. And in practice most all of the offers are difficult or impossible to really compare to each other in pratice, so most consumers have to rely mainly on the marketing materials and subjective experiences.
And again I've left out a whole other side of the issue, namely the relationships between ISPs and services.
This is just an awful system to rely on tradional markets. It uses expensive infrastructure, and the products are indifferentiable in any meaningful way over any period of time.
The same applies to ISPs. Why do you think they are pushing for net neutrality ? Do you think it is out of the goodness of their hearts ? Without net neutrality Google might invest billions into building out a global, fast Internet infrastructure. They may have no choice but to do it, because it is strategic for them to own the entire ad delivery pipeline ( Computers/Phones/Tablets, Operating Systems, ISPs )
Or was it important to them that they win? They certainly seem to have with Chrome at least. Does any company intentionally enter a space just to compete? Would google rather not absolutely win in the infrastructure as well?
> Would google rather not absolutely win in the infrastructure as well?
Probably, but it is up to it's competitors to try and prevent that.
If Google has no competitive advantage because of their other businesses it should not be a problem. But if it competes unfairly, fair competition laws should be applied
Either way, the customers could stand to benefit from increased investment
Let's now imagine Comcast blocks Google due to payment from e.g. Bing. First off it's entirely possible that Comcast could not unblock Google even if they wanted to, since this would undoubtedly be breach of contract with Microsoft. But more importantly, this is something that would be perceived as a actively malicious action by the customer. They see the company is engaging in unreasonable behavior at the behest of third parties that visibly and meaningfully worsens their experience relative to other ISPs. Our critical point from above is no longer true!
This offers an opening for new competitors even if Comcast is able to unblock Google, because of the newfound ability for customers to compare services in practice. Compare this to slow speeds or high prices. These are not going to be seen as actively malicious and so the incumbent monopoly matching a competitor's prices is something that will be seen as a positive for the incumbent monopoly, as opposed to a non-negative.
So see how barriers to entry are not the fundamental problem here we can go reductio ad absurdum. Imagine we take something with very few barriers to entry - selling burgers. But let's apply so many rules and regulations that burgers become effectively identical -- same meat, same ingredients, same cooking, same standards of quality/freshness, same spices, etc, etc. You'd rapidly trend towards monopoly once again simply because the only way companies could compete would be on price and factors outside of the burger itself. But the biggest burger company would be capable of making burgers cheaper, faster, and more rapidly than anybody else - which means they would 'win', or be able to win if necessary, on every single competitive factor. In essence they become impossible to compete against and in simply trying to ensure high standards, you have created a monopoly.
I don’t have to imagine it. I lived it for years. As the “for years” part hints, it persisted. I moved out of that place years ago but from what I hear it’s still like that.
You have a nice theory but it doesn’t seem to match the real world.
You need to go ahead and look up 'Monopoly' on Wikipedia. 
who would have thunk?
While I am 100% on board with what California is trying to accomplish here, I don't think they'd win the court battle. Between the Supremacy Clause, the "dormant" Commerce Clause, and a right-leaning SCOTUS California is much better off finding a compromise.
Possibly if some of those grim predictions start to come true they will take action.
> I can't say I have seen any changes in the 2 or 3 services I have.
One thing is for sure: if it hasn’t happened yet, it’s only a matter of time.
It will happen gradually until it is the new norm. Same thing that happened with privacy.
Please don't use fallacies like this in serious discussions. You can use this to support every side of every argument, without the need to provide any evidence or even logic behind it.
Net neutrality is the creation of regulatory capture for Netflix, and probably YouTube. Which is why it is shocking these are the two companies funding every single supposedly grassroots effort to support it.
I can't think of a single metric by which Netflix can be called a monopoly.
A comparable number of number have Amazon Prime Video and Hulu while trailing isn't in a david-vs-goliath situation.
Netflix has been struggling to keep licences, let alone licence shows exclusively.
Then you have groups like HBO-go who get a huge influx of users, when their flagship show releases. But, users quickly leave when they realize they don't like anything else.
Netflix is ahead atm, because it is better (or less worse) and not because of monopolistic practices keeping themselves in front.
Netflix prices will increase not because Netflix is a monopoly but because content is expensive and is getting more expensive.
Netflix also has a huge first mover advantage, and the subscriber base and cash to move quickly to squash any entrant to the market. And they have a huge technical and infrastructure advantage. They alone make up about 30-35% of all US Internet traffic, and they've got their own CDN boxes all over the globe, hosted for free by the ISPs. Don't like their US subscriber numbers account for two out of every three households or something like that?
Their back catalog agreements with traditional studios are definitely their weak point though, as the studios are increasingly realizing that they need to charge more for access to their catalogs or claw them back to start their own services. Netflix has shifted heavily to their own original content, and in time, CBS, Warner, and Disney's sizeable back catalogs are definitely going to make some strides on their own services, but they'll be following, not leading the pack.
This is half the complaints about Star Trek: Discovery in a nutshell. My guess is most people have come up with reasons they didn't like the show based on their initial upset about it being on a new paid service. Discovery's excellent, btw.
Most of which have far more money and far more power than Netflix.
Net neutrality is a custom love letter to big tech, rather than a generally applicable law against bad practices. You'll notice exceptions are carved out to ensure Comcast is a telecom, and Google isn't, even if they both provide video services and both also run ISPs. (You could see similar when Google tried to avoid registering as a telecom when trying to deploy Fiber in Austin, so that they had less regulatory limitations than their competitors.) You'll note that Google has both last mile service in terms of Fiber and Fi, as well as major international infrastructure, like their undersea cables. They aren't shockingly different from Comcast in that regard, either.
We should be promoting antitrust, where big tech and ISPs face similar penalties for their behaviors. And yes, Google and Netflix are both monopolies under any reasonable definition of the term. Yes, ISPs are in some areas, regional monopolies, but Google and Netflix are global ones, and they're a far bigger threat.
> You'll notice exceptions are carved out to ensure Comcast is a telecom, and Google isn't, even if they both provide video services and both also run ISPs.
The telecom is the thing that owns the physical last mile network. YouTube isn't a telecom, Comcast is. Google Fiber is too, and if they claim they're not they should lose.
You could definitely consider some of the ISPs a monopoly in certain regions but that doesn't apply in this case. Either way your antitrust argument makes absolutely no sense.
Many are, in areas where there is only one ISP with high bandwidth. That's exactly why net neutrality is critical. Monopolies among ISPs combined with data caps allow them to harm all Internet services that compete with other business they own (such as video and etc.).
I'm really curious what your definition of "monopoly" is.
It's regulatory capture for the carriers, definitely not for content providers.
Whatever profit Netflix makes, it will be eaten up by the carrier oligarchy.
Moreover, with value chain consolidation like AT&T owning Hulu and things like that, we'll see carriers preferring some sites over others. Creating serious market inefficiencies.
Will you be happy when Netflix in your county is slow because they don't pay the extra tax, but crappy Hulu is cheap because it's being subsidized by their parent company?
Almost all roads are public roads.
Most electricity transmission lines are now owned by a highly regulated entity, separate from production.
For the same reason we have NN.
Edit: FYI Netflix and Reed Hastings are ardent supporters of Net Neutrality, which is evidence of 'what's good for their business'
I was never really convinced by the doomsday predictions of losing net neutrality. I'd rather have it than not, but I don't think it's nearly as important as some people think it is.
We're all here expected to go "Net neutrality? That sounds good!" and demand it, while not deeply inspecting what is actually involved, and by golly, we're doing it.
I personally find myself less than inclined to demand that Big Tech be allowed to pull the ladder up behind them, since I'm more in the "break 'em up hard" camp, which is probably basically the opposite, really.
I was extremely skeptical of the net neutrality regulations when they were first passed by the FCC. It was a bunch of unelected officials creating massive regulations that were secret to the public. Literally all the public new for a while was that the FCC called the new regulations "net neutrality" but we had no way of knowing.
Even if the government did have our best interests at heart (which is never a good assumption to make), they went about creating net neutrality in the worst way possible, and it left a bad taste in my mouth.
The Open Internet rules specifically prohibited providers from restricting the use of lawful devices on the network, which actually directly addresses that concern.
Every time this issue comes up in an online forum, at least one commenter will pop up passionately defending this position. You can easily tell who it is in this submission (it's not you). The thing is, that's an economic perspective, but net neutrality is the name for a technological state of affairs. Focusing on the economic side of the issue subtly undermines the discussion by hiding the real problem before it can even be factored in.
Yet this is mainly a technology-oriented community (as far as I know), so let me try to convey my understanding of why internet pioneers, network engineers, startups and small businesses overwhelmingly support net neutrality (in addition to the afforementioned large online service providers such as Netflix or Youtube). Please bear with me if I write things you already know, and kindly correct any mistakes I make.
The Internet is a collection of thousands of smaller networks, many of which are international. It can only function as a whole because those networks peer with each other all over the globe and exchange information. This means John Doe, customer of ISP A in the US, can communicate with any other internet user - such as Hiro Nakamura, customer of ISP B in Japan, or Raj Singh, customer of ISP C in India. When a company or organization deploys their own network, they can join the internet by finding one or more peers who are already in it and entering a peering agreement with them. ISPs are classified into tiers based on the answer to the following two questions:
- Do I have to pay anyone for them to carry the traffic I generate?
- Does anyone pay me for me to carry the traffic they generate?
ISPs with a more valuable network - who own more actual long-distance capacity (bandwidth) in physical network infrastructure - are more likely to be paid and less likely to pay others, simply because they are providing infrastructure to others. But regardless of the economics of the peering agreement, usually the agreement entails carrying all traffic sent by the peer network to (presumably) recipients in your network, or your other peer networks. The traffic sent by the peer network doesn't necessarily originate in the peer network, but you treat it as if it did - this ability for traffic to traverse multiple networks that are not directly connected to each other is the only thing that ensures we have a single internet, rather than an endless amount of smaller international networks. This decades-old state of affairs, in which a network does not discriminate against traffic sent to it from another network by looking at where it came from, is called net neutrality.
When a company wants to be an ISP and sell internet access to the end user, they have to join the internet in the manner described above. After all, internet participation is always bidirectional - end users generate some traffic themselves. A new commercial ISP can join the internet simply by peering with a single existing network in a single location in such a way that the new ISP pays for all traffic they send over the network. In return, they can receive traffic from everyone else. They make a few access plans for the end consumer with as low an amount of upload bandwidth as they can get away with and price them in such a way that they'll be able to make a profit after paying their upstream provider and other operating costs. For redundancy and quality of service, they can peer with more networks at the same time and charge a little more.
But in the long run, as you can probably imagine, this is not cost effective. Assuming you are going to grow and have a very large participation in the internet (large geographic coverage, millions of users, lots of traffic), then you get a much better return by deploying your own network. By having a larger "network share" you are in a better position to negotiate peering agreements in your favor, not to mention all the traffic you carry within your own network doesn't have to be paid to a third party (or is subject to bandwidth limitations due to you only having purchased a limited amount of upstream bandwidth). Ultimately, an ISP like AT&T owns a backbone so large (currently 660000km of fiber according to their website), they're a substantial enough portion of the internet not to have to pay anyone for peering - it's mutually beneficial for them to peer for free with other large networks and make their money by charging smaller ones and having a bigger profit margin on their own customers, which makes them a so-called tier 1 network.
Enter american ISPs like Comcast. Comcast seems to have grown through a primarily end customer oriented strategy. They grew their last mile business very quickly and became a near monopoly for commercial internet access in many parts of the United States, serving millions of customers, all the while purchasing as little upstream bandwidth as they could get away with from larger networks with a strong presence in the United States, such as Level3 (now CenturyLink). This technologically short-sighted business model did not immediately fail because they "carefully oversold" their upstream capabilities (this is perfectly normal - you sell bandwidth based on your average network load expectations, not based on the assumption everyone will be using 100% of what you sell them at all times), engaged in p2p blocking and traffic shaping, and had a really good customer retention plan ("oh, you're not happy with your service? maybe you can try our competitors... wait, there are none? oops...")
Besides your point, but I get the impression HN is mostly a money-oriented community these days.
Comcast: "Hey Netflix. It's important to your business that you are able to reach our customers right? Without us you'd go bankrupt. Pay us $<money> for the agreement because we're really starting to sweat around here."
Netflix: "Hi Comcast. Even though we generate a lot of traffic, our profit margins are low because we have a lot of licensing costs. Besides, that's not how the internet works. Your customers are the ones who want our goods. It's in order to access our services and others that your users even buy your services in the first place. They're paying you for it already. Without us you wouldn't have a business, because the free market would ensure that customers would get to us through a different company or route. We can't pay you $<money>."
Comcast: "Sorry, no $<money>, no deal."
Netflix: shrugs "Okay. That's too bad, but we'll just peer with your upstream providers such as Level3 and they'll deliver our traffic to your customers as usual, under the terms of your peering agreement with them. It will be a little slower but what can we do?"
Comcast: "Wait what? I thought the internet was like a truck, but it turns out it's more like a series of tubes?"
Comcast (which, let me stress, is merely an example here; this situation occurs with others as well), cannot extract $<money> from Level3 under the net neutrality model, because Level3 has a much more valuable network. If Level3 did not peer with Comcast, Comcast would not function, because Comcast users want to reach a lot of users and services elsewhere on the internet. Comcast might peer with someone else, but they'd always have to pay them, because the situation will always be the same: Comcast has the traffic demands of millions of users, but a relatively small amount of people outside Comcast actually want to send traffic to Comcast. Any other upstream peer will shove Netflix down Comcast's throat, because there is a single internet.
Without net neutrality (and I repeat, I'm talking about NN's actual meaning, not about the temporary US federal regulation that was in place for two years with the purported intent of protecting NN), Comcast can look at the traffic they are receiving from Level3, examine it and say: "Okay, customer, you can have these packets from Google but these packets from Netflix... Hmm, maybe later." This gives them leverage when negotiating with the likes of Netflix, protecting their business model (and, I'm sure, a lot of jobs they generate). They can pass this off as "free market friendly" because it's allowing ISPs to do whatever the hell they want. In that sense, it certainly is - it's free ISP market friendly. But what does it mean for the internet itself?
It means that, when a user pays for "internet" access from a commercial provider, they can no longer trust that to mean anything. If an end provider can make demands based on where traffic is coming from, and presumably block some of it, then from the customer's perspective all "internets" are different. The "Comcast internet", with no Netflix, would be different from the AT&T internet, the Verizon internet and so on, since the ISPs, who are free to do as they please, will provide distinct services from each other. Think about it. When one of the millions of users or companies connected to the internet someplace in the globe generates traffic, they have no easy way of knowing which networks that traffic will end up crossing. Before the moment a request is made and a server delivers a response packet/frame to a very specific IP address, the server did not know it was going to be doing that. When a small business puts content "on the internet", that content is available to every participant of the single, global internet who wants to ask for it.
These participants can be making the request through thousands of end-user ISPs. If a single of those ISPs could demand money for "traffic protection", so to speak, what's stopping all the others? Why wouldn't Deutsche Telekom AG follow suit and start asking businesses to pay them to ensure the business's traffic is delivered to german customers? What about Shaw? Talktalk? Telefónica? But if you're a small business, you can't afford to pay off all these people, so you have to pick and choose which target customers receive quality traffic from you, further eroding the fabric of the internet.
Proponents of your position have told me in the past that this is not a problem, because CDNs (or "cloud") providers have enough business volume to take care of paying everybody off, so a small business can put their website in the cloud and it will reach everybody, just like the old days. But centralization of control over the internet under a very small amount of cloud providers is already a problem, and that would only worsen it. If no business can make use of the internet without a middleman, the word "internet" loses its final shred of meaning. You can put your website up "on amazon" and it will reach <list of ISPs>. That's all.
>Without net neutrality, Comcast can look at the traffic they are receiving from Level3, examine it and say: "Okay, customer, you can have these packets from Google but these packets from Netflix...
You dont need net neutrality to fix this, you need to undo regulatory capture, government granted geographic monopolies, and foster last mile competition. If my mom wants to buy cheaper internet that just has facebook and netflix, and I want to buy "unfiltered" and there are competing last mile services offering both, you dont need more laws telling the isps what they can and cant do, or what we are allowed to buy. The companies that own the lines should be neutral utilities, and the companies selling the service to end users should be allowed to come up with creative business models. At that point netflix could even start offering its own service, upon other companies rented lines.
Every problem you spell out in your post exists because the customer doesnt have the choice to leave a shitty company. Last miles should be be open to any company willing to pay market rate.
The answer to regulatory capture, is not more regulatory capture.
> the companies selling the service to end users should be allowed to come up with creative business models
No, they shouldn't; not if this requires breaking the global internet. It's not worth it. Why should the fact that it's possible to work around specific resulting issues in the USA mean it's desirable to go down a path that benefits ISPs and (dubiously) a small subset of consumers, and literally no one else? You might tell me it will benefit most consumers (as in, ISP customers), but that's shortsighted. The loss of flexibility incurred from the destruction of the system and the loss of the global digital market will have negative consequences for almost everyone down the road.
Or to put it in other words, stop looking at this as if it was a primarily economic problem tied to the availability of internet access choices for the customers of certain ISPs. Those things hardly matter in the bigger picture. They certainly do not matter to me, an european citizen. We have real net neutrality legislation in the EU. But it still matters to me if my business (should I have one) cannot reach american users and customers properly. It matters to me if it's hard for me to exchange ideas with americans, like we're doing right now. It matters to me if I can't play videogames against my american friends. That's worse for the economy and worse for consumer choice.
It was crazy to watch everyone go crazy about net neutrality with triple-bank-shot theories of how it might chill some site somewhere someday, but barely a peep about the far-worse FOSTA, which almost immediately forced sites offline.
I'm still not sure how to explain this. Perhaps people are just dumb and prone to irrational panics, perhaps I am dumb (i.e., NN > FOSTA), or perhaps movements like NN support are not really particularly organic, and being organized for reasons unknown.
Of any statement that I've read this year, this is the one that most succinctly captures the entire spectrum of political life. Left or right, fake news to hacker news... Understand that statement and you understand how far we've come.
Net neutrality is a classic case of regulatory capture, the very thing people think it will suppress. If you think Google and Netflix are supporting NN because it's a right thing to do, instead of their profit motive, you're extremely naive.
We can address both of them, simultaneously. Civilization is awesome like that.
For the record, Snopes does a good job explaining how Pelosi's statement was taken out of context by the right, especially when compared to Republican actions that were much more questionable regarding a somewhat (?) comparable Republican-sponsored bill called the American Health Care Act.
The context "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." doesn't really change the way I think about her remarks.
Controversy or not, it's a ridiculous assertion.
Those paragraphs eliminate the possible interpretation of her sentence as you can only find out what's in the bill if we pass it. They also eliminate you can only be certain what's in the bill if we pass it-- she was clearly claiming the bill as an obvious positive step in health care.
It even eliminates we have to pass quickly to overcome the Republicans' criticisms-- because obviously the Republicans would (and did!) continue vociferously critiquing it after it passed.
The only meaning left I can see is the obvious interpretation-- we have to pass this so that you can benefit from the things I just said, and those benefits won't be subject to controversy. That's like bog standard political rhetoric-- what every politician claims for legislation aimed at the general public.
It's certainly an awkward sentence, but it's not difficult to figure out what she meant.
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
is equivalent to
"the bill as an obvious positive step in health care."
requires blackout-inducing inertial velocity.
> It's certainly an awkward sentence
Why not call a spade a spade and say she misspoke?
I cannot expect any site publishing such garbage be much better with the rest of their content. I certainly cannot expect any site rating such a site as "pretty accurate" any where near unbiased.
It really is sad to see these sites to sink as low as they have. They used to be decent.
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.
Which is why there is the proposed Read the Bills Act. 
The House passed the Senate bill several months later. It was then amended by the 2010 reconciliation act, which resolved some issues the House had with the Senate bill. That passed much more quickly (because it was a smaller and less controversial bill), but it still was presented on the floor of the House a week before it eventually passed:
You can see the main bill
Legislation can halt a slow decline, and companies move as slowly as they need to.
Something taking 5-10-20 years to decline can often be traced back to a piece of regulation (or deregulation) that occurred a long time ago.
Legislation being repealed doesn't mean the next day everything goes to the dogs, it's often supposed to plug up a trickle, not hold back a flood.
That may or may not apply to net neutrality depending on your view. But just because things haven't gone completely gone to the dogs yet does not mean it wont in the future and that this legislation is or isn't necessary.
In the years before the repeal there were several enforcement actions of net neutrality violations
We've never had "net neutrality" and we never will. Doing so goes against how the internet fundamentally works. All packets are not the same. QoS exists and will always exist. Internet companies can't consume all the bandwidth and not pay for it. This has always been about Silicon Valley vs ISPs with ISPs wanting to charge the actual cost of service and Silicon Valley wanting a free ride to all of the ISPs customers. No customer will ever see any change from the creation of nor lack of net neutrality.
And net neutrality would freeze in the sensible policy of not discriminating against the traffic that you're carrying.
1) The laws are complicated and somewhat vague which creates an onerous and costly legal burden for ISPs. Smaller ISPs would probably have a steeper obstacle to overcome as a result which would be bad for competition. One example of this is the General Conduct Rule the FCC adopted in 2015 which didn't specifically state what was or was not expected. None of the FCC's regulations apply to 'edge providers' either e.g. Facebook or Google. So Internet users would have to understand the difference between ISPs and edge providers which is not straightforward to understand the law.
2) It was said that prior to 2015 when the FCC adopted Net Neutrality that ISP censorship was not a problem and they had invested in providing broadband access to people i.e. the system worked. So Net Neutrality solved a problem no one had: ISPs censoring people. The same could be said for ISPs charging premium rates to reach certain content. As far as creating a two-tier system for packets, Net Neutrality opponents argue this would be a good thing because it creates a better, faster, more reliable service.
3) A problem people did have was getting access to the internet. If Net Neutrality reduced investment in broadband infrastructure, solving this problem was less likely.
Google and Netflix do not like this, of course, and have created or funded dozens of grassroots efforts to "save the Internet" by ensuring ISPs are legally prohibited from billing them. My personal view is that when you are on the "majority of the data usage on the Internet" scale, ISPs should have every right to negotiate with you, and that preventing that process ensures that Google and Netflix's economies of scale permanently win out as monopolists in the space.
Insert rhetoric from supporters about double charging here, don't bother commenting to claim it. I've heard the argument before. And I was answering the parent's question, not trying to start an argument with the opposing position.
Of course that would be an unacceptable outcome. So why should we permit the same with the internet access?
A college student writing a paper on the FCC might only have access to academic articles opposing net neutrality because they can't afford the articles that express an alternate view and Comcast doesn't want her to see them.
The internet is about access to information. Net neutrality is about profiteering from that access.
Since you need this explained: when I said that in a world of net neutrality you can set up your own edge service, I was talking about the technical ability to do so and not whether or not some other problem would stop you. Maybe no payment processors are willing to work with you and you cannot afford to pay for the kind of connection your service demands. Equally possible is that you simply lack the technical skills needed to set up an edge service and cannot find or afford to pay someone to do it for you. Maybe you are just too busy. None of the above is relevant to the debate over net neutrality because net neutrality only concerns the operation of the network itself and not the endless other factors that might impact your ability to run whatever applications you intend to run.
Do you have a response?
Internet Service Provider as name suggests is a company that provides access to the internet. Net Neutrality goal is to make sure that's all they are doing. What you can access supposed to be all up to you, the user, not the ISP.
Someone also mentioned here mentioned that they are vary of placing regulation that would stifle innovation. This is wrong assumption for two reasons: 1) internet was this way until 2014, FCC was enforcing it, but after Verizon won lawsuit things changed 2) we had major acquisitions of media companies by ISPs, Comcast and AT&T, things are changing and the goal is to turn internet service into interactive cable. I don't live in Comcast region, but AT&T is doing this by offering capped internet (I'm taking about residential access) then zero rating services that are their own (HBO and Cinemax). At the same time they pulled these channels from Dish (they asked them to pay for more subscribers than they have) and jacked prices on DirecTV (also owned by them). They essentially want to turn HBO into a streaming service.
This is not technology innovation, this is flexing monopoly's muscles to generate more money.
 this is actually more complicated. The internet from beginning was under Title II intently because it was offered through telcos which operated under that regulation. In 2003 it was reclassified to Title I from telecommunication service to information service. This is where all started. The ISPs started using their position to throttle traffic, and in certain instances outright block it (reneger issues with VoIP?). FCC though acted in it and penalized ISPs which reverted their practices. After that happened to Verizon, they sued FCC and the court ruled that under Title I FCC has no control over Internet unless it reclassify it. At that point car was out of the bag. To get control back FCC reclassified Internet back to Title II. That was until 2017 when FCC reverted that change. We are now in untested waters where ISP can do pretty much anything and the only thing they have to worry about is being sued.
shouldnt that extend to the medium level? be it netflix , youtube etc. i.e. platforms should not be allowed to deplatform?
As for Google et al., I do not understand the connection. A neutral Internet is one in which a small startup competitor faces one less barrier to entry, so how does NN help Google maintain this so-called "stronghold" in online media? Net neutrality is the reason Google does not have "partnerships" with ISPs to be the sole provider of web search to the ISP's customers, or Facebook being the only social network you can access, etc.
It's hard to read this and walk away supporting net neutrality.
So the question I have is why did FAANG, Reddit, and all of tech media jump so heavily into panic mode regarding NN repeal? It seems very unlikely their priorities sync up with mine.
ESP when you consider that FAANG has been in censorship mode of content with little concern for obviousness since 2015, expanding their data mining, and swinging their weight into would-be competitors. Your article makes good points, and it makes me think my skepticism of the corperate directed outrage against NN repeal is justified.
 I think this is it: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180376299A1
It is an economic argument as well. Oligopolies based on regulations and government protectionism are always bad and monopolies arising from competition are always good because they offer what the demand demands and favor social cooperation. It must be understood that competition lies in the free entry and exit of markets and not in a utopian perfect competition from the neoclassical point of view. If there is only one ISP in your state or city, you should ask yourself if the government has given it the monopoly concession of the service through prior regulation. Regulations and interventions always require more regulations and subsequent interventions giving more rights to politicians and prebendary monopolists at the cost of taking freedom from the rest of the people, people who pay the benefits of these groups without getting anything in return.
Just think of all the regulations against free-speech that certain groups want to impose throughout the Internet. Which companies would be favored if these regulations on social networks were carried out? Of course they would favor big companies over small ones because you are artificially raising the competitive cost without improving the service. Cost that not all companies can afford. The moral argument in this case is self-explanatory.
Welcome to the world kid.
I think that’s a problem of perspective. Republicans have always had big government establishment RINOs clashing with small government fiscal conservatives who feel they are too far left for fiscal issues and mixed bag on social issues. Bush era “neocons” get little love today (Romney for example). If you are truly on the center today (rare breed) you might be interested that the neocons hate Trump, and how the GOP establishment is begrudgingly stuck with him.
Polar opposite, if you find yourself agreeing with every socialist proposal and bemoaning yourself that Dems are too far right, it’s probably just perspective of how extreme left you are.
So... are Republicans less free-market than they “used” to be? Or does it only seem that way from your perspective? When you say Republicans, do you mean base, establishment, or Trump?
"Free" means "lacking from government intervention" or laissez-faire, not "free of charge".
Good or bad, allowing ISPs to set their own rates are prices structures is more laissez-faire than regulating them.
So much this. I call it "Econ 101 Syndrome". My undergrad was in Economics, and the amount of damage that has been done by requiring Business majors (and others) to take Econ 101 and only Econ 101 is staggering. People walk away from those courses seeing the world through a lens of perfect competition, no externalities, no information asymmetries, no transaction costs, etc. and so end up coming to a faulty conclusion on every major policy question.
Republicans do claim they support free-market capitalism (you can of course argue the opposite is true with things like subsidies/welfare for farmers)