The Gloom and Doom predictions about net neutrality repeal have been officially proven incorrect

I was always extremely skeptical about the hysteria around the repeal of net neutrality. The internet existed for two decades before this regulation went into effect. During this period their was no statistically significant evidence that ISP’s were “throttling” certain websites. Two years after the repeal of this regulation, it is very safe to say that that almost every technology “expert” was wrong.

This regulation came into effect in 2015 because academia and technology believe government is the solution to every problem, even problems that do not exist.

The Trump administration repealed this completely unnecessary rule in 2017. CNN predicted that this would “end the internet as we know it.” (source:

Senate Democrats tweeted that the internet would come out “one word at a time.” (source:

And then there is HBO’s Jon Oliver (who is nothing more than a modern day propagandist) who issued similar warnings about the repeal. The FCC got death threats following his “comedy.”

Let that sink in: The FCC got death threats over a baseless theory about what would happen if this regulation was repealed.

Are you kidding? The big telecoms are busy destroying the open internet even as we speak.

Here are multiple examples of violations pre-regulation:

Here are some modern examples and it’s only just begun.

From reddit: “ AT&T purchased DirectTV and became a direct competitor with YouTube, Hulu, Netflix and so forth. At&T became both a carrier AND a content provider. AT&T today, currently, offers to make cell data to Direct TV free for their customers making DirectTV a cheaper option for cellular customers than Netflix, YouTube or other sources. If your data is DirectTV data, it is charged differently than if it is Netflix data.”

From a year old article in Public Knowledge.

To continue the fight to preserve an open internet visit


Leo already offered some solid evidence to the contrary, I’ll just add my two cents.

Fallout from the repeal was never going to be a single swift hammerblow to your router’s ethernet port. It will creep in on a flier from Verizon offering a great new speed tier where I get Netflix for free with no data cap for 10$ less than what you pay now. Average people will embrace this without understanding that it means now smaller video providers like the next Netflix, or even TWiT, cost more to them to view. People will slowly begin to think about their bill before clicking certain links - which is the endgame.

Also - your topic title is pretty inflammatory. If you want to have a real conversation about the topic you might want to consider revising.


On other technological fronts lets get rid of low flush toilets, bring back incandescent bulbs, stop wind power, hobble the EPA, and global warming and science in general are bunk.


Totally agree with Leo on this, and the original post does not come across like an attempt to start a reasonable discussion. Too polemical for my taste.


The vast majority of internet users are not experiencing any impact from the repeal of net neutrality. That is what I meant by “statistically significant” evidence. Period. I have been using Skype with Sprint forever, and I have not noticed anything different. I would like to see who funded that “study.” Ohhh Shocker, its a liberal university.

Comcast had speed limits for a while. Its is called CHOICE. If you want lower speeds, you pay less. If you want higher speeds, you pay more. Net Neutrality would have destroyed those options.

Yes, i am sure you can find some people on Twitter or three outlier news stories that show some impact from mostly biased people who had a viewpoint prior to this. CNN said it would lead to the end of the internet. That obviously did not happen, otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to post this to you right now.

Here is a story that shows the truth about net neutrality -

1 Like


With a username like AppleFan#### it’s pretty obvious this is trolling, regardless of whether or not politics per se is involved.


Obviously I’m a super hero.


Assuming that you have a choice of providers, or can afford the higher prices. Someone looking to learn some IT skills from ITProTV may find the video quality too low at the tier they can afford.
Corporate welfare and ignoring regulations is not a fair market, it just entrenches the encumbranents and prevents disruption. Imagine if or had gotten deals with to prevent Yahoo or Google searches on ‘their network’.

The internet started as a ‘wild west’ were just about goes could happen, so some restraint was needed, but turning it into a revenue stream for just a few multi billion dollar companies will slow if not stagnate growth. Is using only a multi billion dollar conglomerate going to be the only option for internet access?


This is an interesting post / video on the subject.

Just wait, it will happen…

It always surprises me when people defend the “right” of big corporations to gouge their customers in the name of “curbing government regulation.”

You know they’re playing you for a sucker, right? I guess not. Sigh.


In this, Net Neutrality is kinda like Climate Change. The world hasn’t ended yet, so clearly all that noise was just hype and fake news. Those with eyes to see can already tell what’s happening, and foresee what is coming. Those who want to believe their dogma regardless of facts will not see no matter what.

The Internet in America is dying. It was already pitifully weak for a nation as big as ours and as rich as ours. But corporate greed will do to the Internet what it has done to everything else. And some people won’t know that it’s dead until they start to wonder why the Internet sucks as much as cable TV does. (Big clue here: the biggest ISPs are also Cable TV providers…) By then it will be too late to fix it.


All while offering users no protection to speak of not forced by due process of law in the courts, certainly no less prone to surveillance profiteering and government than our supposed cultural opposite in China, aside from free speech as the gaslight for the fire-sale of privacy in service of opportunity for parasites to profit.


Regulation makes big companies bigger and stifles competition. Regulation only benefits larger companies that can afford all the compliance and creates a much larger barrier to enter for small companies.

There is such thing as “gouging” you know why? Because no one is entitled to any good or service. If you decided to charge for your podcasts, I would buy them. Would you be gouging me? No. Because I am making a decision as as adult to purchase the product. If you think something is to expensive, don’t buy it. Simple as that. That is how a free market works. Regulation only hurts the free market.

1 Like

Just because “experts” predict something, does it mean it is going to be true 100% of time? Does that mean no one can question them just because they got their degree at some over priced college on the coast?

Experts predicted the following over the last 25 years.:

Brexit Wouldn’t Happen
Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide
Housing prices will never fall
We would run out of oil by 1989 (direct quote from Jimmy Carter)
I could go on and on and on…

I’ve just been back through the thread, you have 0 (ZERO) likes. All the people posting sane ripostes have gotten the likes…

But the situation in the USA makes me glad I don’t live there. Everything seems so horrendously expensive and the government does everything it can to protect big business from those pesky citizens.

News Flash: The government is supposed to be there to protect the interests of its citizens, the people who vote for them, not protect the biggest wallets from the voters!

I think Frank Herbert summed it up nicely in God Emperor of Dune: there are two cardinal sins, corruption by a functionary and trying to corrupt a functionary. Both are punishable by death.

That said, Washington D.C. would probably be a wasteland inside a week.


If we’re talking about the x likes indicator at the top of the thread, I think that’s going by the total number of likes in the current thread. Not really indicative of liking the specific starter post.


I stand corrected about the likes, post withdrawn.