Inevitabullshit: A Collection of Resources on the End of Net Neutrality

As news broke — timed, no doubt, to distract from the horrific Republican tax overhaul and to ensure that its announcement fell through the holiday cracks — of the latest version of the FCC’s plan to gut net neutrality protections, I struggled to find a word that best expressed that particular combination of enraged inevitability / inevitable rage endemic in this, the age of the orange malignancy (I refuse to say his name). The best I’ve come up with with is inevitabullshit.

Will update this list as the story unfolds:

Reddit, Twitter, and 200 others say ending net neutrality could ruin Cyber Monday, via The Verge

+ The FCC’s final draft of its proposal to end net neutrality, to be voted on 14 December.

+ While they were at it: The FCC ignored your net neutrality argument unless you made a ‘serious’ legal argument, via The Verge.

+ Oh, and by the way: It’s not just net neutrality: The FCC could also relax one of broadcast media’s biggest rules,via The Washington Post.

+ FCC explains why public support for net neutrality won’t stop repeal, via Ars Technica.

FCC Chairman Pai’s statement on the draft order on gutting net neutrality protections in favor of a “light-touch, market-based framework”

+ FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel‘s LA Times op-ed, “I’m on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality.”

+ FCC announces vote to destroy net neutrality next month, via The Verge.

+ Here’s How the End of Net Neutrality Will Change the Internet, via WIRED.

+ Oh, yes:  NY AG probing ‘massive scheme’ to influence FCC with fake net neutrality comments, via The Hill.

+ For a look at what I believe the internet will look like in the wake of Pai’s kowtowing to the telecoms, I point you to this fascinating article in The Economist on the issue of airport slotting.

Here’s my own comment from July on the first round of Pai’s FCC’s initial moves. I reproduce it here for the sake of completion:

There is no question that net neutrality must be protected; the only question is why are we walking down this path again? It’s simple: this is nothing but a barely disguised act of political spite from the current administration towards the legacy of the previous administration without regard for the fallout and the impact on consumers. We have been down this road before; the matter was settled in 2015: the internet is a protected telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. It must, for the benefit of civil society and generations present and future, stay that way.

(TW)