Party over country? He changed his position based upon the public outcry.
Who knows? It looks like “public outcry” to you, but it looks like Obama pressure and a manufactured “outcry” to me. The actual trigger was, as John C. Dvorak put it (in PC Mag):
What happened exactly to trigger the recent madness was Netflix paying to get a better peering arrangement with Comcast to speed its movies along to the demanding consumer. It seems that Netflix would rather use the private high-speed backbones owned by Comcast and Verizon rather than use the public Internet that flows through the exchange points such as Mae-East or Mae-West.
Not “tiered pricing”, but the fact that Netflix didn’t want to pay to deliver its customers faster service, they wanted a freebee.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, regarding whether the vast majority of the country wants ISPs to be able to charge different prices for different web-site vendors has changed. That is what net neutrality is about, and nothing there has changed.
That may be what the original net neutrality was about, but what the 2014 change was about was redefining ISP’s as Title II “common carriers”, which wasn’t needed or appropriate for fixing that problem.
What changed was a court decision, Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014). As I said above:
Rather than support legislation that would have reversed the court decision, Obama and his technophobic followers joined with “edge” providers like Netflix and Google to impose a completely different standard by calling it “net neutrality”.
As I’ve also said:
The correct solution (IMO, of course) would have been to add a new category to the underlying legislation defining Internet Last Mile providers and specifying what authority the FCC does and does not have and what principles and philosophies they should use in regulating it.
Given that “net neutrality” has now been reversed, and with a Republican Congress and President, it might now be feasible for the FCC, ISP’s, and edge providers to work together to produce clear, predictable, legislation to this end.
And, while they’re at it, perhaps they should extend individual 1st Amendment protections to Social Media and content aggregator services.
Back to your comment:
Wow. Fascist much? Pro tip: Posting a bogus statistic and then using your own previous comment as proof just makes you look silly.
The 99% was my estimate. The previous explanation regarding technical understanding was mine, and IMO perfectly valid.
[… A]pparently too dense to realize that killing net neutrality enables a multi-tier internet that makes it much harder for alternative information sources to get traction, thus making easier exactly what you’re complaining about.
No, it doesn’t. All it does is make it easier for vendors who want to pay extra to deliver a better product to do so. In fact, as I’ve mentioned in many comments, the FCC (and FTC) can apply “light touch” regulation to correct problems. But as I’ve also mentioned, redefining ISP’s as Title II isn’t “light touch”, it’s heavy-handed.
Sort of like a cast that freezes your shoulder, elbow, and whole hand to treat a broken finger bone.
Now, for your final sentence:
You’re right again [regarding elections having consequences], and one of the reasons I’m happy that Trump beat Clinton is exactly for this reason.
There seems to be a contradiction here. Mr. Trump’s choice of FCC chairman, and the entire set of Republican choices on the commission, voted along party lines in favor of repealing the mislabeled “net neutrality”. This was a predictable outcome of his victory.
If you’re so happy, why are you complaining that the experts chosen by the elected President and Congress made a technical decision on technical and Republican ideological grounds rather than listening to bogus polls of uninformed voters who had been fed one-sided propaganda due to censorship by companies that wanted to keep “net neutrality” for the sake of their own profits?