Loading summary
Transcript14 lines
- [00:00]
A
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same Premium Wireless for $15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com
- [00:18]
B
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full terms@mintmobile.com a betterhelp ad hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts? No notifications, no expectations, just space to talk with BetterHelp Therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy. Are you noticing your car insurance rate creep up? Even without tickets or claims, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry handles the legwork by comparing quotes side by side from over 50 top insurers so you can confidently hit buy. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Jerry even tracks rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Don't settle for higher rates. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast today. From Executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
- [01:55]
A
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of our take. I'm your host, Senior Editor Will Kbach. Today's episode is the third piece in an ongoing series that we've dubbed Whatever Happened to Blank? Modern news cycles routinely highlight emerging stories with warnings of dire consequences or large societal shifts, but just as often, those stories fade away without a clear conclusion or follow up. As part of Tangle's efforts to model more constructive journalism, we've launched this series as a way to shed light on those big stories that we've forgotten about and to explore why the media's initial coverage didn't match up with the eventual outcome. Our first two pieces covered the 2022 baby formula shortage and the 2023 forecast of the Great Salt Lake's imminent collapse. Today, we're covering the 2017 repeal of net neutrality. As always, we'd love to hear what you think about this story and this series as well as your ideas for future installments. With that, let's get into today's piece, The End of the Internet as We know it. In 2017, a ferocious debate broke out across the United States, spanning social media, print and television news, late night comedy shows, and the halls of Congress. At stake, according to some, was the future of the Internet. That future looked increasingly bleak as the year waned. The fight centered on net neutrality, the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally by Internet service providers ISPs. That means no blocking access to websites that an ISP might not like, no intentionally slowing down sites, and no offering fast lanes to companies that could pay for them. Under President Barack Obama, the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet as a telecommunications service under the communications act of 1934. That was later amended in 1996, and this allowed the agency to enforce strict net neutrality rules. But in President Donald Trump's first year in office, the FCC moved to repeal those rules, sparking impassioned pleas to save the Internet. CNN ran a headline proclaiming the end of the Internet as we Know It. Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, said losing net neutrality would, quote, turn the Internet into a toll road. The Senate Democrats Twitter account published a dramatically stylized post claiming, if we don't save net neutrality, you'll get the Internet one word at a time. GQ's Jack Moore wrote, The FCC's killing of net neutrality will ruin the Internet forever. HBO's John Oliver rallied his viewers to voice their support for net neutrality to the fcc. The leaders of the Black Women's Health Imperative and the National Hispanic Media Coalition argued that rolling back net neutrality would hurt minorities and low Inc. Families. Leaders at social media companies Twitter and Facebook released statements alluding to dire consequences if net neutrality went away. Television shows and actors and musicians and many, many others lent their voices to the cause. And collectively, the message was very clear. Without net neutrality, the Internet would be permanently and irreparably harmed, putting corporate profits ahead of free speech. Now it wasn't all doom and gloomy tech writers like Ben Thompson argued that repealing net neutrality rules was actually the best way to achieve a free and open Internet. Many conservative writers welcomed the repeal, or questioned the alarmist rhetoric, or called for Congress to settle the issue. Others, like Tangle's very own Camille Foster, suggested that the impact of repeal would be muted, possibly even beneficial. But these voices were largely drowned out by the frenzied warnings listed above. The fight went down to the wire, and then it turned ugly. The FCC's five commissioners gathered on December 14, 2017, to vote on rolling back the Obama era rules. But the meeting was abruptly evacuated due to a bomb threat, and days later, a man sent three emails to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai threatening to kill him and his family and blaming Pai for the death of a child who allegedly killed himself in distress over net neutrality's repeal. Ultimately, though, the commissioners voted 3 to 2 to repeal net neutrality protections, with the majority votes coming from Pai and two Republican commissioners. This June June 2026 will mark eight years since the repeal went into effect. At a surface level, the apocalyptic warnings of the Internet's demise seemed not to have materialized. In fact, it's hard to discern whether rolling back net neutrality has had any effect on the Internet at all. So what happened here? Did net neutrality's defenders simply get this issue wrong? Did repeal actually cause subtle harms that most of us aren't aware of? Did the media misrepresent the stakes? I sat down with net neutrality opponents and advocates to get some answers.
- [07:32]
C
We'll be right back after this quick break. Hey everyone, quick thought before we get started. If you listen to Tangle, it's probably because you're trying to escape the media echo chamber. But even when you read broadly, it's hard to see which stories are being emphasized and which ones are being ignored. This episode is brought to you by Ground News. Ground News is not a publisher. It's an app and website that gathers reporting on every news story from across the political spectrum and shows you each outlet's bias rating, factuality rating and who owns it. It's more than just an aggregator. It gives you context on every perspective in one place so that you can make up your own mind. For example, a recent story about a bipartisan border deal collapsing was covered by 50 plus outlets. One left leaning headline read GOP sinks border deal under Trump Pressure, while a right leaning one said Democrats Block stronger Border enforcement. Same event, very different framing. Ground News lets you compare that instant and even flags, blind spots, stories disproportionately covered by one side. If you want unlimited access to these features, subscribe to the vantage plan for 40% off@groundnews.com tn that's groundnews.com tn promo code tn again, groundnews.com tn code tn for 40% off if you care about seeing the full picture, I think you'll really value this tool.
- [08:55]
B
A better help ad hold on one second. I just need to. What if you had a room where no one interrupts, no notifications no expectations, just space to talk with better help. Therapy happens in a space that's yours. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of online therapy.
- [09:35]
A
Net neutrality advocates argue that net neutrality, which is also referred to as network neutrality, is fundamentally a free speech issue and that regulations are necessary to prevent and Internet service providers, the ISPs, from restricting or prioritizing access to one site over another. In sum, these advocates view the Internet as a public utility, and they place a premium on maintaining the Web as a space for free expression and equal access to services and information. Now, opponents also support this vision of the Internet, but they consider regulations to be overbearing, throttling innovation by reducing the financial incentive for ISPs to improve their services and doing that without protecting against proven harms. They say that ISPs have a baked in incentive to keep the Internet accessible and fair, and any abuses that do arise can be addressed through existing antitrust and consumer protection laws. When Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor, coined the term net neutrality In a 2003 paper, the Internet looked radically different from how it looks today. Many users still accessed the Web through dial up Internet AOL Instant messenger was the dominant direct messaging platform, MySpace and Skype had just launched, Facebook was still an idea that Mark Zuckerberg was working on in his dorm room, and Gmail didn't even exist. But still, Woo was able to identify the contours of the net neutrality debate that would engulf politics years later, and he wrote something that was quite prescient. Quote Communications regulators over the next decade will spend increasing time on conflicts between the private interests of broadband providers and the public's interest in a competitive innovation environment centered on the Internet. In the early 21st century, the conflict that Wu highlighted followed a winding path. The FCC fired the opain salvo in 2002, classifying cable modem Internet as an information service that would be regulated under Title I of the Communications act, exempting it from the stricter rules governing Title 2 telecommunications services. At the time, digital subscriber lines, or DSL, were commonplace, offering Internet service over telephone lines. As such, they were regulated under Title II as a telecommunications service. But conversely, the cable modem devices that connected homes to the Internet through the same lines that delivered their cable tv. And of note, broadband cable refers to the Internet service that's delivered via these cables, and the FCC determined that this method primarily offered information services, and so they classified it under that Title 1 designation. As the Internet matured, the impact of these differing classifications became more pronounced. The telephone companies providing DSL connections under Title II dealt with more exacting rules, while the broadband providers under Title I enjoyed a laxer standard. An ISP called Brand x challenged the FCC's classification of broadband cable, arguing that it too should be regulated as a telecommunications service. But the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC acted lawfully, invoking the Chevron doctrine and finding that courts should Defer to the FCC's authority to interpret the Communications Act. In the wake of that decision, legal experts and policy advocates began calling for Congress to enact formal net neutrality protections to ensure the free flow of information as the Internet grew. Congress didn't end up passing any legislation regarding net neutrality, but the FCC published a policy statement in 2005 that adopted its core principles. But that statement was well short of legally binding, and the agency was soon ensnared in legal disputes. In 2007, Comcast began blocking some traffic on the peer to peer file sharing platform BitTorrent, and the FCC ordered it to stop. The case went to the courts, and in 2010 the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals found that the FCC lacked sufficient statutory authority to enforce its policy statement. The Comcast case proved to be a turning point in the FCC's net neutrality policy. With Barack Obama, net neutrality advocate, winning the White House in 2008, the agency moved toward formalizing its 2005 position. Its 2010 Open Internet Order didn't reclassify broadband Internet under those stricter Title II standards as net neutrality supporters had called for, but it did adopt requirements for ISPs to disclose network management practices, and it also prohibited them from blocking lawful websites or deliberately discriminating against Web traffic. Again, however, the FCC lost in court. In Verizon v. FCC, a 2014 case, the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals hollowed out that Open Internet Order, finding that the agency could not prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling Internet traffic as long as broadband Internet was still classified under Title I. For net neutrality advocates, the case validated their argument that net neutrality protections would lack teeth unless broadband Internet was moved under that stricter Title II standard. In 2015, the FCC took that step, voting 3 to 2, with all three Democratic appointed commissioners in support to adopt a new Open Internet Order reclassifying broadband under Title ii and subjecting ISPs to strict net neutrality regulations. Neutrality advocates, including at the time major tech companies like Netflix, Google, and Amazon, heralded the vote as a watershed moment, the culmination of nearly 15 years of work toward a free and accessible Internet. The Fight, it seemed, was won. That victory stood for two years after taking office. In 2017, President Trump designated Ajit Pai, whom Obama had originally nominated to be a FCC commissioner, as the FCC's new chairman. Pai viewed net neutrality as a flawed concept that needlessly constrained ISPs to address an imagined threat. Almost immediately, he began the process of repealing the 2015 order and reverting broadband Internet back to the Title I classification, removing rules against throttling, blocking, or prioritizing websites. A fierce public debate played out over the proposed rule change throughout that year, generating increasingly urgent warnings from net neutrality advocates that PI's effort would destroy the foundation of the modern Internet. That reversal, advocates warned, would inevitably lead to politically disfavored websites being blocked or throttled and nascent web based companies being boxed out by deep pocketed corporations. Chairman Pai's Restoring Internet Freedom order prompted a record 20 million public comments, largely in opposition to the proposal. Nevertheless, the order was approved on December 14, 2017, and the new rules took effect on June 11, 2018. Since then, the FCC has not successfully reimplemented any formal net neutrality regulations. But that's not to say that net neutrality advocates gave up the fight. Most notably, in 2018, California passed SB822, establishing net neutrality protections for ISPs operating within the state. Separately, Mozilla vs FCC in 2019 challenged Pai's Restoring Internet Freedom order. But the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals found that the FCC had the power to reclassify broadband Internet, though it also couldn't prevent states like California from making their own rules. Finally, in 2024, the FCC under President Joe Biden voted to again reclassify broadband as a telecommunications Service. But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that decision, ruling that the agency lacked the statutory authority to change the designation. But why was the agency able to alter that classification in 2018 but not in 2024? One word Chevron. In a 2024 case, Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overturned precedent established in its 1984 Chevron ruling, which held that courts should defer to federal agencies interpretation of ambiguous laws. Now that power of interpretation would fall to individual judges and courts. And the 6th Circuit determined that broadband was an information service title one and not a telecommunications service title two, which invalidated the FCC's action. To most people on both sides of this debate, that moment, the Sixth Circuit's ruling was the moment that net neutrality died in the United States. All right, let's pause for a moment. Even this highly condensed timeline of the net neutrality fight might have your head spinning, and I can tell you as somebody who just read it aloud, my head is also spinning a little bit. But if you've made it this far, you can rejoice. The technical stuff is mostly over and I also want to offer a quick summary of that timeline we just covered so that we can take it forward to the next section which covers what has actually happened in the years since repeal
- [19:08]
D
hey everybody, this is John, Executive Producer for Tangle. We hope you enjoyed this preview of our latest episode. If you are not currently a newsletter subscriber or a premium podcast subscriber and you are enjoying this content and would like to finish it, you can go to readtangle.com and sign up for a newsletter subscription. Or you can sign up for a podcast subscription or a bundled subscription, which gets you both the podcast and the newsletter and unlocks the rest of this episode as well as ad free daily podcasts, more Friday editions, Sunday editions, bonus content, interviews, and so much more. Most importantly, we just want to say thank you so much for your support. We're working hard to bring you much more content and more offerings, so stay tuned. I will join you again for the daily podcast. For the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, y'.
- [19:59]
A
All. Peace.
- [20:04]
C
Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our Executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kaback and Associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@rev retangled.com.
- [20:45]
B
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [21:16]
A
Howdy, howdy ho and welcome to Fantasy fanfellas. I'm Hayden, producer of the Fantasy Fangirls podcast and your resident lover of all things fan Sanderson. And I'm Stephen, your bookish Internet goofball. But you can call me the Smash Daddy. And we are currently deep diving Brandon Sanderson's fantasy epic Mistborn. But here's the catch. Steven here has not read Mistborn before. That's right. Hey.
- [21:37]
D
Hey.
- [21:37]
A
So each week you'll get my unfiltered raw reactions to every single chapter. And along the way we'll do character deep dives, magic explainers, and Steven will even try to guess what's next. Spoiler alert. He'll be wrong. Newsflash. I'm never wrong. Episodes come out every Wednesday, and you can find fantasy fanfellas wherever you get your podcasts.
- [21:55]
E
Americans today have access to more information than ever, yet our confidence in its credibility is at an all time low, driven by an incessant demand for our attention. Advancements in tech feed us information quicker than we can verify it, and elusive algorithms determine what we even see in the first place. This is exactly what Ground News was built to solve. Ground News isn't another news publisher by combining traditional and modern media sources worldwide into one app and website. It's a news database where you can see how stories are framed. Their blind spot feed surfaces stories that are underreported so you can see every side of the story yourself. By subscribing to the Vantage Plan, you'll get unlimited access plus data like each publication source of funding which can heavily influence their coverage, save 40% off at Ground News2026. Again, that's Ground News 2026 for 40% off the unlimited access Vantage Plan. Grounds News is subscriber supported. Each subscription helps improve the product and keep the platform ad free. Thank you to our subscribers.