Democrats in the Senate have 50 votes now to overrule the FCC on Net Neutrality

[drongo44]

I will restate: cable television is not a public utility. Public utilities are basic/essential services like water, electricity, gas (of the natural variety), sewer, and telephone. Making the internet a utility will not suddenly apply television/radio content rules to it.

It depends on how it's legislated. Some aspects of television (i.e. the channels you get for free without paying) are deemed a public utility in the US. You could just as easily argue some basic facets of internet usage would qualify based on this model, such as directly pinging IP addresses rather than utilizing Google or some proprietary internet browser.

https://www.quora.com/Is-cable-consi...Why-or-why-not

- - - Updated - - -

...and with that quote, it clearly shows you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. >_<

My point, however, still remains the same - websites are "private shows" (whatever that means...) whereas the user can post whatever they want and has nothing to become the dystopic vision you are painting (and why are you when you blatantly admit you don't have a fucking clue when it comes to how TV is "regulated" because you don't watch it?).

Your banter game is weak dude. Game of Thrones might be a private show, but it still can't be blatant pornography for example. It has to follow federal regulations that are more lenient on stuff made by Netflix, HBO, etc. (but are not completely immune to.) Compare that to the internet, which can be blatant pornography or real world violence, and you should see why government regulations on the internet would theoretically be very restrictive, more so than right now.

[Lothar from accounting]

It depends on how it's legislated. Some aspects of television (i.e. the channels you get for free without paying) are deemed a public utility in the US. You could just as easily argue some basic facets of internet usage would qualify based on this model, such as directly pinging IP addresses rather than utilizing Google or some proprietary internet browser.

https://www.quora.com/Is-cable-consi...Why-or-why-not

The guy's argument isn't terrible but you're going to need a more substantial source than random network/internet engineer, consultant, entrepreneur, and human to back it up. I'd argue that broadcast (the channels you get for free without paying) television is inherently not a utility because it still isn't a necessity for everyday life, moreover I don't have to pay for it and can only get it if I'm within the federally mandated minimum broadcast radius. What one could argue based on one person's interpretation isn't all that strong a reason to avoid doing something.

Your banter game is weak dude. Game of Thrones might be a private show, but it still can't be blatant pornography for example. It has to follow federal regulations that are more lenient on stuff made by Netflix, HBO, etc. (but are not completely immune to.) Compare that to the internet, which can be blatant pornography or real world violence, and you should see why government regulations on the internet would theoretically be very restrictive, more so than right now.

There are no FCC regulations on what Netflix carries by the way since they're an internet based company. Porn is, compared to Netflix, expensive if you're actually paying for it, or paying to license it as Netflix would have to do to carry it. Porn is also stigmatized, the negative attention/press for a well established 'family friendly' movie provider that decided to start offering porn would probably be more detrimental to Netflix's bottom line than whatever revenue was brought in by offering porn in the first place. But again, all of this is moot since you're arguing against regulating access to the internet by proclaiming that it would simultaneously require regulating the content when that isn't the case.

[Grapemask]

Similarly, the shitty wires in place right now only have a finite amount of speed to provide everyone. So the problem right now is this: you use less than a hundred of a percent of that wire, Netflix uses 90000% more of the wire than anybody. ISPs want the option to charge Netflix for using so much more than anybody else, but the concept of net neutrality simply prevents any differentiating between you and Netflix.

So either ISPs abolish net neutrality and have the option to differentiate internet speeds via a cost plan (something they sort of have already), or Netflix continues to gobble up as much of the connection as possible and no one can stop them. Neither of these options benefit you in any outstanding way; it's strictly a corporation vs. corporation fight. But because both entities are manipulative bastards, Netflix (just as an example; various corporations, including Burger King for some strange reason) want you to buy into the scare that "ISPs want to censor the internet." Why? Because then you vote in their interests, even when it won't benefit you. They think we're stupid and about 50% of us actually are.

This is mostly not how the internet works. Everyone on every end is paying for their bandwidth already; they're paying for what they are sending and they are paying for what they are receiving. Netflix pays for all of the bandwidth to send its petabytes of video. You pay to receive whatever your personal share of that is. The cost of the transfer is covered; who it's transferring to or from is of little interest, because again, that's not how the internet really works.

All of this data is on tens of thousands of servers. Some of it is then cached on other servers, often hosted by your ISP, often by other institutions. Very little of it goes through the same pipes. Because of the wiring of the internet, when Netflix sends you a 20 minute episode of The Office, the route for the packets of the theme song might be completely different from the route being taken by the packets by the time you get to the credits. A lot of that's going through the "rewiring" of peering services, where Netflix has boxes inside your ISP to get better service.

But importantly, we're not looking at a gigantic Netflix bunker of servers in Nowhereville, North Dakota, desperately pumping information through one pipe to get to you. Netflix's data is spread pretty evenly across the globe, and it all takes wildly different paths from minute to minute to get to your house because routers dynamically choose new routes to deliver best service. Just like all data on the web or any other application level service.

Which is to say, that Netflix is using a lot of data is mostly irrelevant - it doesn't matter who it is, because that's not how the internet works. What matters is that people have changed what data they are retrieving from the internet - and more importantly, they're now cashing in on the data they're paying for. Netflix paid for petabytes of bandwidth. You paid for gigabytes of bandwidth. Now your ISP is telling you that they want the ability to charge you more for taking what you've already been paying for for years, and to make it sound like they're the victim, they've come up with a few Bad Guys to vilify as the mooches - Netflix, Amazon Prime, Facebook, as if they haven't already been paying a premium to rewire the internet to work well for them as it is.

But there's also an assertion that's wrong: those guys weren't very loud about net neutrality. They didn't run huge campaigns for it this time, like they did years ago. Netflix is called out often, and Netflix had some things to say in the press, yet Netflix didn't do any of the stuff this time around that they did years ago to bring attention to the issue. And it's because these massive companies that are becoming monopolies themselves stand to gain tremendously from the lack of net neutrality. Net neutrality gave them the freedom to be big business, but without net neutrality - and now that they are big business - they can use the new landscape to destroy competition. Amazon can pay to make sure you always load Amazon faster than MomsDiscountCrap.com. It's great for them.

As an example, consider that Facebook and Google are integrated into virtually the entire internet at this point. If Google and Facebook truly were so far net neutrality this time around, at the push of a button they could have put a "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" blurb on nearly every page of every website that every user visits in a day. Between Facebook app install rates and Google Android market share, they could have sent a push notification to every smartphone in the United States. They could have pumped whatever propaganda the right claims was being pushed directly to every single American, all day long, every day, from the moment Ajit Pai announced his plans. But we've already passed the vote and most people still have no clue what any of it means and the right is just as blissfully uninformed today as they were in February.

Obamacare made your healthcare crisis even worse. I wouldn't be eager to hand over the entire internet to the U.S. government based on that alone.

Despite being out of scope, this is mostly not true. Millions more are insured now than pre-Obamacare. The rate of cost increases has dramatically dropped during the years of Obamacare. Of people who have lost insurance, the majority of them were not frequent healthcare users but got insurance anyway because they could afford it or it was provided for them by another party - but that affordability (either for them or the provider) went away when insurance had to have mandatory minimum coverages and other stipulations. Even just looking at health outcomes, studies have shown that overall public health has increased in the years of Obamacare. Basically, the only way we can say Obamacare made things worse is if we tune into Fox News and Breitbart and take in a giant heaping cup of propaganda.

[drongo44]

The guy's argument isn't terrible but you're going to need a more substantial source than random network/internet engineer, consultant, entrepreneur, and human to back it up. I'd argue that broadcast (the channels you get for free without paying) television is inherently not a utility because it still isn't a necessity for everyday life, moreover I don't have to pay for it and can only get it if I'm within the federally mandated minimum broadcast radius. What one could argue based on one person's interpretation isn't all that strong a reason to avoid doing something.

[COLOR=#417394][SIZE=1]
There are no FCC regulations on what Netflix carries by the way since they're an internet based company. Porn is, compared to Netflix, expensive if you're actually paying for it, or paying to license it as Netflix would have to do to carry it. Porn is also stigmatized, the negative attention/press for a well established 'family friendly' movie provider that decided to start offering porn would probably be more detrimental to Netflix's bottom line than whatever revenue was brought in by offering porn in the first place. But again, all of this is moot since you're arguing against regulating access to the internet by proclaiming that it would simultaneously require regulating the content when that isn't the case.

When people argue the internet should be controlled by the government, part of the package is almost always "it's so ingrained into every day life it's practically a utility already." It's same argument that's used for basic free television channels (since I think it provides news, weather, etc. if you live in the range of a major city. Most places are if Google is right.)

https://psmag.com/news/why-american-...public-utility

This is just one source but it's the first result when you search it up. The common argument is "internet isn't a privilege, it's obligatory and widespread nowadays" is echoed.

And this isn't even bringing up how you guys can use an internet bill as a utility bill, even if it doesn't include any sort of phone or cable service. OTA or broadcast television channels are also considered public utility; places in or near cities get a lot of the big name news channels for free, so I don't know why you would argue they aren't.

What we should be asking ourselves is: if the internet is deemed a public utility, what parts of it will be? Just the free ones? The most commonly used ones? Or just basic tasks like pinging a website with a command prompt? And would the federal regulations look like the ones you see with cable television, or something like Netflix? Who will be determining, maintaining and proposing new regulations?

Too much shit can go wrong for no real benefit. May as well just leave it private.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because Netflix uses 100x the bandwidth of other users

Netflix uses 100x the bandwidth and pays 100x the price because of it.

Comcast just realized that

1) Netflix was entirely reliant on them to get their content to half of America
2) Netflix was in direct competition with Comcast's own streaming/on demand service (which is really shitty)

So they decided to throttle Netflix's speed, pissing off Netflix's customers and causing them to lose business because nobody on comcast could watch netflix, causing a switch to...

And then Comcast demanded that Netflix pay a lot more than 100x the price for 100x the use. Usually when someone buys in bulk, they get charged less. Comcast just decided since Netflix was reliant on them, that they'd make a good showing to their shareholders by gouging netflix.

Net Neutrality prevented this kind of thing from happening. Netflix still has to pay a PROPORTIONAL amount for the bandwidth they use. People somehow get the impression that Netflix only has to pay for a $120/month data plan like everyone else when they use half the internet's bandwidth? Yeah, that's not how it works, they pay more. Comcast saw netflix's profits and just decided they wanted even more pie. That is inherently not free market in the least.

[drongo44]

This is mostly not how the internet works. Everyone on every end is paying for their bandwidth already; they're paying for what they are sending and they are paying for what they are receiving. Netflix pays for all of the bandwidth to send its petabytes of video. You pay to receive whatever your personal share of that is. The cost of the transfer is covered; who it's transferring to or from is of little interest, because again, that's not how the internet really works.

All of this data is on tens of thousands of servers. Some of it is then cached on other servers, often hosted by your ISP, often by other institutions. Very little of it goes through the same pipes. Because of the wiring of the internet, when Netflix sends you a 20 minute episode of The Office, the route for the packets of the theme song might be completely different from the route being taken by the packets by the time you get to the credits. A lot of that's going through the "rewiring" of peering services, where Netflix has boxes inside your ISP to get better service.

But importantly, we're not looking at a gigantic Netflix bunker of servers in Nowhereville, North Dakota, desperately pumping information through one pipe to get to you. Netflix's data is spread pretty evenly across the globe, and it all takes wildly different paths from minute to minute to get to your house because routers dynamically choose new routes to deliver best service. Just like all data on the web or any other application level service.

Which is to say, that Netflix is using a lot of data is mostly irrelevant - it doesn't matter who it is, because that's not how the internet works. What matters is that people have changed what data they are retrieving from the internet - and more importantly, they're now cashing in on the data they're paying for. Netflix paid for petabytes of bandwidth. You paid for gigabytes of bandwidth. Now your ISP is telling you that they want the ability to charge you more for taking what you've already been paying for for years, and to make it sound like they're the victim, they've come up with a few Bad Guys to vilify as the mooches - Netflix, Amazon Prime, Facebook, as if they haven't already been paying a premium to rewire the internet to work well for them as it is.

But there's also an assertion that's wrong: those guys weren't very loud about net neutrality. They didn't run huge campaigns for it this time, like they did years ago. Netflix is called out often, and Netflix had some things to say in the press, yet Netflix didn't do any of the stuff this time around that they did years ago to bring attention to the issue. And it's because these massive companies that are becoming monopolies themselves stand to gain tremendously from the lack of net neutrality. Net neutrality gave them the freedom to be big business, but without net neutrality - and now that they are big business - they can use the new landscape to destroy competition. Amazon can pay to make sure you always load Amazon faster than MomsDiscountCrap.com. It's great for them.

As an example, consider that Facebook and Google are integrated into virtually the entire internet at this point. If Google and Facebook truly were so far net neutrality this time around, at the push of a button they could have put a "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" blurb on nearly every page of every website that every user visits in a day. Between Facebook app install rates and Google Android market share, they could have sent a push notification to every smartphone in the United States. They could have pumped whatever propaganda the right claims was being pushed directly to every single American, all day long, every day, from the moment Ajit Pai announced his plans. But we've already passed the vote and most people still have no clue what any of it means and the right is just as blissfully uninformed today as they were in February.


Despite being out of scope, this is mostly not true. Millions more are insured now than pre-Obamacare. The rate of cost increases has dramatically dropped during the years of Obamacare. Of people who have lost insurance, the majority of them were not frequent healthcare users but got insurance anyway because they could afford it or it was provided for them by another party - but that affordability (either for them or the provider) went away when insurance had to have mandatory minimum coverages and other stipulations. Even just looking at health outcomes, studies have shown that overall public health has increased in the years of Obamacare. Basically, the only way we can say Obamacare made things worse is if we tune into Fox News and Breitbart and take in a giant heaping cup of propaganda.

Your essay echoes my initial point: this is corporation vs. corporation, a tug of war for power that doesn't affect everyday Americans in any capacity. You already pay based on data & speed, and big companies like Netflix pay based on data & speed (with one obviously demanding more than the other.) The ISPs receive two paychecks at the end of the day no matter what happens, and there's really no feasible opening for additional customer-side fee. No one would pay it and you couldn't reinforce it. Why you're trying to tell my I'm "mostly" wrong is something I can't figure out and I read your post like 5 times.

My main problem is this sentiment ISPs = bad, companies = good, Net Neutrality = net neutrality keeps popping up when it's totally wrong. Why does nobody mention ISPs have a ton of cable packages in the US that were selling like crap because of Netflix, but the cable companies didn't take any action (and they could based on Title II exemptions I linked a page ago)? It would explain why ISPs adjusts the prices of their service, especially to rival companies trying to take advantage. But even that doesn't matter because, right now, both of these companies openly benefit one another. Blustering about a net neutrality bill that doesn't guarantee the real concept of net neutrality, blustering from normal people or these phony companies, is pointless, almost as pointless as harping on about a vague right-wing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Your banter game is weak dude. Game of Thrones might be a private show, but it still can't be blatant pornography for example. It has to follow federal regulations that are more lenient on stuff made by Netflix, HBO, etc. (but are not completely immune to.) Compare that to the internet, which can be blatant pornography or real world violence, and you should see why government regulations on the internet would theoretically be very restrictive, more so than right now.

You still haven't really explained how net neutrality censors anything.

It doesn't.

And everyone who says it does is either talking out of their ass because they never read NN regulations, listening to conservative talking points and are simply ignorant, or just straight up lying and trolling. Which one are you?

[satimy]

Netflix uses 100x the bandwidth and pays 100x the price because of it.

Comcast just realized that

1) Netflix was entirely reliant on them to get their content to half of America
2) Netflix was in direct competition with Comcast's own streaming/on demand service (which is really shitty)

So they decided to throttle Netflix's speed, pissing off Netflix's customers and causing them to lose business because nobody on comcast could watch netflix, causing a switch to...

And then Comcast demanded that Netflix pay a lot more than 100x the price for 100x the use. Usually when someone buys in bulk, they get charged less. Comcast just decided since Netflix was reliant on them, that they'd make a good showing to their shareholders by gouging netflix.

Net Neutrality prevented this kind of thing from happening. Netflix still has to pay a PROPORTIONAL amount for the bandwidth they use. People somehow get the impression that Netflix only has to pay for a $120/month data plan like everyone else when they use half the internet's bandwidth? Yeah, that's not how it works, they pay more. Comcast saw netflix's profits and just decided they wanted even more pie. That is inherently not free market in the least.

The entire thing is fucked, but I still think anti trust legislation is the best option

[drongo44]

You still haven't really explained how net neutrality censors anything.

It doesn't.

And everyone who says it does is either talking out of their ass because they never read NN regulations, listening to conservative talking points and are simply ignorant, or just straight up lying and trolling. Which one are you?

"Why don't right-leaning people have a reasonable debate with me when I act like a caustic fool and advertise myself as one?" Look at your signature mate, even your Location. Did you think that was a second signature field or something?

Net neutrality as a concept was something the US had prior to any laws about it. You had ISPs trying to infringe on the concept in select cases over the course of like 2 decades (and pretty much every attempt I can think of was shot down) but even without laws to protect net neutrality there were no curator package, fees or plan rules that only allowed you to visit select websites.

There was a telecom law in 1996 too that mentioned the internet for the first time, putting it on the map for government broadcast legislation in the US. Then Title V of that same telecom act tried to regulate the internet like television with obscenity laws but was ruled unconstitutional by your supreme court. But then the Obama law in 2015 comes around, where all that progress made in 1996 is wiped out so net neutrality could be made a "real law" (as if it needed one) and set the stage for potential FCC regulation.

It's like a war ending and then everyone goes back to a battleground 10 years later to start fighting again, when all the territory's been mapped out already.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/tech...ity/index.html

This guy said it best. "This has become a debate about a false choice: letting carriers do whatever the heck they want and overly burdensome regulations." Reigniting this net neutrality thing (that was already being solved on a case by case basis) reeks of dodgy bullshit.

[Lothar from accounting]

What we should be asking ourselves is: if the internet is deemed a public utility, what parts of it will be? Just the free ones? The most commonly used ones? Or just basic tasks like pinging a website with a command prompt? And would the federal regulations look like the ones you see with cable television, or something like Netflix? Who will be determining, maintaining and proposing new regulations?

You're still missing the point and I'm getting the impression that it's intentional. "The internet" isn't what people are arguing should be regulated/treated as a utility. Internet ACCESS is the thing that people are saying should be the utility.

Electricity is a public utility, has been for a long time now. The argument you're making is that by regulating it the government can tell you how you can or can't use the electricity provided to your house by the power company when the reality is, so long as you're paying for the electricity you use, it's yours to do with as you please.

Translate that to internet access: if I'm paying for X bandwidth all the government regulations are doing is ensuring that I reliably get that bandwidth. Whatever I do with that bandwidth, barring otherwise illegal activity, is my choice.

[Lenonis]

it's a private show on a private service.

Man...I don't think I've seen anyone manage to blow up their own argument as quickly as you just did. Is TV a public utility or a private service? Guess we'll never know!

[drongo44]

You're still missing the point and I'm getting the impression that it's intentional. "The internet" isn't what people are arguing should be regulated/treated as a utility. Internet ACCESS is the thing that people are saying should be the utility.

Electricity is a public utility, has been for a long time now. The argument you're making is that by regulating it the government can tell you how you can or can't use the electricity provided to your house by the power company when the reality is, so long as you're paying for the electricity you use, it's yours to do with as you please.

Translate that to internet access: if I'm paying for X bandwidth all the government regulations are doing is ensuring that I reliably get that bandwidth. Whatever I do with that bandwidth, barring otherwise illegal activity, is my choice.

If you think I'm fucking with you you're welcome to just stop replying. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and pretend having pointless arguments about American politics is some kind of privilege either.

More to the point: why does the internet need to be a utility? Are ISPs not providing the amount of data and speed you pay for? How could you reliably regulate that when you consider things like outages, different means of bandwidth measurement, etc.? Do you get compensated for any of those things if it happens to a federal service? And if not, what would be the point of deeming it a utility? It just comes off as a way for your federal government to stick their fingers into the internet on a surface level and gradually increase regulation; something that spells trouble for the rest of the world too since so much of the internet is based in US interests.

And how can you argue the topic of discussion isn't access to the internet when that's the entire issue? A site can host whatever it wants but if you can't access it because the feds/FCC/whatever won't allow Americans access then it's an absolute detriment. You guys can't even rely on First Amendment protection on the internet anymore since that 1996 telecom thing went out the window.

[Lothar from accounting]

If you think I'm fucking with you you're welcome to just stop replying. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and pretend having pointless arguments about American politics is some kind of privilege either.

Not just me, but I'll come back to this a little later.

More to the point: why does the internet need to be a utility?

There are many areas of the US that have 1-2 internet service providers. Those providers largely don't compete with each other, in that they have relatively comparable prices for comparable services and they don't go out of their way to undercut each other. Additionally, as has been mentioned by others, they lobby/petition state, county, and or city governments to pass statutes/laws/etc. making it difficult, if not impossible, for any existing (but not yet 'local') or new companies to come in and establish the infrastructure necessary to compete.
If a service that many rely upon is going to have little or no competition in large portions of the country then regulating it as a utility provides consistent minimum standards to adhere to rather than whatever effort the local ISP feels like putting out, or not putting out as the case may be.

Are ISPs not providing the amount of data and speed you pay for?

Some, not all, like to use weasel-y terminology when referring to their provided speeds. 'Up to X mbps' with sufficient legalese to cover their asses for the myriad situations where you don't get X.

How could you reliably regulate that when you consider things like outages,

Telephone service is a regulated utility that still has outages from time to time.

different means of bandwidth measurement, etc.?

Setting a standard measure as part of regulation isn't that hard. (Furlongs per fortnight, meters per month, or yards per year are all 'valid' ways to express measurements of speed but that doesn't mean we should use them over kph/mph.)

Do you get compensated for any of those things if it happens to a federal service?

Regulation as follows for example: if an ISP has outages exceeding a certain percentage of a billing period then they have to provide a comparable percentage discount on the next bill. It's worth noting that having federal regulation doesn't make something a 'federal service' in the US. The telephone and power grids here are connected across the country but the providers I pay for those utilities here aren't necessarily the same providers as my fellow posters here from other parts of the country.

And if not, what would be the point of deeming it a utility?

See above.

It just comes off as a way for your federal government to stick their fingers into the internet on a surface level and gradually increase regulation; something that spells trouble for the rest of the world too since so much of the internet is based in US interests.

Again, this is not about the government controlling/deciding what can or cannot be hosted, posted, seen, or read on the internet. It's about the government requiring ISPs, many that have monopolies or duopolies in parts of the country, to provide a minimum acceptable level of unimpeded access to the internet.

And how can you argue the topic of discussion isn't access to the internet when that's the entire issue? A site can host whatever it wants but if you can't access it because the feds/FCC/whatever won't allow Americans access then it's an absolute detriment. You guys can't even rely on First Amendment protection on the internet anymore since that 1996 telecom thing went out the window.

Now back to the part about you fucking with me. The third sentence from my previous post:

Internet ACCESS is the thing that people are saying should be the utility.

Claiming that what I'm arguing is the exact opposite of what I said seems an awful lot like fucking with me.

TL;DR, recap, or whatever. Regulating internet access as a utility makes it like electricity, water, telephones, and the like: so long as you're paying for it you can do whatever you want with it so long as it's not violating other established laws.

[Powerogue]

Dear Odin,

Please give one Republican a brain for a moment and join the fuck train against the asshole running the FCC.

Forever in Your Service,
BlackMage66652

Ditto but for Zeus. We need to cover all the bases.

[Tijuana]

This is good news. Under the Congressional Review Act, it takes just a simple majority to overrule a federal regulation enacted in the past 60 days and Chuck Schumer says there are now fifty votes in the Senate to do just that, meaning they need to flip just one more Republican to undo the damage the corporate stooge running the FCC did last month.

Democrats are also vowing to make net neutrality a campaign issue, one I imagine vulnerable Republicans don't want to be dealing with with the fat albatross named Donald Trump shackled to their ankles this year given how popular net neutrality is in polling.

I'm sorry but you are mistaken on how this works. NO LAW, regardless of the number of votes this way or that way, can be voted on in the Senate without Mitch McConnell allowing it. If the issue is 99-1, with him being the 1, it cannot be brought to the floor and be voted on. The only way to over ride him, would be to remove him, which is pretty unlikely over this issue.

[Trifle]

More to the point: why does the internet need to be a utility?

In a nutshell, because it is demonstrably important that people have access to the internet just as it's important they have water and electricity. And if you leave companies to their own devices you get a lot of behaviour that threatens that.

[Grapemask]

In a nutshell, because it is demonstrably important that people have access to the internet just as it's important they have water and electricity. And if you leave companies to their own devices you get a lot of behaviour that threatens that.

You're going to be very sad when that guy shows just how far the right is willing to go to deny that it's "demonstrably important." Even if it comes down to a scenario where the only way you could feasibly live without the internet is by holding a gun to someone's head and demanding they give you a service that has been entirely phased out from non-internet based procedure, they will insist that is a viable and perfectly acceptable alternative to the internet and proof that it is not necessary.