Blocked and Reported

Episode 294: What Ever Happened To Net Neutrality? Part 2

February 9, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • The 2015 net neutrality rules, established by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier, were a major victory for activists but were quickly followed by intense, often factually inaccurate, public mobilization efforts on both sides. 
  • The debate over net neutrality in 2017 shifted rhetorically to frame the issue as a critical civil rights and social justice matter, despite the fact that the actual predictions of a two-tiered internet did not materialize after the rules were repealed. 
  • The intense public pressure campaigns surrounding net neutrality, including mass online comments and protests, were significantly undermined by widespread fraudulent submissions from both pro- and anti-net neutrality groups. 
  • The subsequent backlash against large tech platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) for perceived conservative censorship created an ironic situation where the same companies that championed an open internet were accused of discrimination, ultimately leading to events like Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. 
  • The perception of social media censorship against conservative voices, rather than the actual effects of the net neutrality repeal, drove significant political consequences, including Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter. 
  • The major predictions of a two-tiered internet with fast lanes and mass censorship following the 2017 net neutrality repeal did not materialize, and the only cited violation (Mendocino wildfire) was related to data caps, not equal access to content. 
  • The second attempt to reinstate net neutrality under the Biden FCC in 2024 failed quickly due to the Supreme Court overturning the Chevron rule, resulting in minimal public reaction because the issue had shifted from ISP regulation to platform content moderation, which activists failed to secure through durable legislative action. 

Segments

Super Bowl and Episode Transition
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:11)
  • Key Takeaway: One host is an ardent, decades-long New England Patriots fan, while the other is conflicted about the Super Bowl outcome due to regional preferences.
  • Summary: The hosts briefly discuss the upcoming result of the first Blocked and Reported Super Bowl, revealing one host’s strong allegiance to the Patriots. The conversation quickly pivots to the main topic, confirming this episode is the conclusion of the net neutrality series.
Jesse’s Missed Connection Story
Copied to clipboard!
(00:02:06)
  • Key Takeaway: Jesse recounts a brief, awkward interaction at the Bar Pod gathering in LA on January 31st with a tall, pretty woman near a projector, which he mistakenly assumed was related to the podcast group.
  • Summary: Jesse details a rare ‘missed connection’ event that occurred at the Bar Pod gathering at The Hermaceo in Highland Park. He failed to engage with a tall woman who asked about a projector, assuming she was part of the group, and never saw her again. He requests listeners help identify the woman, describing her as tall with possibly dirty blonde hair.
Net Neutrality Part 2 Introduction
Copied to clipboard!
(00:05:56)
  • Key Takeaway: The hosts emphasize the importance of explaining the nuances of the decade-old net neutrality policy story despite other current world events.
  • Summary: The hosts transition to the main subject, confirming this is the second and final part of their net neutrality series. They acknowledge other major news stories but prioritize explaining the complex policy history. They also briefly mention that subscriber-only content covers other current events.
Corrections from Part One
Copied to clipboard!
(00:06:47)
  • Key Takeaway: Corrections to the previous episode included clarifying that Tim Wu is at Columbia (not Harvard), AT&T became a de facto monopoly by 1913 (not the 1930s), and John Oliver is reportedly six feet tall.
  • Summary: The host lists three minor corrections received from listeners regarding the first part of the series. These corrections address the academic affiliation of Tim Wu, the timeline for AT&T’s monopoly status, and the actual height of John Oliver. A listener insight suggested that true net neutrality might be hated by customers if ISPs could not manage traffic to prevent glitches.
Recap of Net Neutrality Origins
Copied to clipboard!
(00:09:35)
  • Key Takeaway: Legislators in the 1990s opted for light-touch regulation, avoiding treating ISPs as common carriers, which set the stage for later conflicts over discrimination.
  • Summary: The initial framework of the internet involved legislators choosing not to regulate ISPs as heavily regulated utilities (common carriers) like phone companies. Tim Wu coined ’net neutrality’ in the early 2000s, advocating against ISP discrimination, which initially relied on voluntary compliance from ISPs. Comcast’s throttling of BitTorrent later demonstrated the risks of this voluntary approach.
SOPA/PIPA and John Oliver’s Impact
Copied to clipboard!
(00:11:14)
  • Key Takeaway: Internet activists successfully harnessed online platforms like Wikipedia and Reddit to protest SOPA/PIPA in 2012, setting a precedent for digital mobilization that John Oliver amplified in 2014.
  • Summary: The fight against SOPA/PIPA in the early 2010s showed the power of internet activists to influence policy, including site blackouts. John Oliver’s 2014 segment on net neutrality went viral, flooding the FCC with nearly 45,000 comments, though it contained factual inaccuracies regarding the FCC’s proposal. A journalist noted that Oliver characterized the issue as a fight against ’evil cable guys,’ which helped drive engagement.
Analysis of Public Comments
Copied to clipboard!
(00:17:43)
  • Key Takeaway: An analysis of the first 800,000 public comments showed 99% favored net neutrality, but a subsequent batch showed only 40% support after a conservative letter-writing campaign organized by American Commitment gained traction.
  • Summary: The Sunlight Foundation found that initial public comments overwhelmingly supported net neutrality, with 60% coming from organized form letters. A later batch of comments saw support drop significantly after a campaign linked to the Koch brothers mobilized opposition. The foundation’s differing reaction to pro- and anti-net neutrality organized campaigns is noted.
Civil Rights Groups Split on Regulation
Copied to clipboard!
(00:21:20)
  • Key Takeaway: Established civil rights groups, including the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, opposed reclassifying broadband as a common carrier, arguing regulation could discourage investment in underserved communities, contrasting with more grassroots groups.
  • Summary: Several established civil rights organizations lobbied against the reclassification of broadband, citing concerns that regulation would stifle investment in areas needing better service. These groups reportedly received significant funding from broadband providers during the fight. Grassroots activists, conversely, viewed ISPs as gatekeepers who might throttle activist content without net neutrality rules.
Obama’s Unexpected Intervention
Copied to clipboard!
(00:23:06)
  • Key Takeaway: President Obama’s rare public intervention urging the FCC to protect net neutrality in November 2014 was highly unexpected due to the FCC’s status as an independent agency.
  • Summary: President Obama released a video explicitly calling for the FCC to reclassify broadband as a common carrier to keep the internet free and open. This intervention was unusual because the FCC is designed to be independent of the sitting president. This pressure, combined with activist demonstrations, contributed to the FCC adopting the Open Internet Order in February 2015.
2015 Rules and Their Scope
Copied to clipboard!
(00:26:34)
  • Key Takeaway: The 2015 Open Internet Order codified transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination, crucially adding a preemptive ban on paid prioritization (fast lanes) and extending rules to wireless providers.
  • Summary: The 2015 rules maintained the three core tenets from the overturned 2010 order but gained enforceability by classifying ISPs as common carriers. A key addition was banning paid prioritization arrangements entirely, meaning no fast or slow lanes were permitted. The order also granted the FCC sweeping authority to intervene against future business practices deemed harmful to users.
Trump FCC and Pai’s Repeal
Copied to clipboard!
(00:29:38)
  • Key Takeaway: Following Trump’s election, Ajit Pai became FCC Chairman in 2017 and announced the repeal of the 2015 rules, arguing that the 2015 regulations were unnecessary since the internet was not ‘broken’ in 2015.
  • Summary: Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, was confirmed as FCC Chairman in late 2017, signaling the end of the Obama-era rules. Pai argued that the 2015 regulations, based on Depression-era laws, were unnecessary micromanagement. Activists responded with intense personal protests, including threats against Pai’s family, leading to increased security costs for him.
Oliver’s Second Segment and False Pretexts
Copied to clipboard!
(00:35:44)
  • Key Takeaway: John Oliver’s second net neutrality segment inaccurately cited the 2011 blocking of Google Wallet by carriers as evidence of rampant ISP wrongdoing violating net neutrality, when the issue concerned access to secure phone hardware, not network traffic.
  • Summary: Oliver’s 2017 segment focused heavily on Chairman Pai’s background and argued against Pai’s claim of no ISP wrongdoing before 2015. The example used—carriers blocking Google Wallet in favor of their joint venture ISIS—was technically about controlling access to secure phone hardware (NFC chips), which is outside the scope of net neutrality rules governing traffic management.
Net Neutrality as Social Justice Issue
Copied to clipboard!
(00:39:42)
  • Key Takeaway: Net neutrality advocacy groups strategically reframed the issue as a critical social justice and civil rights concern, arguing that repealing the rules threatened digital free speech and the ability to organize resistance against authoritarianism.
  • Summary: Advocacy groups like Public Knowledge began marketing net neutrality as ’the social justice issue of our time,’ linking its protection to the ability of movements like Black Lives Matter to organize. This framing positioned Pai’s repeal efforts as an attack on democracy and civil rights. This rhetorical shift occurred just before the final December 2017 FCC vote.
The Final Vote and Fizzle Out
Copied to clipboard!
(00:50:36)
  • Key Takeaway: Despite massive online protests (‘Break the Internet’) and the final FCC vote being evacuated due to a bomb threat, the Trump FCC repealed net neutrality in December 2017, after which public interest quickly waned.
  • Summary: Activists organized an ‘internet-wide red alert’ protest just before the final vote, but the Trump FCC proceeded to pass the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, killing net neutrality protections. Following the repeal, legal challenges failed to gain traction, and public attention shifted away from the issue toward controversies involving social media censorship and election interference.
Social Media Censorship Examples
Copied to clipboard!
(00:54:08)
  • Key Takeaway: Conservative voices claimed suppression via platform actions like Facebook labeling content as unsafe and Twitter search suppressing Republican officials.
  • Summary: Facebook labeled content from Trump bloggers as unsafe, leading to congressional testimony about suppression. Twitter’s search function was found not to auto-suggest Republican officials, fueling shadow banning claims. Major platforms banned Alex Jones, the Proud Boys, and eventually Donald Trump following January 6th.
Net Neutrality Predictions vs. Reality
Copied to clipboard!
(00:55:16)
  • Key Takeaway: Predictions of a two-tiered internet following the 2017 net neutrality repeal did not materialize, and observed censorship came from platforms, not ISPs.
  • Summary: The predicted fast lanes and mass censorship failed to appear after the repeal. The only major cited incident was the Mendocino wildfire issue, which was clarified as a data cap problem, not a net neutrality violation concerning equal content access. Censorship observed in recent years originated from platforms like Twitter and Facebook, not Comcast or Verizon.
Second Net Neutrality Reinstatement Failure
Copied to clipboard!
(00:56:42)
  • Key Takeaway: The Biden FCC’s 2024 reinstatement of net neutrality was largely ignored and subsequently overturned in 2025 due to the Supreme Court overturning the Chevron rule.
  • Summary: FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenwursel was named chairman and reinstated net neutrality in April 2024, mirroring Ajit Pai’s predecessor role. This action was largely ignored by the public compared to the 2017 repeal. The order was overturned in January 2025 because the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron deference rule, which previously allowed agencies flexibility with unclear laws.
ISP Throttling Research Findings
Copied to clipboard!
(01:00:41)
  • Key Takeaway: Research using the WeHee app suggests cellular networks frequently throttle video streaming speeds, even when net neutrality regulations were in place.
  • Summary: Scholar David Chafnis’s research indicated that throttling does not occur on wired broadband but is common on cellular networks for streaming video across Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Although throttling was detected on the speaker’s Mint 5G connection, it did not degrade the immediate streaming experience. This throttling behavior was observed even during the period when the 2015 net neutrality order was active.
Legislative Strategy vs. Regulatory Capture
Copied to clipboard!
(01:04:20)
  • Key Takeaway: The net neutrality fight is characterized as a failure to pursue durable legislative action, instead relying on regulatory capture and mobilizing online outrage.
  • Summary: Will Reinhart argued the tragedy was the opportunity cost of activists focusing on the FCC instead of Congress, whose actions are more permanent. He described the movement as learning to weaponize public attention to achieve goals that could not survive the legislative process. This highlights how viral moments can override traditional democratic deliberation in the administrative state.