Listen up Americans, you have a small window (till Thursday May 18th when they vote or close the comments down - I'm not sure of which), to tell FCC your opinions to the further cuts their going to undertake just This Week. Your Voice could make a Big difference and reprieve these harms to us by the Broadband industry, if the FCC is to succeed or not is up to YOU. Tell the FCC to Keep Title II and Not Undermine Net Neutrality ! But before FCC Chairman Ajit Pai can enact this terrible plan, he has to make the proposal publicly available and accept comments from regular people about how it would affect them. That’s where all of you come in. Make a stand and have your voice counted. . . The FCC has asked for public comment on new rules about net neutrality. Use this form to submit your comment to the FCC. https://dearfcc.org/ Spoiler: In depth info found here... Well, after the change in leadership came a change to the Lifeline Broadband in the way these service providers could fast stream their enrollment in the Lifeline program and get approved to supply that feature to the low-income households and individuals that are eligible, the FCC then reversed the rules on ISP’s privacy for broadband subscribers. Moving down the line now, FCC under it's current administrator hopes to eliminate (gut) all of the prior advances that low-income Americans and that of all Americans had seen of benefits and/or advantages of the broadband industry regulations in general to them personally in 2015 policy changes. As it stands Now in regards to Broadband in the US with the FCC's powers: Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service (as in Broadband Internet) can be labeled either a “TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE,” like telephone service, that lets the SUBSCRIBER choose the content they receive and send without INTERENCE from the SERVICE PROVIDER, or it can be an “INFORMATION SERVICE,” like cable television or an old Prodigy service, that curates and selects what content-channels will be available to subscribers. In the 1996 law, it's provided that “Telecommunications Services” are governed by “Title II” of the Communications Act of 1934, which includes nondiscrimination requirements of/by/to the service provider. On the other hand “Information Services” are not subject to Title II’s requirements. (In other words FCC current Rules for Information Services are not protected by the 1996 law and have no Courts support or judicial scrutiny). ISP's can fight any enforcement of FCC rules or the rules themselves, which most like they will - if Broadband is to be labeled as an Informational service once again. Under this current law, the FCC has the power and can put either label on Broadband Internet service – but that choice does have it's consequences. (To the subscriber base of ISP's) The legal mandate was clear (the Courts decision): if FCC wanted meaningful open Internet rules to pass judicial scrutiny (in the Courts favor), the FCC had to reclassify broadband service under Title II provisions. This was also clear to neutral observers that reclassification of Broadband just made sense. Broadband looks a lot more like a “Telecommunications Service” than that of an “Information Service.” Broadband Internet service entails delivering information of the subscriber’s choosing, not information curated or altered by the service provider. It took an Internet uprising (Peoples Voices) to persuade the FCC that reclassification made practical and legal sense. In the end, the cry’s of many people had succeeded, in 2015 at the end of a lengthy rulemaking process, the FCC reclassified Broadband as a Title II Telecommunications Service and issued Net Neutrality Rules on that basis. Resting at last on a proper legal foundation in the Courts, and those rules finally passed all the judicial scrutiny of the Courts. Read more here- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/why-losing-title-ii-means-losing-net-neutrality-and-privacy Now on the chopping block is your benefit/advantage to Net Neutrality. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed to reverse that 2015 decision that puts Broadband back under the regime and classification for “Information Services” – the same regime and classification that we already know won’t support real Net Neutrality rules in the Courts. By abandoning Title II stature of Broadband, now is to mean the end of meaningful, enforceable Net Neutrality protections by the FCC, paving the way for companies like Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, AT&T and many others to slice up your Internet experience into favored, disfavored, and “premium” content, or slow, fast lanes and in choosing which websites you can and can’t access and how fast those websites will load. Those of you who knew what a throttled internet meant – please read on. What's more, Broadband in a Title II status, is to offers more regulatory limits than the alternative of treating Broadband as an Information Service, at least when it comes to Net Neutrality. Where Title II grants specific, clear, and bounded powers that can protect Net Neutrality, - theories proposed that do not rely on Title II provisions have to infer powers that aren’t clearly granted to the FCC. As proponents of limited regulation, these theories concern the Electronic Frontier Foundation (The leading nonprofit defending digital privacy, free speech, and innovation). The proper way to protect Net Neutrality is not to expand FCC discretion by stretching the general provisions of the Telecommunications Act by labeling Broadband once again as an “INFORMATION SERVICE”, (an approach already rejected in judicial court), but to use a limited subset of the clear authorities laid out in Title II provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, and keep Broadband as it's status now by the label of being a Telecommunications Service.