Once Sinclair is running multiple tv and radio channels in the same markets, AT&T has agreed to turn CNN over to Trump cronies, and most text-based media is run as loss leaders for conservative ideologues backed by billionaires, I think we'll see the wisdom of killing net neutrality.
We'll know to ignore the rumors of dissent and protest. If Republican policy were so unpopular, it would be on the news, right?
Hopefully the next generation of Democrats will be more combative. This is a bigger problem than ideology. For example, they should plan on completely fucking Sinclair. Sinclair is the enemy, and should be treated as such. But the Democrats don't like to do anything that angers up the blood.
I'd like to see a national push to support municipal broadband. Local governments own the roads, they should also own the pipes.
Pushing down our antitrust threshold to like 5% (biggest you can grow without being broken up) could throttle Sinclair while having almost entirely positive spillover effects.
Is this a genie in a bottle, or can it be reversed if there were cooperative political agents?
IANAL and haven't followed the news closely, but in theory bringing it back would be as easy as getting rid of it. Realistically, very unlikely.
Is there a world in which it gets so bad that people start demanding a government provider?
I can imagine lots of things. I have a hard time imagining the return of net neutrality in the same world as a Trumpian Republican Party and Citizens United, to use two apt-even-if-not-perfectly-exact bywords for the world in which we live.
It's definitely reversible, but only realistically with a fillibuster proof majority in both houses (and the presidency). The only way it's going to be set in stone is through a statutory Title II classification (or exemption, I guess).
Is there a world in which it gets so bad that people start demanding a government provider? The way single payer health care has recently gained mainstream traction?
I don't know about that, but ironically at the very same time the FCC is saying there's nothing to worry about regarding internet provision, the DoJ is saying that cable companies' control over content is a mortal threat to competition, because Trump hates CNN. To the extent that position extends beyond the CNN animus into antitrust cases generally, we may see something done about regional monopolies. Regardless, it will make for some very amusing briefs when people fighting the net neutrality rule cite the DoJ case against AT&T
Both Feinstein and Harris signed on to this May letter advocating Net Neutrality. It'll be interesting to see if that changes post Net Neutrality, when they're bribed to defend the new status quo.
Jim Costa, my local representative, joined Republicans last year against the FCC's reclassification, so it sounds like he needs a push.
I hand crafted a letter and everything. I suspect it's nowhere near as persuasive as A/B tested mass produced letter, but maybe its homespun heart will shine through.
You can't even trust Democrats to be good on this. Comcast and the others send a lot of money their way. They also do things like funding small NGOs that support, for example, minority scholarships, so that the president of the NGO will write the occasional letter stating that cable company exemption from anti-trust legislation is important to the cause of education in African-American communities.
Title II was delivered - only a couple of years ago! - so evidently can be delivered.
Also, remember when Trump was going to abolish Obamacare real soon now.
In this case, the FCC - which is currently headed by an evil villain - can destroy net neutrality all by itself. There is no need for the Republican Congress to be able to find its butt with both hands, which has been the saving grace of our era.