Net Neutrality: The FCC Ruling Was A Sham – The Internet Is THE Loser


Late February, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to preserve Net Neutrality, with strong Title II rules that prohibit ISPs from slowing down and breaking the websites and apps you love. While this seemed to be a victory for the activists who had advocated a free, fair and open Internet, there was a lot of stuff that went unnoticed due to the air of euphoria. How could corporate giants like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, some of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, accept this in-your-face defeat so silently? Was it ever really about a  plan to divide the internet into a fast and a slow lane?

We bring to you some facts to brood over:

The Obama administration, which has expanded the surveillance state, the NDAA section 1021, the TPP, and is leading wars of aggression, stood with the activist community [which itself stands against Obama’s above-stated policies] in this particular case.


The ‘watershed victory’ was celebrated two weeks before the FCC published (on March 12) the 400-page document detailing the new regulations.


Activists fought for a decade to protect the open Internet. In May 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released a plan to create pay-to-play fast lanes. In February 2015, he had dropped the idea because, well, it was entirely unfeasible with existing technology.

Remove all ads by clicking here


The federal regulators held hands when announcing the new rules. A first.


Netflix has over 35 million subscribers in the US alone. At peak times, Netflix streaming makes up 30% of all Internet traffic in the world. The company could easily pay for preferential access, or spend funds to update its strained Internet infrastructure as and when it was needed to provide more and more videos at high resolution. But it didn’t. The new rules would now prevent large ISPs like Verizon from charging Netflix for faster service across its network.


The new policy was drafted and passed in secrecy.


Remove all ads by clicking here Remove all ads by clicking here

Get Your Anonymous T-Shirt / Sweatshirt / Hoodie / Tanktop, Smartphone or Tablet Cover or Mug In Our Spreadshirt Shop! Click Here

Remove all ads by clicking here


  1. What do you mean ‘accepted silently’? We’re going to see court cases for years and the republicans are planning dozens of investigations in the hope that some error was made in the FCC wording. The cable companies were hit but they aren’t giving up.

  2. In this article, Vandita does nothing but present an extremely brief and bias account of events leading up to and including the announcement. So how exactly is the internet the loser here? because Netflix can afford a fast lane? Is that it? A few google images and captions. Has anonhq become Buzzfeed?

    This article should be removed from anonhq, and replaced with something of substance.

  3. Wow. Oh my. What can be done. Conspiracy conspiracy, I cry’! Extraordinary claims in this article. But no source references whatsoever. No evidence. Lots of emotionalism. This article supports an opinion only. This illustrates a problem within Anon. I recently watched a new Anon video which halfway through the vid began to reveal itself as a 911 conspiracy video. What the hell. This movement is more important than an attempt at reinforcing fringe ideas. How can you guys “get it together” as a movement when you often are unable to get your facts together? The fringe segments of the Anon movement are detracting from the changes that the movement can affect against real injustices that are occurring in this world. Lots of testosterone here but lack of focus on actual issues which affect peoples daily lives. Blah blah ho hum and on and on I rant.

    • We are all anonymous. I personally feel as though we are not hearing the whole story, the internet is anons sword, do not forget. So if it is somehow hindering anon then ofcourse it is a problem. I have complete faith in anonymous.

  4. Article a bit flamboyant, yet vague in the details.Please be a tad more substantial when promoting your view point. Always enjoy the variety of perspectives many here give.

  5. So… My high-school partners are more clear about their ideas, how do you defend the title, what is this about? Am I lost in Buzzfeed or something?

  6. Its the, in my eyes, dwindling credibility of AnonHQ thats on the line here. You cant line up a few suggestions and present them as proof of yet another conspiracy.

    If you make these bold allegations, at least have some sort of semi-factual basis to back them up. Otherwise you’re playing into the hands of the people you claim to oppose.

  7. Anon.. what you posted makes no sence. net nutrallity ant dead. now were fighting the TPP if it passes then you can clearly say its dead until then its not and i refuse to let british take away iur internet because there greed.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here