The courts don't have to examine whether or not they think a rule change is in the public interest, nor would they have to conclude that the public interest is proven by what position got the most individual comments in support of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(...

They could conclude that an agency unreasonably ignored specific arguments in public comments, but probably not that the fact that the agency wasn't swayed by the volume of the comments was unreasonable.

If the arguments were repeated multiple times, it's easier to point out that FCC intentionally ignored them, and it's not "we didn't notice" situation.

Be careful of wishing for judicial oligarchy, because when it happens you may not enjoy what it looks like.

You prefer the Rule of Pai? I think I'd prefer the multiple court of appeals process to determine whether the FCC discharged its duty, rather than an uncontested decision by Pai that clearly goes against what the people want, in defiance of the duty the FCC is charged with.

I prefer the rule of nobody but the consumer. That's what markets are for.

Jesus Christ, here we go again.

If you "free market" types figure out a way to get ten different companies competing on public fiber in 100 different cities across the US, then I'll finally listen to this argument. Until then, realize that there is no market. It's a monopoly.

Stop dismissing consumer protection with a wave of your magic market wand when you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Local loop unbundling seems to work pretty well in the EU (at least we appear to get cheaper, better internet).

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l...

This doesn't really help in low-population areas though, as there's little incentive for anyone to update the lines.

The result of the regulation is a mostly healthy market in consumer ISP service, which is weird.

I'm not sure what that commenter was suggesting, but one possible solution is to give the public the ability to vote.

Right now, the FCC has to receive comments from the public but does not have to listen to it. If the FCC were bound by the vote of the public, it would likely behave very differently.

That's exactly what net neutrality protects — consumer choice. Corporations aren't consumers, however, as they, Pai, and yourself are trying to argue that they are. This is taxation and extortion, plain and simple. You don't have to be a genius to see that. Arguments like yours are becoming a dime-a-dozen this decade; purposefully detracting from the issue and making it seem more complicated than it is to confuse people. Websites that are heavily trafficked already pay a premium to keep their services up and running — it's called infrastructure. ISPs want a piece of someone else's pie - have you seen "There Will Be Blood?" The internet is a milkshake, and Comcast, Verizon, and their disgusting ilk, to which you seem to want to be a party of, find it amusing to imagine having some very long straws, different from the kind that belongs to the man in your argument.

Yeah, that would be great in the Ayn Rand's fantasy land. Unfortunately, back here in reality there is no ISP market. Consumers have little to no choice, and vertically integrated mega-corps have a stranglehold on everything. We all rely on our representative government to stand up to a titan like Comcast.

My understanding is that in most US cities there is only one choice of cable Internet provider so the consumer cannot choose a provider that offers neutral service.

So the FCC is required to force the providers to comply with the will of the people. And they're not doing it.

the market only exists when there are multiple providers for services or goods. I have only one choice of ISP where I live, so basically i have to pay whatever they want for internet service, have no internet, or move.

This is also the case for many Americans, and with our FCC director also being pro-merger, it could also get a lot worse (your two options merge into one option). The ISPs have lobbied and colluded with each other to the point of making their regional monopolies legal in order to have no competition. This is why we need government oversight of this industry, as they've done a damn good job making sure you don't have the option to switch providers if you don't like them.

At 5 different apartments in 2 different states, the only choice I've had for high-speed internet had been Comcast. There is no free market here. Starting a new ISP is a non-starter due to right-of-way, pile attachment, paid peering that the big players current force on Facebook, Google, etc.

In case of monopolists, you get the rule of monopolists. Do you prefer that? That's part of what Net Neutrality is supposed to protect from.

Yep, but worth reminding you at this point that in this case you are the commodity, the companies are the consumers and the Internet is the market. Free market will make more sense if you think about it that way.

How can the online market function if some services are throttled?

You don't understand the word "oligarchy".

Kritarchy — rule by judges: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritarchy

In the context of his comment, as well has his other posts, it is clear to me that he objects to judges essentially limiting what people can and can't do. In my opinion, it's implied he applies that to those currently in power and their assumed mandate.

Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have rule by judges by any stretch. Judges (and police/prosecutors/etc) do have lots of power, but they are still bound by the law and therefore checked by the legislative branch of the government, should it come to that.