helios210

I'm guessing because some unethical hackers are really smart, really clever, have a larger team or get lucky and spot the vulnerabilities quicker.

From /u/recycleyourcats

I take some comfort in knowing that this horrible decision will be stuck in the courts for some time, where its opponents will have a very strong argument against implementation.

The test for whether a proposed rule or regulation by a Federal Agency is permissible is whether the Agency instituted that new regulation in an "arbitrary or capricious" way. That's why the notice and public comment period is so important in administrative law. A reviewing court needs to make sure that any new Agency rules are not simply created on the whim of those Agencies' boards, but rather are the result of careful research. This arbitrary and capricious standard applies to decisions by Agencies to enact new regulations as well as decisions to rescind existing regulations (Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)).

The court that reviews decisions by major agencies like the FCC is almost always the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Presently, of the 11 current (non-senior) justices on the DC Circuit, 7 were appointed either by Obama or Clinton. It is not a conservative court.

Since the notice and public comment period in Agency procedure is so important for the reasons above, it's very likely that the liberal DC Circuit (Chief Justice Merrick Garland, remember him?) would find that the rampant use of bots and fraudulent commenting in that period provide substantial evidence that the actions of the FCC in rescinding Net Neutrality rules were arbitrary and capricious. This isn't over.

How does "increased competition" help those who only have one option? Who only have one option because the company providing said option actively lobbies to stop municipal broadband, Google Fiber or smaller ISPs from entering the market?

You're delusional if you think rolling back NN will increase competition.

Edit for copy pasta, as another user said, this basically sums up the ISPs positions:

We never will, but it's very important that we able to. But we won't. So let us do it. Because we won't do it. Which is why we're spending so much money to make sure we can. But we won't. But let us.

It's such flagrant horseshit

I tried to watch TOS I really did, but it's so dated now that it's difficult to enjoy, really enjoyed reading all the comments and replies in this thread though, you might not think it but you're quite an inspirational individual. Good job!

But government "over-reach" is fine when it's preventing competition and giving ISPs monopolistic powers? Got it. /s