This is exact what people don't realize would have happened in the US if net neutrality was kept in place. Classifying ISPs as title II would require them to ap

This is exact what people don't realize would have happened in the US if net neutrality was kept in place. Classifying ISPs as title II would require them to apply for broadcasting licenses just like television and radio must do. What's the problem with that? Since they can't operate without a broadcasting license, the government can now threaten to revoke their license if they do not comply. The government would be able to strong arm these ISPs to remove anything they deemed as unfavorable content or propaganda (fake news?). Nationalizing the internet is not what we want here. The FCC's main responsibility is to regulate interstate communication. The FTC's responsibility is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly. The FTC has much greater power to fight for consumer protections if the ISPs begin throttling, creating fast lanes, pricing tiers, etc. The US's media machine has also consolidated, along with ISPs becoming content producers themselves and bordering monopoly status. The FCC just a few days ago announced they will work with the FTC to "return jurisdiction to the FTC to police the conduct of ISPs, including with respect to their privacy practices." [0] Basically the FTC has more power to prevent and break up monopolies. By repealing net neutrality the FCC is saying they will hear consumers concerns and work with FTC to prevent ISPs from hurting consumers, because the FCC alone does not have the power to do that. It's also preventing the US government from forcing ISPs to comply by threatening to revoke their broadcasting license. [0] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-fcc-outline-agreement-coordinate-online-consumer-protection https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/12/ftc-f...