 So, as many of you know, back in 2017, under Ajit Pai's leadership, the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality in a 3-2 vote. Now one of the most controversial and I think problematic elements about that repeal order was a provision that actually preempted states, meaning that the FCC tried to block them from passing their own net neutrality rules if they didn't like that the FCC undid net neutrality protections. So after this repeal was passed and it went into effect, there were numerous states that decided to rebel and subvert the FCC and pass their own net neutrality laws. This includes California, Washington, Oregon, among others. And obviously this was challenged in court because this repeal was incredibly hasty. It was arbitrary. And that provision that blocks states from passing their own net neutrality laws. I mean, it was obvious that that was legally questionable. It didn't seem as if the FCC had the authority to do that. So this was taken to the courts and I've been following the outcome as closely as I can and we finally have an update. A federal court has in fact ruled on this issue. And for the most part, the news is bad. We lost. We lost and a federal court upheld the FCC's repeal of net neutrality. This is absolutely devastating. However, there's a kernel of hope in there. There's some good news. So as Harper Nidig of the Hill reports, a federal appeals court on Tuesday delivered a mixed ruling for net neutrality supporters and opponents alike, allowing the Federal Communications Commission's 2017 repeal to stand but striking down a key provision blocking states from implementing their own open internet rules. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals also sent the repeal order back to the FCC, ordering the agency to revise it to take into consideration other issues like the effect that it will have on public safety, broadband subsidies and the regulation of cable pole attachments. So federally speaking, this is very bad news, although if you live in a state like New York, California, Oregon, Washington, the FCC cannot override your state's authority. So what this means is that some people will have net neutrality protections and others will not. Now how this will affect the market, I'm not sure, because will a company like Comcast choose to change the packages that they offer to some states and others? Will they start selling internet packages like a social media and Netflix and Hulu type package to the South while offering a total and complete internet package to residents in California for example? I'm not really sure how this is going to play out, but what I do know is that this isn't necessarily the end of the story because since there's technically a loss on both sides to a degree, this could still be appealed. This could go up to a higher court. So we don't know if this is the end of the story, but for now, if you live in one of the few states that have enacted their own net neutrality laws, you're protected. But we don't know if this will stand. But overall the fact that this court upheld the FCC's repeal of net neutrality, it just it doesn't make any sense to me. Now Carl Bode on Twitter who has been following the situation and has been reporting on the telecommunications industry for decades now had this to say. One thing people need to understand is the FCC's order didn't just kill net neutrality. It greatly eroded the FCC's ability to police telecom monopolies, shoveling remaining authority to an FTC that lacks the authority or resources to consistently stand up to AT&T, that the entire court justification for the net neutrality repeal was based on flimsy to non-existent data, appears to not have played too much of a role in the court's thinking. Odd thing about the ruling to me is that under the Administrative Procedure Act, a regulator supposed to provide hard data proving its dramatic regulatory shift was warranted. The FCC's justification was net neutrality stifled investment. But that was proven patently wrong. You also have the whole thing where the telecom industry presumably who else paid some K Street shops to flood the FCC website with fraudulent comments by fake and dead people, something I guess we're just going to forget ever happened. Exactly. None of that was taken into consideration by a federal court. Now, I don't know what the best course of action is. I feel the inclination to challenge this. Like, if I were defending net neutrality, if I were that party, I would want to appeal, but at the same time, maybe a higher court changes the ruling and strikes down everything. Maybe says, you know what, the FCC can in fact preempt states and effectively block them from enacting their own net neutrality rules. So I don't know. This is really demoralizing to see, and there are some people who are saying this is a huge victory, but this isn't a victory. Like, I don't view this as a victory. Ajit Pai won. He got what he wanted, and he was praising this on Twitter. He essentially said this was the right decision. Now, taking it a step further and trying to preempt states, that was him just going the extra mile to make sure that he was doing the full bidding of internet service providers. But the fact that that would be something that stuck, it was questionable to begin with, so that's not too surprising. But the fact that he got his repeal upheld is incredibly troubling. So what matters now is that leaders, namely 2020 Democratic Party presidential contenders, speak out on this. Because if they appoint a new FCC chairman or chairwoman who undoes what Ajit Pai did, then that could be our only saving grace at this point. And Bernie Sanders spoke about this on Twitter saying, this ruling threatens to give more power to unaccountable companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon over what we see and do on the internet. We must fight to keep the internet free and open, not dominated by corporations. This struggle is essential to free speech and democracy. And that's exactly it. So in terms of the legal battle when it comes to net neutrality, we're going to have to wait and see. I know that the lawsuit regarding the Trump administration challenging California's net neutrality laws, which go further than any other state, they block zero rating and whatnot, that case was put on hold in order to see the result of this case. So who knows how this is going to play out? In my view, the way that we can still save net neutrality is to elect a presidential candidate who has been a vocal opponent of the telecom industry, who supports net neutrality. And Bernie Sanders speaking up here is a really good sign that we still have a fighting chance. If we elect him and he appoints a pro-net neutrality FCC chairman, then we could still potentially win. Now he also could appoint more FCC commissioners that would flip it to a pro-net neutrality FCC commission. Now you have to alternate, if you're president, you have to appoint a Republican and then a Democrat. But there are some Republicans, I'm sure Bernie would be able to appoint that while they're still problematic, support net neutrality and would vote with his Democratic Party Commissioner. So I don't really know at this point. All I know is we lost. Not all hope is gone, but for the most part, we lost this battle, we lost a key component of this battle. The war isn't over, but we're defeated at least in this battle and that's a damn shame. Ajit Pai got what he wanted in the end, at least for now, but we just have to wait and see. This really is depressing news. Anyone who has followed me since 2017 knows that I am a huge advocate of net neutrality. And to see it go this way in the opposite direction, it feels really disappointing to say the least. I'm at a loss here.