I did. FTFA, "In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC)."
What they leave out is the rules never took effect. That's a lie by omission. Trump put in a new FCC head that blocked the rule changes before they took effect.
I have no idea how that sentence is relevant. You're overly concerned about procedure and ignore the substantive concerns.
To repeat myself, the entire premise of NN advocacy that things will change, for consumers and businesses. Not that some procedural fact will or won't change. Not that some rule will or won't be implemented. But that ISPs will change their behavior and that will hurt consumers and businesses. Here's where the site makes this claim:
> But if some companies can pay our ISPs to have their content load faster, startups and small businesses that can't pay those fees won't be able to compete. You will kill the open marketplace that has enabled millions of small businesses and created the 5 most valuable companies in America-just to further enrich a few much less valuable cable giants famous for sky-high prices and abysmal customer service.
> Internet providers will be able to impose a private tax on every sector of the American economy.
> Moreover, under Chairman Pai's plan, ISPs will be able to make it more difficult to access political speech that they don't like. They'll be able to charge fees for website delivery that would make it harder for blogs, nonprofits, artists, and others who can't pay up to have their voices heard.
edit: also, this debate has been waging a hell of a lot longer than 2015.
There is no repeal. Either we do nothing, and nothing changes, or we start applying Title II rules to ISPs that were never there before.
As in any debate, the onus is on proponents of NN to explain how a rule change is a good thing, since they are arguing against the status quo.