#NetNeutrality Explained as if It Were Burgers, and Other Random FCC Repeal Updates

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

There are some news topics I cover that are especially near and dear to my heart. Net neutrality is one of them. The existence of an open internet is essential to our ability to communicate and exchange ideas. The repeal threatens that, and makes it inevitable that internet service providers will have control over both what content we have access to and how quickly we access it.


Thankfully, there are lawmakers out there fighting the good fight and making changes that protect—at least temporarily—the rules of net neutrality in their states.

I mean, when you’ve got Burger King trying to make people understand how important this is, you know it’s real.


What Would Happen if Burger King Repealed Whopper Neutrality?

Sometimes, no matter how many different ways people explain it, a concept might still escape me until I can see it visually. This doesn’t always happen, but when it does, a visual definitely helps make it clearer.

For the people who are still struggling with the concept of net neutrality and what the loss of the open internet could be like for us, Burger King has come up with a hilarious video that breaks down just how bad it could get.

The video explains the impact of the Federal Communications Commission’s decision by imagining a world where Burger King has repealed “Whopper neutrality.” The result is both hilarious and informative. There’s even a reference to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and his infamous Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup coffee mug.

Let a Black Lady Explain What the Repeal Means to You

Another helpful means of learning new concepts is to have your black auntie explain them to you. Black aunties are matter-of-fact and straight to the point. They aren’t going to sugarcoat anything for you. It is what it is.


So, on that note, I am going to need you to take a look at the document FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn put together (pdf) to explain the impact of the FCC’s repeal on us.

If you will recall, Auntie Mignon is one of two FCC commissioners who voted to keep the rules of net neutrality in place. She also wrote a 6,000-word dissenting opinion against the FCC’s new order when the details of it were released earlier this month.


Her document—titled “What Happens Next With Net Neutrality?”—is the most “Ain’t no mo’ green beans” explanation you are ever going to get on the issue, and I am here for it.

State Governors Step In to Save the Day

The governors of New York and Montana have both decreed that ISPs that don’t abide by the rules of net neutrality cannot get contracts or do business with their states.


Gizmodo reports that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wrote in his order, “Many New York state government services are available only via the internet, and throttling or paid prioritization would limit the ability of many of the most vulnerable New Yorkers to access the internet.”

Both Cuomo’s order and the one signed by Montana Gov. Steve Bullock on Monday used state contracts as the leverage to keep ISPs in line, and that is an easy way to make their orders stand up in court should the FCC object.


Oh, and Remember Those Fake Comments on the FCC Website?

In response to a request from Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Elijah Cummings (Md.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the Government Accountability Office has agreed to investigate the fake comments filed to the FCC during the comment-filing period of the net neutrality repeal, The Hill reports.


Several studies found that a large number of the comments in support of the repeal were filed under fake identities. Those comments are believed to have unfairly influenced the conversation around net neutrality.

Of course, the FCC claims that those comments “in no way impeded the commission’s ability to identify or respond to material issues in the record,” stressing that it focused on “substantive legal and public policy questions.”


Sure, Jan.


News Editor for The Root. I said what I said. Period.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter


Not Enough Day Drinking

Of course, the FCC claims that those comments “in no way impeded the Commission’s ability to identify or respond to material issues in the record,” stressing that it focused on “substantive legal and public policy questions.”

Sure, Jan.

I 100% believe them on this. They never had any intention to have a discussion, so the comments were always going to be completely irrelevant. It’s something they did because they’re required to by law, but there’s no law saying they have to listen or even read them.