John Oliver is rallying to save Obama’s ‘net neutrality’ rules, but it may not matter much this time around

The concept of net neutrality is a paradox. It is both crucial to the future of the internet, yet profoundly, insufferably boring. To immerse yourself in the topic is to become inundated with legal jargon, marathon C-SPAN sessions, and arguably the least enchanting people in American government.

So when Oliver took up the subject of net neutrality on his late night TV show three years ago, the fact that he made it not only comprehensible, but actually entertaining, is borderline miraculous.

What’s more, he was effective: Five months after Oliver raised the cause on his weekly program, then-President Obama suggested the Federal Communications Commission adopt the kind of brick-wall authority over internet service providers (ISPs) that Oliver had called for. The agency soon followed suit, and by early 2015, ISPs were reclassified as “common carriers” under Title II of the Communications Act.

This, most notably, gave the FCC the legally enforceable ability to preemptively stop ISPs from blocking, slowing down, or prioritizing certain websites and apps in exchange for financial gain. Along the way, nearly 4 million public comments were filed on the topic. Not all were in favor of the FCC's new powers, but the outcry was unprecedented.

So with those same net-neutrality rules now on the brink of reversal, the fact that Oliver has jumped into the fray and raised awareness again is significant. Sure enough, the number of comments filed has skyrocketed since Sunday night, when Oliver revisited the issue.

This time, though, the flood of comments is unlikely to matter as much. Or at least, volume alone isn’t likely to sway a Republican FCC majority that’s convinced, sure as the sun, that the Obama-era rules are a mistake.

To be clear, you absolutely should voice your opinion on this. I’m not saying commenting is aimless. Wherever you stand, if you care about the concept of net-neutrality, now is a good time to not be silent. If you don’t care, it’s an even better time to learn more about why this is significant. (Here’s a good place to start!) And beyond the FCC, telling your representatives in Congress how you feel can always affect their opinion.

For instance, in late April senior FCC officials held a call to discuss Pai’s rollback proposal with the press. When asked what would happen if another barrage of comments rolled in, one official stressed that the agency would evaluate those comments based on “the merits of their arguments,” not on the sheer amount they receive.

More to the point, here’s Pai response to a similar question from Recode’s Tony Romm (emphasis mine):

In the context of the net-neutrality debate, though, that means anyone commenters in support of the current Title II framework can’t just say, “I support the current Title II framework,” and leave it at that. Pai and like-minded Republicans have argued against that over and over and over again, even as the current rules rode a wave of support to become law in the first place.

More specifically, Pai has repeatedly said that the more stringent Title II rules have depressed ISPs’ willingness to invest in their networks, and that they were never necessary to begin with.

For an advocate of the current rules to have a better chance at making an impact, they’ll have to make an argument that digs a little deeper.

If you’re on that side of the fence, here are some things that might have a little more bite:

definitively
the nation’s largest cable and broadband company
spent more
slowed the rollout
has
invested
26% more

is the idea
carriers blocking Google Wallet
AT&T’s partial blocking of FaceTime
Comcast
AT&T
Verizon
appellate-court decision
any
bills in Congress
(
told us

There are others. None of this is to say these arguments are correct, nor that they'll push Pai and other Title II opponents in a more moderate direction.

But if you steadfastly believe that the FCC needs to regulate ISPs the way it does now, don’t be surprised if sheer numbers aren’t enough to sway the agency's policy this time around — as unfair as that may feel. If nothing else, the next few months are likely to test how far this kind of protest can go.