The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.

I used to work in utilities. Electric, not telecom so different set of regulators. What they would do is yank you into and office and tell you something to the effect of: "[Name of Regulatory Body] is considering [issue]. You should really consider going on the public comment section of their website and voicing your [support/opposition depending on corporate stance] for it. It's not mandatory but you should really consider doing that. It's very important to our company."

It wasn't "mandatory" but they would repeatedly hound you until you either did it or told them to fuck off, at which point you would be branded a "troublemaker" and they would find ways to punish you.

But they can claim it was done in an open and democratic way.

Until he personally lost service for a couple hours

I mean, if you ask why a company is doing xyz the answer is pretty much universally money.

It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.^1

"Stop trying to make ~~fetch~~ Xfinity happen! It's not going to happen!"

Over here, I'm getting the Cox... last bill was $99 a month, now my "promo period" expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to "unlimited". It's pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the "amazing" 30 mbps up. :|

EDIT: This is for home internet, 1000 down/30 up, unlimited data

God damn. In Austria I'm paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.

In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn't follow the APA's procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue,. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.

The APA isn't a bad thing, but since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his "Muslim ban".

Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.

They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it's valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It's good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the 'best argument for' than those who enforce it?