> Intellectual honesty demands that we admit that there really are problems with NN as it had been implemented. Trying to fit the technology of a massive packet-switched data network into very specific regulations designed for an ancient circuit-switched primarily voice network really was a kluge.
It would have been, had that been done, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.
The specific regulations applied to the telephone network under Title II weren’t applied to the internet, an entirely new set, specifically crafted for the internet and largely following the same outline as the net neutrality regulations adopted citing Title I authority in 2010 were.
The idea that PSTN regulations were being applied to the internet is an outright lie that was told by net neutrality opponents designed to manipulate the opinions of people who have ould trust the people selling the lie and not actually read the order and the regulations it included themselves.
So, while you may make the argument in good faith belief that it is true, I cannot agree that intellectual (or any other kind of) honesty required repeating this tired old lie.
Verizon was happy to use Title II provisions to access discounts for pole attachments. Regulations originally intended for classic telephony service now being used to lower costs on TV and Internet service deployments.
Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources. What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II - I don't see any mention of Title I being affected.
Pai's net neutrality rollback targets the FCC's February 2015 reclassification of fixed and mobile Internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. Title II provides the regulatory authority the FCC used to prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic and from giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment. The FCC used Title II to impose the net neutrality rules after a previous court decision struck down rules issued without the step of reclassifying ISPs as common carriers. -- https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/ajit-pai-announc...
and
In April 2017, it was reported that Pai had proposed that the net neutrality rules and Title II classifications be rolled back, that ISPs should instead "voluntarily" commit to the principles, and that violations of them should be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission instead of the FCC as unfair or deceptive business practices. On April 29, 2017, a clearer understanding of the latest net neutrality compromise proposal was described. On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to move forward with Pai’s Notice of proposed rulemaking -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S...
> Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources.
Yes, they do. Particularly, you need to reread your own Wikipedia link, particularly the “Regulatory history” section, paying particular attention to the parts from 2004 forward.
The Ars piece also doesn't contradict my post, it just doesn't cover much background.
> What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II
The recent action is a rollback of a 2015 order classifying broadband as a Title II service and adopting specific regulations for broadband under Title II authority.
That order followed a 2010 order in which the FCC adopted mostly similar regulations to broadband as a Title I service, which was strcul down by the courts which indicated that the FCC could only adopt some parts of that regulation to broadband if it were classified under Title II, and that Title I did not authorize key elements of the regulation.
The 2010 order itself followed a period in which the FCC enforced a policy very similar to the one enshrined in the 2010 order through case by case action (also under Title I authority) without general regulation, an approach that was struck down by the courts just before the 2010 order was issued.
They simply categorized internet providers as a utility. They most certainly are since it's a natural monopoly, merely a different implementation of telecom infrastructure, and is a vital service to the underlying economy... Much like electricity. You don't see electrical companies buying say Amazon and then increasing the electrical rates to their competitors Google and Microsoft. Neither should Comcast with their Xfinity streaming service be able to block or increase the cost for connecting to Netflix. Or favor their own VOIP compared to Vonage or Callcentric. This is about stopping exploitive behavior by entities which have a lot of power right now because this specific implementation of telecommunications was never defined as a utility, simply because it's new, wasn't any essential service to the economy early on, and also didn't have these anti-competitive behaviors going on until recently.
It would have been, had that been done, but it wasn't, so it wasn't.
The specific regulations applied to the telephone network under Title II weren’t applied to the internet, an entirely new set, specifically crafted for the internet and largely following the same outline as the net neutrality regulations adopted citing Title I authority in 2010 were.
The idea that PSTN regulations were being applied to the internet is an outright lie that was told by net neutrality opponents designed to manipulate the opinions of people who have ould trust the people selling the lie and not actually read the order and the regulations it included themselves.
So, while you may make the argument in good faith belief that it is true, I cannot agree that intellectual (or any other kind of) honesty required repeating this tired old lie.