3 ms·

Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554 https://twit

by sinak 9y ago

Here is the "fact sheet" that Ajit Pai distributed at the event at the Newseum today: https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/857288519227756554 https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/85728851922775655... Also of note, YC, TechStars and Engine Advocacy released their "Startups for Net Neutrality" letter to Pai this morning: http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality

glitcher 9y ago
The bullet points under the section "A New Approach" of that fact sheet seem like pure political rhetoric. Where is the evidence to support the legitimacy of any of those claims???
- TearsInTheRain 9y ago
  I think the evidence is implicit in the fact that the opposite of those things happened when net neutrality was put in place
  - pseudalopex 9y ago
    That's anything but a fact. Investment increased overall.[1] The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s. That's the framework that worked well for decades. The one Pai wants is the one that killed competition. The FCC issued network neutrality regulations in 2010 because ISPs had started to violate the guidelines the FCC unanimously approved in 2005. They only invoked Title II after ISPs sued to block the 2010 regulations. Privacy regulation wasn't a problem until Congress removed the FCC's authority, and they could easily give the FTC the necessary authority without re-re-re-classifying ISPs. [1] https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadband-investment-at-historic-low-level-because-of-net-neutrality-thats-not-what-the-numbers-say/ https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadban...
    - rhino369 9y ago
      The FCC regulated dsl as a telecommunications service until 2004. But dial up and cable internet were not. That's part of the reason why cable internet is so dominant. Dsl companies were required to let competition use their last mile. So nobody wanted to invest. It was only after telecoms got the gIt assurances that the FCC wouldn't unbundle fiber that Verizon and att started expanding.
Veratyr 9y ago
It's factually incorrect though. > Two years ago, the FCC suddenly changed course – even though there was no problem that the agency needed to solve. There was a problem. The FCC enacted the Open Internet Order establishing Net Neutrality in 2010, Verizon sued the FCC in 2014 and the court said the FCC could only enact the order if Verizon was a Title II common carrier. The FCC reclassified so that they could enforce the Open Internet Order, like the court said it must. You could argue that there was no problem that the Open Internet Order addressed but that happened in 2010, 6 years ago, not two.
- masklinn 9y ago
  Also doesn't seem to be on the fact sheet but Pai asserted that the interwebs worked just fine under Clinton and Bush without ISPs being Title II common carriers… except DSL ISPs were moved to Title I at the start of GWB II...

by sinak 9y ago

glitcher 9y ago

The bullet points under the section "A New Approach" of that fact sheet seem like pure political rhetoric. Where is the evidence to support the legitimacy of any of those claims???

TearsInTheRain 9y ago
I think the evidence is implicit in the fact that the opposite of those things happened when net neutrality was put in place
- pseudalopex 9y ago
  That's anything but a fact. Investment increased overall.[1] The FCC classified ISPs as "telecommunications services", same as now, until the mid-2000s. That's the framework that worked well for decades. The one Pai wants is the one that killed competition. The FCC issued network neutrality regulations in 2010 because ISPs had started to violate the guidelines the FCC unanimously approved in 2005. They only invoked Title II after ISPs sued to block the 2010 regulations. Privacy regulation wasn't a problem until Congress removed the FCC's authority, and they could easily give the FTC the necessary authority without re-re-re-classifying ISPs. [1] https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadband-investment-at-historic-low-level-because-of-net-neutrality-thats-not-what-the-numbers-say/ https://consumerist.com/2017/02/28/fcc-chair-claims-broadban...
  - rhino369 9y ago
    The FCC regulated dsl as a telecommunications service until 2004. But dial up and cable internet were not. That's part of the reason why cable internet is so dominant. Dsl companies were required to let competition use their last mile. So nobody wanted to invest. It was only after telecoms got the gIt assurances that the FCC wouldn't unbundle fiber that Verizon and att started expanding.

Veratyr 9y ago

It's factually incorrect though. > Two years ago, the FCC suddenly changed course – even though there was no problem that the agency needed to solve. There was a problem. The FCC enacted the Open Internet Order establishing Net Neutrality in 2010, Verizon sued the FCC in 2014 and the court said the FCC could only enact the order if Verizon was a Title II common carrier. The FCC reclassified so that they could enforce the Open Internet Order, like the court said it must. You could argue that there was no problem that the Open Internet Order addressed but that happened in 2010, 6 years ago, not two.

masklinn 9y ago
Also doesn't seem to be on the fact sheet but Pai asserted that the interwebs worked just fine under Clinton and Bush without ISPs being Title II common carriers… except DSL ISPs were moved to Title I at the start of GWB II...