3 ms·
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 an
by 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 agoI think the evidence is implicit in the fact that the opposite of those things happened when net neutrality was put in place
- pseudalopex 9y agoThat'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 agoThe 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.