4 ms·
> if a "net neutrality" framework becomes US law, "net neutrality" is the term for the body of existing law, as it has been enforced for the past couple of yea
by dwringer 9y ago
> if a "net neutrality" framework becomes US law,
"net neutrality" is the term for the body of existing law, as it has been enforced for the past couple of years since classifying ISP's as "title II" common carriers. That classification was to clarify and enable enforcement of already-existing law, and had bipartisan support. The FCC is currently in the process of dismantling existing policy to abandon "net neutrality".
- jMyles 9y agoWell, I don't agree there either. "Net neutrality" is a concept that long predates anyone dreaming of ISPs as title II. My concern is that "net neutrality" as a topology concept - important as it has been to the growth of the internet so far - may be both subject to deprecation in favor of something more anarchic (ie, better) and at the same enshrined by law as the result of the current zealotry.
- dwringer 9y agoPerhaps I did not word my comment clearly - I was trying to emphasize that the existing body of law, going back for many years, is all considered to be "net neutrality". That is the way it has been discussed by journalists, lawmakers, and pundits for years (It is true that some agitators have tried to make the definition so broad as to include both sides of the argument, presumably to confuse voters). Courts had difficulty enforcing laws in some jurisdictions, and the title II classification two years ago enabled these arguments to be put to rest (thus making "net neutrality" a legally unambiguous interpretation of existing law). Current efforts by the FCC, under the current administration, are to remove that classification and make it once again impossible to enforce existing neutrality law as it has been understood by lawmakers and which "long predates anyone dreaming of ISP's as title II".