4 ms·

No, the solution isn't Title II, but a new law. Title II is terrible, and should be opposed both by NN supporters AND opponents.

ABCLAW 9y ago
Perfect is the enemy of good. I'm sure there's a utopian piece of legislation which would be specifically tailored to ISP regulation. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Why remove Title II prior to getting that magical piece of legislation finished? Because it is PROFITABLE $$$$. It has nothing to do with an intellectual argument about the merits of Title II vs. other regulatory control mechanisms. If it was, we'd be debating drafts of that piece of legislation, not the FCC's actions in implementing it.
- dd36 9y ago
  Yes! Where’s the law? The money behind these moves doesn’t want NN. If a law is passed, this move by Pai is unnecessary. Sadly, it is likely any law that is proposed is weak and full of loopholes. But it will have a spectacular Orwellian title.
manderson89 9y ago
Would a law be better than Title II? Sure. Let me know when congress gets around to that. I'm not holding my breath. Until then, Title II seems like the only realistic option.
- dd36 9y ago
  Exactly!
dragonwriter 9y ago
Title II isn't terrible and all the arguments that it is (including this one) rest not on the actual regulations adopted under Title II in 2015, but on either vague handwaves, regulations that could in principle be adopted under Title II but have not, or naive assumption that regulations nearly identical to other Title II markets would be adopted for broadband with the FCC ignoring market differences. This article also ignores the problem with regulation under Title I in that it fails to recognize that the courts have both subsequently struck down both the case-by-case enforcement of neutrality principles under Title I and the ability of the FCC to adopt meaningful general regulation aimed at neutrality without Title II reclassification. Yes, one can argue that either the 2010 Title I regs or the pre-2010 case-by-case approach were sufficient, and that if they were continued, Title II would be unnecessary (it's not clear to me that that is accurate, but it's a defensible position in either case.) But the courts ruled against the case-by-case Title I actions in 2010, and the 2010 Title I regs in 2014. So, whether what the FCC was doing previously under it's understanding of Title I was sufficient is irrelevant to present policy options. Title II is, literally, all that's left for the FCC without abandoning net neutrality entirely. Yes, it might be argued that a properly crafted new, internet-specific neutrality statute would be better than Title II. Great. Get one passed through Congress, and then we can discuss the FCC acting based on it. But in the world we live in, there is only Title II or surrender.

ABCLAW 9y ago

Perfect is the enemy of good. I'm sure there's a utopian piece of legislation which would be specifically tailored to ISP regulation. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Why remove Title II prior to getting that magical piece of legislation finished? Because it is PROFITABLE $$$$. It has nothing to do with an intellectual argument about the merits of Title II vs. other regulatory control mechanisms. If it was, we'd be debating drafts of that piece of legislation, not the FCC's actions in implementing it.

dd36 9y ago
Yes! Where’s the law? The money behind these moves doesn’t want NN. If a law is passed, this move by Pai is unnecessary. Sadly, it is likely any law that is proposed is weak and full of loopholes. But it will have a spectacular Orwellian title.

manderson89 9y ago

Would a law be better than Title II? Sure. Let me know when congress gets around to that. I'm not holding my breath. Until then, Title II seems like the only realistic option.

dd36 9y ago
Exactly!

dragonwriter 9y ago

Title II isn't terrible and all the arguments that it is (including this one) rest not on the actual regulations adopted under Title II in 2015, but on either vague handwaves, regulations that could in principle be adopted under Title II but have not, or naive assumption that regulations nearly identical to other Title II markets would be adopted for broadband with the FCC ignoring market differences. This article also ignores the problem with regulation under Title I in that it fails to recognize that the courts have both subsequently struck down both the case-by-case enforcement of neutrality principles under Title I and the ability of the FCC to adopt meaningful general regulation aimed at neutrality without Title II reclassification. Yes, one can argue that either the 2010 Title I regs or the pre-2010 case-by-case approach were sufficient, and that if they were continued, Title II would be unnecessary (it's not clear to me that that is accurate, but it's a defensible position in either case.) But the courts ruled against the case-by-case Title I actions in 2010, and the 2010 Title I regs in 2014. So, whether what the FCC was doing previously under it's understanding of Title I was sufficient is irrelevant to present policy options. Title II is, literally, all that's left for the FCC without abandoning net neutrality entirely. Yes, it might be argued that a properly crafted new, internet-specific neutrality statute would be better than Title II. Great. Get one passed through Congress, and then we can discuss the FCC acting based on it. But in the world we live in, there is only Title II or surrender.