2 ms·

The net neutrality order from 2015 did more than just mandate network neutrality. It also requires ISPs to keep certain records, possibly beyond their business

The net neutrality order from 2015 did more than just mandate network neutrality. It also requires ISPs to keep certain records, possibly beyond their business needs (and other legal mandates). It also requires ISPs to make information available to the public via their own websites, which costs at least a cent ;). Yes, it's all weak and such costs would be covered by just one month of customer bill payment, but ISPs like to complain and Ajit Pai has made a big show of addressing these costs. For example, the FCC will host information about ISP practices for any ISP that finds it too burdensome to have a website of their own. One bit of irony here is that the ISPs have argued that there is too much uncertainty surrounding the Title II regulations. Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach.

cvsh 9y ago
>Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach. This is also why the health insurance industry was overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican healthcare plan, why the financial industry was opposed to certain Republican regulation rollbacks, etc. All the infrastructure they'd built to refocus their business around the regulations might now be useless, but probably not, because there's a decent chance the Democrats might recapture the Senate and/or Presidency in 4-8 years. Uncertainty is expensive and exhausting. Businesses are desperate for a compromise that lasts. Drastic and potentially ephemeral GOP regulation-slashing really serves no one except their own donor class -- not even big business, let alone small business and the middle class.
DiThi 9y ago
Thanks, you're the first person that explain me the costs. Not totally free but almost, and vastly cheaper than a 10% figure I saw in some comments. Where can I read more information about those requirements without having to read the full law?

cvsh 9y ago

>Today the FCC does not impose rate regulation, for example, but maybe tomorrow's FCC will. Of course, now it is becoming clear that the rules will change whenever the presidency changes parties, so if anything it would seem that there is far more regulatory uncertainty with Pai's approach. This is also why the health insurance industry was overwhelmingly opposed to the Republican healthcare plan, why the financial industry was opposed to certain Republican regulation rollbacks, etc. All the infrastructure they'd built to refocus their business around the regulations might now be useless, but probably not, because there's a decent chance the Democrats might recapture the Senate and/or Presidency in 4-8 years. Uncertainty is expensive and exhausting. Businesses are desperate for a compromise that lasts. Drastic and potentially ephemeral GOP regulation-slashing really serves no one except their own donor class -- not even big business, let alone small business and the middle class.

DiThi 9y ago

Thanks, you're the first person that explain me the costs. Not totally free but almost, and vastly cheaper than a 10% figure I saw in some comments. Where can I read more information about those requirements without having to read the full law?