3 ms·

Actually, I and a number of other engineers submitted comments on this proceeding to that effect. Pai's argument is, in part, that ISPs provide access to infor

Actually, I and a number of other engineers submitted comments on this proceeding to that effect. Pai's argument is, in part, that ISPs provide access to information services (social networking sites, email, video streaming, etc.) and should therefore be considered information services. Of course, any form of communication, even carrier pigeons, can be used to communicate over the Internet, so in theory what he is saying is that nothing can be regulated under Title II. The FCC's draft rules respond to this objection by simply dismissing it. The draft rules basically dismiss all commentary that did not come from ISPs as "not persuasive." The only reason any of those comments were cited at all is to prove that all submitted commentary was considered, something that is legally required of them.

Delmania 9y ago
On multiple occasions, Pai has indicated he is going to roll these rules back regardless of what anyone says. He did claim that he would entertain a sound argument proving that Title II hasn't hurt investment, but the only way to prove that is with the cooperation of the entities that stand to profit. This is why there is a good chance this will be tied in the federal courts. The comment process is supposed to prevent an "arbitrary and capricious" decision by a federal agency. Pai's comments could be used to make a persuasive argument that this is arbitrary (says we're desperate doesn't help). Capricious is a much harder thing to prove. I think the fact that data shows the comment period was tainted by foreign entities, false entries, and that 98.5% of the valid comments were in support of NN could use to show this is capricious in that his actions show a disregard for the consumer.