4 ms·

Thompson's article has been heavily criticized: https://www.wired.com/story/what-an-internet-analyst-got-wrong-about-net-neutrality/ https://www.wired.com/story

by allenz 9y ago

Thompson's article has been heavily criticized: https://www.wired.com/story/what-an-internet-analyst-got-wrong-about-net-neutrality/ https://www.wired.com/story/what-an-internet-analyst-got-wro... While Title II classification may have some burden, there are no viable alternatives for preserving net neutrality. Ajit Pai isn't interested in making net neutrality better or in making the telecom market more competitive. Further, it's possible to streamline Title II compliance for small ISPs.

theptip 9y ago
That's a fairly thorough counterargument to Thompson's position. Some points are solid, but I'm not sure how much to buy this one: > In 2008, the FCC ordered Comcast to stop slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. Thompson argues that the Comcast case is insignificant because Comcast had stopped throttling BitTorrent by the time the FCC issued its order. But the real importance of the case was a federal-court ruling that the FCC didn’t have authority to regulate Comcast’s internet service, in part because it wasn't a Title II service. So if the FCC didn't have authority to prevent Comcast from throttling Bittorrent in 2008, why didn't they start throttling it as soon as that verdict came in? Title II didn't arrive until 2015, many years after it was decided that Comcast could indeed throttle Bittorrent if they wanted.
- allenz 9y ago
  This timeline should clear things up: 2008: FCC issues Comcast order citing ancillary jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934. 2010: Comcast v. FCC strikes down only that justification. 2010: FCC issues a new Open Internet Order primarily based on section 706 authority. See pages 62-150 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.p... 2014: Verizon v. FCC strikes down the Open Internet Order because FCC didn't classify ISPs under Title II. 2015: FCC classifies ISPs under Title II. Tom Wheeler comments that "this is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."
  - theptip 9y ago
    Much clearer, thanks.

by allenz 9y ago

theptip 9y ago

That's a fairly thorough counterargument to Thompson's position. Some points are solid, but I'm not sure how much to buy this one: > In 2008, the FCC ordered Comcast to stop slowing BitTorrent traffic on its network. Thompson argues that the Comcast case is insignificant because Comcast had stopped throttling BitTorrent by the time the FCC issued its order. But the real importance of the case was a federal-court ruling that the FCC didn’t have authority to regulate Comcast’s internet service, in part because it wasn't a Title II service. So if the FCC didn't have authority to prevent Comcast from throttling Bittorrent in 2008, why didn't they start throttling it as soon as that verdict came in? Title II didn't arrive until 2015, many years after it was decided that Comcast could indeed throttle Bittorrent if they wanted.

allenz 9y ago
This timeline should clear things up: 2008: FCC issues Comcast order citing ancillary jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934. 2010: Comcast v. FCC strikes down only that justification. 2010: FCC issues a new Open Internet Order primarily based on section 706 authority. See pages 62-150 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.p... 2014: Verizon v. FCC strikes down the Open Internet Order because FCC didn't classify ISPs under Title II. 2015: FCC classifies ISPs under Title II. Tom Wheeler comments that "this is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."
- theptip 9y ago
  Much clearer, thanks.