4 ms·

I think Title II is a fine solution (why shouldn't internet be a utility?). There are a ridiculous amount of people in these comments that are trying to thread

by sigmar 9y ago

I think Title II is a fine solution (why shouldn't internet be a utility?). There are a ridiculous amount of people in these comments that are trying to thread the needle between "I support NN," but saying "it is fine that they reversed Title-II classification" (which I guess is their cool contrarian point of view, but functionally tripe)

ythn 9y ago
Because when it's a utility you can't treat different traffic types differently and QoS suffers, especially in domains like satellite internet
rhino369 9y ago
I think there is a decent argument for regulating ISPs. But Title II is a telephone regulation. It's not narrowly targeted at ISPs. The fact that the FCC had to suspend most regulations under Title II sort of proves it.
dingoonline 9y ago
Title II is an 80 year old telephone rule that was stretched and deformed to fit the internet. Congress needs to pass real legislation that's specific to the needs of the internet.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  The 4th amendment is a 270 year old rule that is "stretched and deformed" to fit personal electronic devices too. In either case, we don't need a specific law for each use-case as technology evolves.
- ci5er 9y ago
  Yes. Congress-critters try to have their cake and eat it too by punting to the regulators and claiming to the voters it is out of their hands. Dereliction of duty. (Not that I would necessarily like to see the horse-cum-camel design-by-committee solution these grifters would negotiate their way too...)
ghrifter 9y ago
Title II is a loooot more than being classified as a "utility" Theres a lot of reports and other tasks that the ISP would have to do, but was put of 2 to 3 years since 2015.
cgmg 9y ago
Why do you think such views are 'trying to thread a needle', 'contrarian', and 'functionally tripe'? You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that there are (god forbid!) dissenting views from your own.

by sigmar 9y ago

ythn 9y ago

Because when it's a utility you can't treat different traffic types differently and QoS suffers, especially in domains like satellite internet

rhino369 9y ago

I think there is a decent argument for regulating ISPs. But Title II is a telephone regulation. It's not narrowly targeted at ISPs. The fact that the FCC had to suspend most regulations under Title II sort of proves it.

dingoonline 9y ago

Title II is an 80 year old telephone rule that was stretched and deformed to fit the internet. Congress needs to pass real legislation that's specific to the needs of the internet.

sangnoir 9y ago
The 4th amendment is a 270 year old rule that is "stretched and deformed" to fit personal electronic devices too. In either case, we don't need a specific law for each use-case as technology evolves.
ci5er 9y ago
Yes. Congress-critters try to have their cake and eat it too by punting to the regulators and claiming to the voters it is out of their hands. Dereliction of duty. (Not that I would necessarily like to see the horse-cum-camel design-by-committee solution these grifters would negotiate their way too...)

ghrifter 9y ago

Title II is a loooot more than being classified as a "utility" Theres a lot of reports and other tasks that the ISP would have to do, but was put of 2 to 3 years since 2015.

cgmg 9y ago

Why do you think such views are 'trying to thread a needle', 'contrarian', and 'functionally tripe'? You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that there are (god forbid!) dissenting views from your own.