5 ms·
Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had. Congress can actually craft inter
by jnordwick 9y ago
Title II was never meant to be a good solution to net neutrality. It was used because it was the only level that the FCC had.
Congress can actually craft internet specific legislation and should. It seems like Title II has become the end game for many because of pure politics, not because it is a good solution. Remember, parts of Title II had to be ignored to get this square peg to fit.
No, don't vote for this. Develop an actual, specific policy if that is what you want. I fear that after Title II is enacted it would be very difficult to move to better policy in the future.
- FreakyT 9y agoSeems to me that some of the "ignored" parts of Title II would have nonetheless benefitted consumers. Personally, I would love to see last loop unbundling for broadband.
- chriscappuccio 9y agoIt's amazing for me to watch the tech community go from the hands off libertarian attitude to full socialist over this issue.
- pdonis 9y agoThis reaction only makes sense if the situation without Net Neutrality regulation by the FCC is a reasonable approximation to a free market. It isn't. There is already a massive amount of regulation in this sector; it just mostly isn't regulation by the FCC. The big ISPs have cut sweetheart deals with state and local governments for monopoly access to particular areas; and when particular municipalities try to go around that by, for example, building out municipal broadband to be rented out to all comers at market rates, the ISPs have sued them and mostly won. Net Neutrality regulation by the FCC is certainly not an optimal situation; it's trying to make the best of a highly suboptimal situation because there is no feasible path to an optimal situation.
- pdabbadabba 9y agoA good idea, in theory. But, in practice, this would require many more votes, and cooperation from Republican leadership in both houses of congress to develop a bill and get it out of committee and survive the likely filibuster. The CRA route (restoring Title II classification) may not be perfect, but it's the only remotely viable strategy on Capitol Hill. (And it's still a long shot, at best.)
- rconti 9y agoIf you expect the Republican leadership to not support it, they won't even need the filibuster-- they've got the numbers to vote against it already. TBH, I've lost track of who supposedly supports what and why. The votes and arguments on the NN debate, in our political sphere, seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with policy anymore, so it's hard to "predict" how someone will vote.
- CydeWeys 9y agoI don't care if it's optimal, I care that it works, which it does. That makes it good. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I'm gonna say this flat out: Do you believe in net neutrality? Because this argument that you're concern trolling with leads me to believe that you don't actually believe in it. Trying to give supposed "advice" to advance a goal—that doesn't actually do so—is deceptive.
- chriscappuccio 9y agoWorks for what, exactly? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
- dang 9y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
- dang 9y agoThis comment crosses into personal swiping and name calling, which are not allowed here. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do this again.
- chriscappuccio 9y agoThere is section 706 instead of II
- zdragnar 9y agoI'm not sure why you're being down voted for expressing a rational argument. I'm all for net neutrality, but I would also much rather Congress made it a law rather than relying solely on title ii.