3 ms·

Its important for everyone to know that the existence of non-existence of the Obama-era NN rules had no bearing on what most people think net neutrality did. (r

Its important for everyone to know that the existence of non-existence of the Obama-era NN rules had no bearing on what most people think net neutrality did. (read: Those rules did nothing for consumer protection). ISPs were free to opt-out of those rules if they so chose to do so. https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/ https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fc...

throwaway5752 8y ago
It's important for everyone to know the author of that linked article is a senior fellow at, "The Mercatus Center at @GeorgeMasonU is the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas." and is actively passing off FUD cover for the deregulation today: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/10-things-you-need-know-about-net-neutrality https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/10-things-you-nee...
Someone1234 8y ago
That's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never challenged because not being a Common Carrier might make them liable for the content traveling over the wire. This article is ruminating on what might occur, not what actually occurred.
- polski-g 8y ago
  The DC Court of appeals said just the same: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0... an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” Id. ¶ 549. For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5. Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial interventi on of that kind, would fall outside the rule. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n , 825 F.3d at 743; FCC Opp’n Pets. Reh’g 28 -29; FCC Br. 146 n.53 . The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556.

throwaway5752 8y ago

It's important for everyone to know the author of that linked article is a senior fellow at, "The Mercatus Center at @GeorgeMasonU is the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas." and is actively passing off FUD cover for the deregulation today: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/10-things-you-need-know-about-net-neutrality https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/10-things-you-nee...

Someone1234 8y ago

That's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never challenged because not being a Common Carrier might make them liable for the content traveling over the wire. This article is ruminating on what might occur, not what actually occurred.

polski-g 8y ago
The DC Court of appeals said just the same: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0... an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” Id. ¶ 549. For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5. Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial interventi on of that kind, would fall outside the rule. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n , 825 F.3d at 743; FCC Opp’n Pets. Reh’g 28 -29; FCC Br. 146 n.53 . The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556.