4 ms·

Title II is not "the solution proposed," it is one possible way to implement net neutrality.

• cordite 12y ago
  It seems to be the way that freedom activists are pushing for. I am not aware of other formally proposed plans.
  • hgsigala 12y ago
    The fact is that there are two ways to go about this: Allow fast lanes or do not allow fast lanes. If you do not want to allow fast lanes then there are two routes to go about this: section 706 of telecom act or title ii of telecom act. The route via 706 was just struck down in court. Hence the next routes available are a) allow fast lanes or b) do not allow fast lanes via title II.
    • eli 12y ago
      Or Congress could simply grant the FCC explicit authority to regulate network neutrality without title II reclassification. I believe there's already at least one bill to do this.
      • fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        Potentially a better (or maybe potentially worse) solution, but it simply isn't going to happen with the Congress we have right now.
      • hgsigala 12y ago
        Congress did grant the FCC explicit authority to regulate. It was the Telecom Act. What the FCC has to decide on its own is what part of the Telecom Act to use in enforcing. This is not a Congressional issue. And the Court made that very clear. The FCC currently has everything it needs. edit: I think that the bill you are referring to is Leahy's which would only give political support and not really give it new authority.
• diafygi 12y ago
  Can you elaborate on other possible plans?
  • otterley 12y ago
    The problem is that the FCC is bounded by the authority given to it by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Act was passed about 5 years before the Internet became a ubiquitous service unto itself (as opposed to a healthy selection of cheap dialup providers) and wasn't written with today's realities in mind. What really needs to happen IMO is "none of the above" - Congress needs to get its act together and pass a revised Telecommunications Act that reflects reality, so that the FCC has more flexibility to regulate beyond choosing a regulatory box to fit ISPs in ("information service" and the weak regulation that entails, vs. "telecommunications service" and the common carrier overhead that entails).
    • cordite 12y ago
      I fear that congress would just pass whatever lobbyists hand them.
    • fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      >Congress needs to get its act together and pass a revised Telecommunications Act that reflects reality That's a more proper solution, but it is pretty clear that this Congress isn't able to do anything of the sort, and IMO we can't wait for another one to come along.
  • eli 12y ago
    Well, I think simply granting the FCC the authority to bring back the "open internet" rules that were in place until a court struck them down early this year.
• Tobani 12y ago
  The whole "Fast Lanes" argument is really just imposing "Slow Lanes." It feels like the ISP claiming its not their fault they don't have the capacity to provide the service they already sold to the customer. I think people want TItle II partially as retaliation for the ISPs being as terrible as they are. Price/MBit hasn't gone down much(any) for me over the past 10 years. If Google can have 0 infrastructure in a town and wire it up at gigabit speeds, why is it so hard for the ISPs to improve? Its because they don't care have 0 incentive. Maybe we set a moving limit. Internet connection under 50Mbit /down or < 10 Megabit up is classified as title II. Maybe then they'll have incentive to innovate. 2 years down the line its 50/15... I don't know.
  • dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I think people want TItle II partially as retaliation for the ISPs being as terrible as they are. I think people want Title II because they support the general direction of the 2010 FCC regulations, and recognize that those are very much common-carrier style regulations and that there is significant doubt that they can both pass legal muster under Title I and retain their substance