Fritzr wrote: rabish12 wrote: Man o' War wrote: crhilton wrote: Man o' War wrote: What was the objectionable behavior by Broadband prior to 2015? Was there actual abusive behavior or is it more a theoretical concern of potential abuse.



If you had used the Internet yesterday you'd know that the big ones were Comcast throttling bittorrent activity in 2007, and in the last few years (I forget the ISP) throttling netflix by refusing to upgrade peering equipment (that they would normally upgrade) unless netflix paid them extra. Netflix eventually paid because even Netflix was gonna lose that fight.



Edit: Sorry, that was kind of rude, but there were many articles. If you had used the Internet yesterday you'd know that the big ones were Comcast throttling bittorrent activity in 2007, and in the last few years (I forget the ISP) throttling netflix by refusing to upgrade peering equipment (that they would normally upgrade) unless netflix paid them extra. Netflix eventually paid because even Netflix was gonna lose that fight.Edit: Sorry, that was kind of rude, but there were many articles.



No apology necessary. Accepting that those are examples of bad behavior, I assume they were resolved in some manner without Title II applying. I looked up the Madison River mention above, and it looks like the FCC stepped in and made them stop blocking VoIP calls.



I don't pretend to know what the correct approach is, but maybe its not the worst thing in the world to remove it from Title II. If it is, the Congress should be made to address the problem. No apology necessary. Accepting that those are examples of bad behavior, I assume they were resolved in some manner without Title II applying. I looked up the Madison River mention above, and it looks like the FCC stepped in and made them stop blocking VoIP calls.I don't pretend to know what the correct approach is, but maybe its not the worst thing in the world to remove it from Title II. If it is, the Congress should be made to address the problem.

Madison River was in early 2005. 2005 is the year that phone line internet (ie. most internet at the time) was reclassified out of Title II, and AFAIK that occurred after the settlement in that case rather than before. In either case, that investigation ended in a settlement rather than a proper fine or final decision. More importantly, court cases after that occurred made it clear that the FCC absolutely does not have the authority to do what was done in that case unless the service they're targeting is regulated under Title II.



Congress could certainly step in and create a "Title III", of course, but there's not really a need for them to do so. Title II may be old, but it was created specifically for the broader class of services that the internet falls into. Madison River was in early 2005. 2005 is the year that phone line internet (ie. most internet at the time) was reclassifiedTitle II, and AFAIK that occurred after the settlement in that case rather than before. In either case, that investigation ended in a settlement rather than a proper fine or final decision. More importantly, court casesthat occurred made it clear that the FCC absolutely does not have the authority to do what was done in that casethe service they're targeting is regulated under Title II.Congress could certainly step in and create a "Title III", of course, but there's not really a need for them to do so. Title II may be old, but it was created specifically for the broader class of services that the internet falls into.

Congress could and did step in to create Title III. It is better known as the Congress could and did step in to create Title III. It is better known as the "No Child Left Behind Act"

Not the same thing - different US laws have different titles that frequently share numbers, and that one has absolutely nothing to do with communications services. The more relevant Title III here is Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, "Provisions Related to Radio".



That's still not that relevant, though. What "Title III" means in the context of this discussion is "something similar to Title I and Title II but specifically for internet". It almost certainly wouldn't literally be Title III of anything, but calling it "Title III" gets the point across well enough.



Quote: All that is needed is to amend the existing Title II to explicitly include internet service as a regulated telecom industry.

It shouldn't need to be amended - there's not really an honest argument that internet shouldn't be considered a common carrier, especially given that people don't question doing the same thing for telephone service. They're both critical communications technologies and the internet was even tied at the hip to the telephone networks for a long time. Hell, the only reason we're even talking about this is because out of Title II instead of reclassifying cable internet service into it.



Quote: That is where the problem lies today. Internet has become an essential telecom, but regulation as a telecom is optional and dependent on the whims of the FCC board members. The cost of buying 3 board members is a drop in the bucket compared to the profits available to ISPs who do not have to worry about government regulation.

I don't think they need to buy off the Republican commissioners. The party made killing net neutrality regulations a campaign promise and it's a pretty central fixture to their tech policy, so it's unlikely that any appointees would go in the opposite direction.



That said, this still blows my mind. When this issue came up in Canada, net neutrality was adopted with virtually no fanfare or opposition. When it came up in the EU, there were similar results. Everywhere else that these kinds of regulations are considered, it's a non-issue to have them passed and their internet service industries haven't suddenly gone into decline because of it, but in the United States it's a critical point of contention on the basis that it's overbearing regulation that will decimate investment. As a foreigner, that gap just seems beyond absurd to me. Not the same thing - different US laws have different titles that frequently share numbers, and that one has absolutely nothing to do with communications services. The more relevant Title III here is Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, "Provisions Related to Radio".That's still not that relevant, though. What "Title III" means in the context of this discussion is "something similar to Title I and Title II but specifically for internet". It almost certainly wouldn't literally be Title III of anything, but calling it "Title III" gets the point across well enough.It shouldn't need to be amended - there's not really an honest argument that internet shouldn't be considered a common carrier, especially given that people don't question doing the same thing for telephone service. They're both critical communications technologies and the internet was even tied at the hip to the telephone networks for atime. Hell, the only reason we're even talking about this is because this flaming douchenozzle of incompetence reclassified DSLTitle II instead of reclassifying cable internet serviceit.I don't think they need to buy off the Republican commissioners. The party made killing net neutrality regulations a campaign promise and it's a pretty central fixture to their tech policy, so it's unlikely that any appointees would go in the opposite direction.That said, this still blows my mind. When this issue came up in Canada, net neutrality was adopted with virtually no fanfare or opposition. When it came up in the EU, there were similar results.that these kinds of regulations are considered, it's a non-issue to have them passed and their internet service industries haven't suddenly gone into decline because of it, but in the United States it's apoint of contention on the basis that it's overbearing regulation that will decimate investment. As a foreigner, that gap just seems beyond absurd to me.