Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The evidence for repealing net neutrality rules isn't good enough, Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass.) told Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai yesterday [Wednesday, July 19].
Pai claims that the rules issued in 2015 are reducing investment in broadband networks, but Markey pointed out during a Senate hearing that ISPs have not reported any dramatic problems to their investors.
Markey said:
Publicly traded companies are required by law to provide investors accurate financial information, including reporting any risks or financial burdens. However, I have found no publicly traded ISP that has reported to its investors by law that Title II has negatively impacted investment in their networks. Many, in fact, have increased deployment and investment.
(Title II of the Communications Act authorizes the FCC to regulate common carriers and was used by the FCC to impose net neutrality rules.)
Markey's point is one that we've made before. ISPs are quick to tell the FCC and the public that Title II is harming network investment, but they have presented a much rosier view when talking to investors. Publicly traded companies are required to give investors accurate financial information, including a description of risk factors involved in investing in the company.
Yesterday, Pai appeared in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, which is considering President Trump's nomination of Pai for another five-year term on the FCC. The Senate is also considering the nominations of Republican Brendan Carr and Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel.
Markey asked Pai what problem he is trying to fix by repealing net neutrality rules. Pai responded, "One of the concerns we have raised is these regulations might be dampening infrastructure investment."
"They might be, but there's no evidence of it," Markey fired back.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:03PM
I'm not convinced he's an idiot. I think he probably understands the issues involved here pretty well, which brings us to the next part of your comment:
Which is of course correct. The US Government is for sale, and has in fact been purchased at almost every level.
Industry has been purchasing legislation favourable to itself for a long time, and Mr. Pai is just a visible part of the sales process.