Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday December 14 2017, @08:10PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-neutrality-no-data dept.

Submitted via IRC for Fnord666

With days to go before his repeal of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country—from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said.

[...] But Pai's announcement offered no data to support this assertion. So advocacy group Free Press looked at the FCC's broadband deployment data for these companies and found that four of them had expanded into new territory. The fifth didn't expand into new areas but it did start offering gigabit Internet service.

[...] According to the ISPs' ex parte filings, the only FCC staffers who participated in Pai's meetings with the ISPs were his spokespeople. The absence of staffers involved in research or policy, combined with the timing of the calls and Pai's press release, suggest that "these meetings occurred for the sake of managing public appearances rather than obtaining meaningful record evidence," Wood wrote.

Source: Ajit Pai offers no data for latest claim that net neutrality hurt small ISPs


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:34PM (1 child)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:34PM (#609985) Homepage Journal

    Here is the EFF, supporting a theoretical net neutrality while opposing the one we ended up with:

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux [eff.org] [eff.org]

    This from 2010, BTW. And apparently, you didn't even bother to read (or you didn't understand) the document. EFF endorsed Title II classification, which is what the 2015 order did:

    the court found that the Commission had overstepped the limits of its "Title I ancillary authority" when it disciplined Comcast for doing exactly the sort of thing that the proposed net neutrality rules would prohibit. There is little chance future network neutrality rules could withstand a court challenge if the FCC rests on the same discredited argument that the court just rejected. In fact, following the Comcast ruling, many net neutrality advocates asked the FCC to rely on a different source of authority, Title II of the Communications Act, which applies to telecommunications "common carriers." Title II would certainly provide a more stable, and narrower, basis of authority to impose open network rules, as well as other regulations familiar to telecommunications providers.

    You post a link (which isn't very recent, nor does it refute the argument you replied to) which was never relied upon to define regulation [fcc.gov] or the law [wikipedia.org].

    Why are you attempting to derail the discussion with an irrelevant document (that contradicts your assertion), rather than relying the the *actual* regulations and law in question? It makes one question either your motives, your reading comprehension or both.

    The latter would be sad and the former is cynical, intellectually dishonest and unethical.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Redundant=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:38PM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday December 14 2017, @11:38PM (#609988) Homepage Journal

    Not sure how this posted twice.

    Would someone please mod the second instance 'redundant'.

    Thanks.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr