Pretty opinionated piece from the Register, but the FCC did a pretty good job of obfuscating the legally-mandated announcement, and so I'm not seeing any other, more objective, news reports on it.
Pretty opinionated piece from the Register, but the FCC did a pretty good job of obfuscating the legally-mandated announcement, and so I'm not seeing any other, more objective, news reports on it.
IMO the gutting of net neutrality was a bullshit move to increase profits of ISPs. Neutral reporting suggests that there was a semblance of legitimacy for doing so. The whole reason that the Title...
IMO the gutting of net neutrality was a bullshit move to increase profits of ISPs. Neutral reporting suggests that there was a semblance of legitimacy for doing so.
The whole reason that the Title 2 provision exists is that the telephone was deemed so important that everyone in the nation should have access to it, even if it is unprofitable. The internet is no different today.... lacking it puts you at a serious disadvantage in society.
Nationalize the wires, ban ISPs from laying or touching them. Wires are a natural monopoly, so as such nobody should be able to profit from them. Relagate the ISPs to providing services on top of them, the way it worked in the dialup era.
WIRED had an article about it too: https://www.wired.com/story/another-chance-weigh-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal/ I'm surprised it hasn't been written up on Ars Technica or Techdirt yet, they're both...
Freakonomics podcast recently made an episode centered around an interview with Ajit Pai. I found it insightful in terms of presenting the FCC's argument for the rule change.
Freakonomics podcast recently made an episode centered around an interview with Ajit Pai. I found it insightful in terms of presenting the FCC's argument for the rule change.
For those as confused as I was, the actual link to comment is way at the bottom of the article, almost like the Register also didn't want you to find it. It's here, and you need some info from...
For those as confused as I was, the actual link to comment is way at the bottom of the article, almost like the Register also didn't want you to find it. It's here, and you need some info from this PDF to properly fill out the form. Good luck!
Pretty opinionated piece from the Register, but the FCC did a pretty good job of obfuscating the legally-mandated announcement, and so I'm not seeing any other, more objective, news reports on it.
IMO the gutting of net neutrality was a bullshit move to increase profits of ISPs. Neutral reporting suggests that there was a semblance of legitimacy for doing so.
The whole reason that the Title 2 provision exists is that the telephone was deemed so important that everyone in the nation should have access to it, even if it is unprofitable. The internet is no different today.... lacking it puts you at a serious disadvantage in society.
Nationalize the wires, ban ISPs from laying or touching them. Wires are a natural monopoly, so as such nobody should be able to profit from them. Relagate the ISPs to providing services on top of them, the way it worked in the dialup era.
WIRED had an article about it too: https://www.wired.com/story/another-chance-weigh-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal/
I'm surprised it hasn't been written up on Ars Technica or Techdirt yet, they're both usually pretty good sources for net neutrality coverage.
Freakonomics podcast recently made an episode centered around an interview with Ajit Pai. I found it insightful in terms of presenting the FCC's argument for the rule change.
For those as confused as I was, the actual link to comment is way at the bottom of the article, almost like the Register also didn't want you to find it. It's here, and you need some info from this PDF to properly fill out the form. Good luck!