On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:46 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I couldn't have said it better myself.
One thing I would say, though, is that there were two options for broadband
regulation, after the dialup era:
1. "Unbundling" of ISP service from the broadband providers, to mimic the
model of the dial-up era. The telcos and cable companies were understandably
against this, because they wanted to reap the rewards of having invested so
much money on their infrastructure.
2. Not requiring unbundling, but mandating neutrality.
Note this quote:
"In so doing the FCC was trying to ensure that at least the content side of
Internet service remains competitive, with net neutrality rules that prohibit
the cable and phone company ISPs from favoring some content providers over
others. The courts twice struck down these attempts, most recently on the
ground that the FCC’s rules relied on the same Title II authority that the
FCC had declined to apply to broadband."
Exactly. The FCC was trying to do something under Title I that could not be
done, under Title I. And that was the extent of the problem.
And the last sentences:
"Of course the ISPs are free to oppose net neutrality rules, and their
advocates are free to support them. But they are not free to misrepresent a
key historical fact: that the Internet once owed its stunning growth and
success to prudent, far-sighted regulation."
That being, Title II dial-up telephone lines.