> Your claims don't match what I'm seeing even in non-partisan sources.
Yes, they do. Particularly, you need to reread your own Wikipedia link, particularly the “Regulatory history” section, paying particular attention to the parts from 2004 forward.
The Ars piece also doesn't contradict my post, it just doesn't cover much background.
> What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II
The recent action is a rollback of a 2015 order classifying broadband as a Title II service and adopting specific regulations for broadband under Title II authority.
That order followed a 2010 order in which the FCC adopted mostly similar regulations to broadband as a Title I service, which was strcul down by the courts which indicated that the FCC could only adopt some parts of that regulation to broadband if it were classified under Title II, and that Title I did not authorize key elements of the regulation.
The 2010 order itself followed a period in which the FCC enforced a policy very similar to the one enshrined in the 2010 order through case by case action (also under Title I authority) without general regulation, an approach that was struck down by the courts just before the 2010 order was issued.
They simply categorized internet providers as a utility. They most certainly are since it's a natural monopoly, merely a different implementation of telecom infrastructure, and is a vital service to the underlying economy... Much like electricity. You don't see electrical companies buying say Amazon and then increasing the electrical rates to their competitors Google and Microsoft. Neither should Comcast with their Xfinity streaming service be able to block or increase the cost for connecting to Netflix. Or favor their own VOIP compared to Vonage or Callcentric. This is about stopping exploitive behavior by entities which have a lot of power right now because this specific implementation of telecommunications was never defined as a utility, simply because it's new, wasn't any essential service to the economy early on, and also didn't have these anti-competitive behaviors going on until recently.
Yes, they do. Particularly, you need to reread your own Wikipedia link, particularly the “Regulatory history” section, paying particular attention to the parts from 2004 forward.
The Ars piece also doesn't contradict my post, it just doesn't cover much background.
> What I'm seeing says that the FCC's actions are specifically related to Title II
The recent action is a rollback of a 2015 order classifying broadband as a Title II service and adopting specific regulations for broadband under Title II authority.
That order followed a 2010 order in which the FCC adopted mostly similar regulations to broadband as a Title I service, which was strcul down by the courts which indicated that the FCC could only adopt some parts of that regulation to broadband if it were classified under Title II, and that Title I did not authorize key elements of the regulation.
The 2010 order itself followed a period in which the FCC enforced a policy very similar to the one enshrined in the 2010 order through case by case action (also under Title I authority) without general regulation, an approach that was struck down by the courts just before the 2010 order was issued.