[maxk42]

I'll probably be downvoted for this but I actually read most of the 900+ combined pages of the Obama-era net neutrality order plus the Communications Act of 1960.

Pai isn't actually making a bad decision here. The problem is that "net neutrality" isn't a bad idea but that's not what the ruling promotes at all. The ruling seeks to interpret ISPs as common carriers: That much is true. But the knock-on effects of that are not at all as advertised. Among other problems, in order to lay new fiber ISPs must seek approval from the DOD and Secretary of State. This is a tremendously high hurdle to meet making it difficult for small players to enter the market and making the market ripe for exploitation. Arguably, it lead directly to the situation much of the US faces with vast swathes of area being controlled by only one or two entrants. Since the ruling was repealed several years ago, we've actually seen an explosion in new fiber and average internet speeds rise rapidly across the US. This is a good thing. All the language about "internet fast lanes" was mere propaganda: It didn't happen before the ruling and it didn't happen after the repeal.

I haven't read the California legislation and I don't plan to. But given the surprisingly positive results of Pai's work so far, I have faith his position is couched in reason and understanding. Another hundred articles saying we'll get "internet fast lanes" if the common carrier rule isn't applied to ISPs doesn't change the fact that applying that particular rule has powerful drawbacks completely unrelated to people's position.

The strange thing is if we drafted a new law which completely omitted any consequences relative to the Communications Act of 1960 and explicitly forbade internet fast lanes I would support it and I suppose Pai might as well.

Edit: Changed typo "is" to "isn't" in 2nd to last sentence.

[takeda]

I think you're confused. The old law that we had that already forbade prioritization was the Title II, and that's what Wheeler classified Internet as. Pai basically reversed that decision, so it was a step backward.

Wheeler when he classified Internet as Title II, made exclusion that ISPs that currently have infrastructure are not required (under Title II they are) to lease it to competitors. We don't need 10 different fiber wires coming to our house, since most likely we will only use one, all we need is to be able to chose between ISPs and that ISP can reuse existing infrastructure, kind of like it was with selecting long distance call provider on land lines, or ISP on DSL (which was automatically under Title II already, do you remember how much competition was back then? if you had phone line from PacBell, you didn't have to have internet from them, we had sites like dslreports where people could compare and chose the best one).

What residential Internet needs, is separation of the last mile with the ISP (kind of like it is in data centers, you have separate company that maintains all wiring and separate company that provides service).

Since neither FCC chairman wanted this simple solution to enable competition once again. We need consumer protection, and this comes down to net neutrality. NN forbids ISPs from interfering with the service, that's it, the California law basically reinstated those protections. We desperately need them because the "propaganda" is not far from the truth. Just look at the latest acquisitions. Comcast now owns all content from NBC Universal, AT&T owns all content from TimeWarner. Why would ISPs enter this market if they wouldn't see some benefits of their current position. Now they are already bundling those services together, and with lack of net neutrality they can prioritize their content over others. Why did we even allowed to get to this point?

[maxk42]

> NN forbids ISPs from interfering with the service, that's it

Again - that would have been great if it were what the ruling actually did. It's not.

[takeda]

The ruling was because around 2002-2003[1] Internet was reclassified as Title I (Information Services). Since then ISPs started doing shenanigans, like throttling and in some cases outright blocking (first major attack was VoIP). Each time, it happened FCC stepped in, fined them, the company paid the fines and stopped doing what they were doing.

Around 2014 (IIRC) Verizon, sued FCC saying that they have no right of controlling ISPs and court ruled that Verizon was right. That ruling basically removed FCC right to control the Internet, but it hinted that they can reclassify it.

Immediately petitions and protests started asking FCC to reclassify Internet back to Title II (communication service[2]).

Obama sided with population, and Wheeler reclassified internet to Title II in 2015 (with some exemptions, like the requirement to lease infrastructure). After Trump wins he immediately started dismantling everything Obama did, which included the reclassification back to Title I (which according to the ruling FCC has no control anymore).

So as you see the ruling wasn't about NN but about whether FCC has control over service classified under Title I (information services). It has nothing about Title II (communication services).

[1] You might also notice that ISPs (which was a lot of them in late 1990 and early 2000), started disappearing around that time

[2] Despite the misinformation, Internet started as Title II, since it was initially provided by telcos, which were under Title II. Unlike today, back then we had large choice of ISPs o chose from since Title II required leasing lines to competitors.

[vel0city]

You seemed to have missed the parts where requiring approval from the DOD and SoS to lay new fiber were forborne, along with hundreds of other Title II laws. Its kind if incredible you missed that as the term "forbearance" appears 300 times in the Open Internet Order of 2015.

Also strange you bothered to mention the Communications Act of 1960. It would be far more relevant for you to have read the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as that made some significant changes to the law since 1960.

I guess you need to go back and re-read those documents.

[dragonwriter]

> I'll probably be downvoted for this but I actually read most of the 900+ combined pages of the Obama-era net neutrality order plus the Communications Act of 1960

Do you mean the Telecommunication Act of 1996 or the Communications Act of 1934? Or the Communications Amendments Act of 1960?

Because the first and second are relevant here, but while the last did make changes to the 1934 Act, those aren't really germane to the 2018 Open Internet order.

> Among other problems, in order to lay new fiber ISPs must seek approval from the DOD and Secretary of State.

No, it did not require that.

> Arguably, it lead directly to the situation much of the US faces with vast swathes of area being controlled by only one or two entrants.

No, unless you suggest retrocausality, that's not at all arguable; that situation was in place well before the 2015 order at issue, which was in effect for less than 3 years and not enforced for much of that time because the Pai opposed it even though it was on the books and nominally in force.

> Since the ruling was repealed several years ago

It was only two years ago (the repeal became effective in June 2018.)