Now we’re speaking the same language. 
This has become another death of NN lamenting thread where OP’s question has already been answered but people are talking in circles about “what if” tinfoil theory crafting.
4 Likes
CEOs of the major configs have told investors (where they are legally obligated to tell the truth) that the move to Title II would have no impact on their investments in infrastructure. The claim that having the ISPs in Title II hurt investment in infrastructure is complete bullshit.
As for what will happen now that ISPs are no longer Title II; it will be boiling the frog alive strategy. You throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, and it will jump out. You put a frog in a pot of cold water and slowly raise the temp and you will boil it alive. They will start doing very small things and it will gradually become more and more significant. Also, the FCC is pretending they have a regulation in place that requires ISPs to make public any throttling, but the fact of the matter is they have no power to enforce the regulation. The whole point of classifying the broadband carriers as Title II, was to give the FCC the ability to enforce regulations. Now that they aren’t Title II, the ISPs can ignore anything the FCC tells them to do. Its just a PR stunt, making the public think they’re protected from throttling when they aren’t.
Also, if removing Title II would promote competition, why do you think all the big ISPs support it? They would lose money if they lost customers unless the removal of Title II also let them profit more from existing customers. So either they don’t think they’ll lose any customers and don’t expect the promise the FCC made of increased diversification or they expect to make more money per customer because of the removal of Title II classification, which means we will all be paying more for internet.
Here we are arguing about net neutrality when what we really need is eugenics.
I’m just going to close this. its gone way off topic into pointlessness.
6 Likes