It seems all the effort spent giving one organization power to control communication, which predictively succame to regulatory capture, could have been spent making sure no one has control over communication, like state-advocacy to dismantle state and municipal barriers to providing communications services.
Feasible or not, what's the point in persuing this? There are dozens of devices by multiple manufacturers that provide streaming services. I don't see customers being served by forcing access which no doubt will have horrid customer service and no response to issue requests.
Another dumb idea in the string of dumb ideas of trying to simulate free markets through the FCC.
Back when creating the net neutrality rules was being discussed, myself and others argued that while the concept of net neutrality was positive, realizing it through more regulations when existing regulations had failed was unlikely to succeed. We argued that in order of regulations to work, people need to be paying attention to the issue and when people stopped paying attention to it, the industry would come in and change the rules again.
We argued the only long term solution was to find a way to naturally allow more competition in the market since that system can largely self regulate without constant maintenance. This is genuine market competition, not artificial divide-up-ma-bell competition.
Now we have a case where net metrology rules were enacted, including rules that limit new players coming in to the market and favors companies with industry lawyers that understand the mountain of regulations, and the industry comes in and guts the neutrality regulations and leaves the cronie shell.
Since the exact predicted scenario is playing itself out, just as it has before, I don't know how, in good faith, it can continue to be argued that net neutrality rules will work or were a good idea in the first place.
Personally I don't like ToS's at all and I think there should be a movement to reject them, that being said it lawyers could be adding stuff to them to keep themselves employed or there might actually be case-law where putting in your ToS "Can't use this service for illegal activity" saved them liability. Why does that line even need to exist? Busy work? Not sure.
Despite having first amendment rights and the FCC being a government institution they've still been able to enact decency regulations over common carriers for the last 50 years, listening to complaints from various "family organizations" that spawn an incredibly disproportionate amount of complaints to the FCC and have generate billions in fines to broadcasters. I worry what'll happen when broadband is reclassified and the internet is now subject to decency regulations in the US.
I'm reading the Title II and I see "different charges may be made for the different classes of comunications" can anyone explain how Title II reclassification prevents charging different rates for different classes of communication?
If you're talking Net Neutrality the concept you may have some points. If you're talking FCC title 2 reclassification I disagree. All entities under title 2 are compelled more strongly to comply with law enforcement. Any hope of having your ISP retain your anonyminity from a law enforcement agency that has not yet sought a court order will probably go away if reclassified.