Thread by @SuperNerdLand

#NetNeutrality Link Dump. One of whatever many. I'm just dumping my bookmarks here essentially, for some both sides of the aisle looks at stuff.

Starting with the basis of the debate. FTC vs FCC. Reaction based enforcement vs preemptive regulation. It's a good look at what both sides bring to the table roslynlayton.com/fcc-vs-ftc-whi…

This one has a small post Title II look at some issues. Indeed, Title II isn't all shit. But this common carrier exemption the FTC has is talked about. And brings to me aspect one of compromise. Remove that exemption

katyonthehill.com/fcc-vs-ftc-a-n…

We have a kind of biased Libertarian look at the dangers of Title II, which is more interesting for reading the sources he has than the overall out look.

techpolicycorner.org/net-neutrality…

FWIW, the FTC did express it's concerns all along. But, again, removing the common carrier exemption the FTC is handcuffed by would really bridge gaps IMO

ftc.gov/news-events/pr…

And it's not like the FTC hasn't been doing their own look, studies, etc. Pre-2015 wasn't some wild west free market situation. There is a lot there, but its worth a scan.

ftc.gov/sites/default/…

And some more on how Title II took out enforcement from the FTC. It's all about that common carrier exemption. That thing needs to go if you want Title II IMO

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…

Here is the rub. Title II HAS retarded rural expansion in many areas. Well, not Title II itself, but the uncertainty it's brought to small edge ISPs

forbes.com/sites/realspin…

You see, Title II wasn't blanket applied to ISPs. FCC got to kind of enact it, then say they would pick and choose what they would enforce. Markets HATE uncertainty.

Now while it's a current topic, let's look into this $400 billion that was supposed to have been given to ISPs for expansion. I've tried to track the source down and it seems to be from Bruce "Buy my book" Kushnick

huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick…

The way I am seeing others apply this argument is invalid. The ISPs were not just handed a pile of cash they then pocketed. The discussion is more an opinion based on a formula on how much ISPs are viewed to have profited under deregulation w/ some tax breaks

It's a discussion that's interesting to look at, but again... arguments are being brought in bad faith with this one. And to say that ISPs haven't expanded networks over time at all is a little disingenuous

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556

Now there are some quality arguments in favor of Title II, and I'm included to agree with a lot when presented reasonably. But the big fucking elephant in the room is just removing the common carrier exemption from the FTC enforcement regime.

thehill.com/blogs/congress…

And a small aside on Fight for the Future. Sometimes they are on point (the anti-SOPA campaign), but take them with a grain of salt. This is NOT an unbiased group. They offer 15k to groups wanting to go "full time activist" against Trump lol

fightforthefuture.org/ateams/

So really, at the end of the day, I'm in a "Why not both?" mentality. There is a way to keep Title II, and modify the situation so we have two teams protecting us. Not just fighting over which govt daddy loves us better.

Remember, #NetNeutrality is an idea. It's the policies that get us there, and we need to be honest about the policies and the debate