The FCC enacted sensible Net Neutrality protections based on the strong legal footing of Title II classification. While there’s room for debate on all of the ins and outs of the law, it’s wrong to suggest that it sweeps in everything on the Internet.
Wednesday morning began with a bit of political theater courtesy of the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee, which held a hearing on the Net Neutrality rules up for an FCC vote on Thursday.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has confirmed that he will base new Net Neutrality rules on Title II of the Communications Act. He described those rules as "the strongest open Internet protections ever proposed by the FCC."
Robert McDowell testified Wednesday before the Senate Commerce Committee on a fake Net Neutrality bill with a lot of flaws. McDowell’s testimony had a lot of flaws too.
The anti-Net Neutrality crowd at the Progressive Policy Institute claims that Internet service providers and users would pay billions of dollars in new fees if the FCC reasserts its Title II authority. This is just another scare tactic designed to sink real Net Neutrality.
Jim Cicconi's blog post about Net Neutrality accuses open Internet advocates of repeating themselves, all while trotting out the same old AT&T claims we’ve rebutted countless times before. Jim can make all the tired Groundhog Day jokes he likes, but his weasel words are the only source of confusion and repetition in this discussion.
On Sunday night, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has taken another stab at revising his open Internet rules. Unfortunately, the changes fall far short.
There’s a reason your cellphone bill gives you heart palpitations every month: There’s hardly any competition in the U.S. wireless market. And on Wednesday, Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood testified before the Senate and urged it to promote competition and protect consumers.
