14 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2018
    1. Pai believes that the success of the internet has been BECAUSE OF the lack of federal/state regulation

    2. Would it not make sense to create an alternate version of the regulations outlined in Title II designed to address the uncertainty ISPs face when considering development and deployment of innovative offerings?

    3. These are the very companies that are critical to injecting competition into the broadband marketplace.

      Are Title II regulations helping big name ISPs stay on top?

    4. “[f]or the past two years, the substantial costs of the 2015 decision have harmed our businesses.”

      This is interesting; if these regulations are hurting government-owned broadband providers, what motivations might their "champions" have in advocating Title II implementation?

    5. Thirty-two rural ISPs point to “the bureaucratic straightjacket of outdated regulations known as Title II” as a barrier to the vigorous investment they want to pursue.

      Is it uncertainty or a straight-jacket that these ISPs are burdened by? What aspect of Title II opposes deployment and development of their innovative ideas?

    6. “[t]he uncertainty surrounding the Title II regulatory framework for wireless broadband services hinders our ability to meet our customer[s]’ needs, burdens our companies with unnecessary and costly obligations and inhibits our ability to build and operate networks in rural America.”

      I think it's likely that these providers would offer slower connectivity speeds as a foundation for rural areas, but their uncertainty in what is allowed holds them back from the attempt to expand.

    7. To be sure, a study released by a pro-Title II special interest this week claimed that there had been no such decline. But that report makes basic mistakes, like counting network investment in Mexico as network investment in the United States.

      Have there been any other studies done? Who is this pro-Title II special interest?

    8. The evidence so far strongly suggests that this is the right way to go.

      This statement is underlining the idea that repealing these regulations is necessary for innovation and development of new companies.

    9. Innovative providers hoping to offer their customers new, even free services had to fear a Washington bureaucracy that might disapprove and take enforcement action against them

      This statement compels me to see the issue from Pai's perspective. Should we trust that the government is acting in consumer's best interest more so than ISPs?

    10. the FCC that year succumbed to pressure from the White House and changed course.

      What caused the White House to put this pressure on the FCC? What were their motivations?

    11. In sum, we had a free and open Internet—one in which consumers reaped immense benefits.

      I believe that he's implying consumers benefited by having a choice of connectivity speeds, which would allow options in price to be more personalized for the end user.

    12. if the FCC “suddenly subject[ed] some or all information service providers to telephone regulation, it seriously would chill the growth and development of advanced services.”2

      What are the facts/logic behind this statement? In what way would it "chill" growth and development?

    13. For nearly two decades, the Internet flourished under a bipartisan, light-touch regulatory framework.

      He is stating that there wasn't a need to introduce ISP regulations in the first place.

    14. bipartisan

      Cooperation between two political parties with opposing policies