Ajit [0]worked for Verizon he is most certainly against net neutrality, he speifically said the actions in 2015 have prevented ISP investment in broadband and internet services. [1]. Ajit also specifically made multiple statements about the actions in 2015 and how they had a negative impact on the US economy. [2]. I find this akin to the repeal of dodd-frank. as I overheard some hedge-fund acquaintances "It is rip-off city" again.

My opinion: How does this benefit the consumer? in what way? I fail to see how a government organization created to help the consumer is doing so, this appears to help the 'pocket wing' specifically moving money to again a smaller handful of individuals and the populace continues to be parochial about the entire issue.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Varadaraj_Pai [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-te... [2] https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201...

[0-2] How does this show that he is against net neutrality?

did you read [2] ?

here is a snippet of the case he makes for why net neutrality is bad and his argument for why it is presently having a negative impact on the economy as a whole.

From Ajit: and reference 2 above.

"

Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate somethin g, the less of it you’re likely to get. Now, when you talk about less infrastructure investment, many people’s eyes glaze over. But it’s important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. Reduced investment means fewer Americans will have h igh-speed Internet access. It means fewer American will have jobs. And it means less competition for consumers. So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Inter net service providers, domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."

He's arguing that Title II regulation is bad, not net neutrality as a concept.

I agree that Title II is the wrong way to go about ensuring or helping ensure net neutrality.

if providers can redefine internet service from 'dumb pipe' to 'pay as you go services' and extract more money, then sure, they may invest more as they see a greater return.

it seems less clear that allowing such a redefinition is in the public interest. dont we already have a parallel infrastructure that works on that model? one thats declining because its so much less useful?

What power grab by the FCC? The telecommunications act may well be outdated, but it seems quite clear that ISPs fit under the Title 2 definitions. ISTM the FCC under Wheeler was doing its job.

Okay, if downvotes is what I get then here's an answer.

No, ISPs do not fit under Title II and it's not the way to go to ensure net neutrality. Even congress agrees that Title II was never meant for broadband.

Power grab? The above. It was never meant for broadband.

Quote from the EFF: > But Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-per...

I will likely just regurgitate the article I linked. Read it and ask questions if any remain.

I never said that the route the FCC took to get to Title 2 classification made any sense or that the FCC's previous actions were justifiable. But the final outcome seemed fairly good.