FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without net neutrality rules

Re:FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without... by s73ver_ on Monday December 11, 2017 @06:58PM (#15901930)

"Yes, it keeps NN agreements fair, but it also prevents expansion."

I've not seen any reason why this is, other than ISP greed. Phone companies were regulated under Title II, but I've not heard anyone complain about that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without... by amatwl on Monday December 11, 2017 @07:57PM (#15902218)

Google has complained re: Title II for phone service with Google Fiber.

There is so much red tape that's added simply by being classified under Title II.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without... by s73ver_ on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @12:11PM (#15907260)

All businesses complain about regulation when they could have no regulation. I honestly don't care. What I'm saying is I'm not hearing any actual complaints regarding Title II, and not something that doesn't boil down to, "It's haaaaaard. I don't wannna dooooo it" whining from ISPs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without... by Spivak on Monday December 11, 2017 @10:58PM (#15902889)

Because greed is basically the only incentive to expand. Whether you loved it or hated it at the time, 10c text messages built a lot of cell towers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without... by s73ver_ on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @12:09PM (#15907240)

There's the greed of wanting more marketshare and more customers, which is just fine. Then there's the greed on display here, which is just wanting more money per customer without doing anything. Take care not to conflate the two, and treat them the same.

[ Parent | on HN ]