2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013 - AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012 - Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

He is, for sure. I don't think Pai is an idiot, or a moron or ignorant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He realizes it's all bullshit and is selling this crap to the public anyway.

[1] "mug" v. slang (orig. Theatre). a. intr. To pull a face, esp. in front of an audience or camera, to grimace; to over-act.

"VTel wrote to say that 'regulating broadband like legacy telephone service would not create any incentives for VTel to invest in its network. In fact, it would have precisely the opposite effect.' The company went on to say that it's now 'quite optimistic about the future, and the current FCC is a significant reason for our optimism.' Indeed, VTel just announced that it has committed $4 million to upgrade its 4G LTE service and to begin rolling out faster mobile broadband that will start its transition to 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity." [1]

[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect...

edit: Okay, I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. I'm legitimately curious to hear what Pai has to say about past violations. (Seriously, if anyone has a link, please feel free.)

You literally required less hardware with network neutrality because you didn't need any packet shaping routers.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17284559

Sure, they can, but what about in this specific scenario? How does NN deter small ISP's? The big ISP's already stomp out all small options anyway, I don't think NN is a problem.

[1]: https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/net-neutrality-small-isp...

[2]: https://www.fastcompany.com/40499904/small-isp-disputes-fcc-...

I don't really want innovation from my ISP aside from investing in infrastructure. Their version of "innovation" is, in reality, "how to bilk our customers for more $$$ by delivering shit they neither want nor need."

I realize they've also claimed that they need more money to re-invest in infrastructure, but that claim appears to be a lie given their recent investments and prior statements.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title...

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a679f360-9890... (article from '08)

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/iphone-att-skype/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go...

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/verizon-tethering-fcc/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/23/technology/att-facetime/inde...

https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-pla...

Bonus:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21376597/ns/technology_and_science...

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-...

Credit to https://www.reddit.com/user/IncredibleTeacherMan

Where I live we have exactly two choices, and one is satellite based.

"Monday, we are ending this flawed approach and allowing smaller internet service providers to focus their efforts on deploying more broadband, connecting more Americans with digital opportunity, and offering more competition in the marketplace." [1]

[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-chairman-our-job-is-to-protect...

I don't buy it. This won't change anything. Except for how less useful your internet connection would be.

If the focus were on smaller ISPs, why not make the new rules target only smaller ISPs instead of all of them?

There also might be new business models that are better for the consumer that doesn't actually cause the problems net neutrality proponents fear. For example, some of Tmobile's actions were probably not neutral, but Tmo wasn't really harming customers. In other words, we shouldn't ban something unless we know its actually harmful.

That is like saying we shouldn't have checks on a president's power because they might be a good dictator. In the long run preventing ISP's abuses is going to be more beneficial than "beneficial" infringements on NN. Imho ISPs shouldnt have the power to determine which companies qualify for unlimited data streaming even if they aren't using that power to shut down competitors (yet)

I fully support net neutrality but some of these analogies are absurd.

Unchecked power of an ISP can do literally anything to your internet service, and only as long as you stay with that ISP. Unchecked and abused power of an ISP also leads to other ISPs competing on "not doing the X harmful thing that Y ISP does", meaning that in the aggregate the harmful ISP loses business anyway.

Isn't it because title 2 imposes a heavier regulatory burden than just net neutrality rules? Congress should just pass a net neutrality bill without using title 2 imho.