Well, no, that’s not entirely correct. Dial-up access was considered a telecoms service under Title II, but other forms of internet access (to include the core connections that made up the backbone of the internet), were considered information services under Title I.
Huh, OK ...*googles* I just found an interesting article which I'll need to read more of, because I didn't know about Title I until you just mentioned it - but what little of the article I've read so far does match what you're saying (if anyone else reading this is going, "Huh, what?" Title I was used beginning in 2005 to regulate other non-telephone/non-DSL forms of internet, with Title II still regulating DSL and dial-up ISPs).
2. Because the pipes are bigger now. They're bigger than they were in 1934, in 2005, in 2015 - which is not to say they're literally "pipes" nor that they've literally gotten "bigger", but there is more data being carried across fiber, DSL and telephone line now which does require more bandwidth and more traffic shaping, and I'd think the telecoms and ISPs would want to cash in on the extra effort/bandwidth they provide however they can. It's not getting cheaper or easier to be them - even if the additional costs are really not *that* much and only used as an excuse to puff up prices/restrictions beyond where they need to be.
I don't really have as much faith in free market controls as you profess to have - at least, until some better answer is put in place, which seems to be your overall take on it. I say they'll slide in while they can to take whatever we'll let them or whatever we simply can't stop them from taking, and that's what worries me.
You do make a good point about FCC rules and the amount of control the FCC has changing with every administration. Which is why I've always favored Congress just passing a few bills to enshrine net neutrality protections into law, myself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2018-01-01 04:51 am (UTC)Huh, OK ...*googles* I just found an interesting article which I'll need to read more of, because I didn't know about Title I until you just mentioned it - but what little of the article I've read so far does match what you're saying (if anyone else reading this is going, "Huh, what?" Title I was used beginning in 2005 to regulate other non-telephone/non-DSL forms of internet, with Title II still regulating DSL and dial-up ISPs).
2. Because the pipes are bigger now. They're bigger than they were in 1934, in 2005, in 2015 - which is not to say they're literally "pipes" nor that they've literally gotten "bigger", but there is more data being carried across fiber, DSL and telephone line now which does require more bandwidth and more traffic shaping, and I'd think the telecoms and ISPs would want to cash in on the extra effort/bandwidth they provide however they can. It's not getting cheaper or easier to be them - even if the additional costs are really not *that* much and only used as an excuse to puff up prices/restrictions beyond where they need to be.
I don't really have as much faith in free market controls as you profess to have - at least, until some better answer is put in place, which seems to be your overall take on it. I say they'll slide in while they can to take whatever we'll let them or whatever we simply can't stop them from taking, and that's what worries me.
You do make a good point about FCC rules and the amount of control the FCC has changing with every administration. Which is why I've always favored Congress just passing a few bills to enshrine net neutrality protections into law, myself.