Loading...
| | ||||||||
| Friend, REALITY: Title II authority is a regulation of ISPs, not the internet itself. If there are rules for the online road, they must protect the rights of users and not the profit margins of massive — and massively unpopular — telecom companies. MYTH: “Title II rules are a solution in search of a problem.” REALITY: ISPs claim they’d never throttle content they don’t like or prioritize content that they do … but that’s exactly what they’ve done when violating Net Neutrality4 at home and abroad. The problem is real. MYTH: “The FCC should be focusing on ‘real problems’ like broadband deployment and accessibility.” REALITY: The largest obstacles to broadband deployment and accessibility are the ISPs themselves. This was clear during the COVID-19 crisis,5 California’s 2018 wildfires6 and other disasters. Title II classification supports FCC efforts to ensure that we have resilient networks. MYTH: “The Obama FCC’s Open Internet Order hurt innovation.” REALITY: According to Free Press research,7the Obama-era decision worked as intended, benefiting internet users, ISPs and the countless businesses that distribute services over the internet. Just listen to ISP executives themselves:8 Title II was good for business. MYTH: “Net Neutrality is a hyper-partisan issue.” REALITY: Internet users want choices, privacy protections, and a free and open internet. These needs are practical, not political — millions of people across the political spectrum from all 50 states have called on the FCC to enforce Title II oversight, breaking all prior records for public participation in an agency rulemaking. MYTH: “Reinstating Title II is pointless because it won’t hold up in court.” REALITY: The FCC’s clear authority to reinstate Title II classification has survived judicial review on multiple occasions, including a 2005 Supreme Court decision, a 2016 U.S. Court of Appeals decision by the D.C. Circuit9 and a 2022 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.10 MYTH: “It’s been six years since the Trump FCC axed Net Neutrality and nothing bad has happened.” REALITY: When Trump FCC Chairman Ajit Pai abandoned Title II oversight, dozens of state lawmakers11 and more than a hundred mayors12 rushed to enact local Net Neutrality protections.13While this patchwork line of defense has restrained the ISPs from carrying out previously stated plans14 to throttle the connection of popular websites that don’t pay extra, a national rule is needed to protect everyone. And there you have it. ISPs’ desperate lies don’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, and Free Press is committed to combating this disinformation every step of the way. 1. “The FCC's New Net Neutrality Fight Is About More Than Net Neutrality,” Free Press, Sept. 26, 2023 2. “FCC Chairwoman to Start Process of Restoring the FCC's Authority to Protect the Open Internet and Safeguard Internet Users,” Free Press, Sept. 26, 2023 3. “Safeguarding and Securing the Open Internet,” Federal Communications Commission, Sept. 28, 2023 4. “Net Neutrality Violations: A Brief History,” Free Press, July 9, 2021 5. “Read the Heartbreaking Complaints Americans Sent the FCC After Their Internet Was Shut Off,” The Daily Dot, June 5, 2020 6. “Verizon Throttled Fire Department’s “Unlimited” Data During Calif. Wildfire,” Ars Technica, Aug. 21, 2018 7. “How the Internet Access and Online Video Markets Are Thriving in the Title II Era,” Free Press, May 2017 8. “Why Must the FCC Insult Everyone's Intelligence by Misrepresenting Broadband Investment?” Techdirt, Dec. 14, 2017 9. “Free Press: Court Win Gives FCC the Power to Protect Net Neutrality,” Free Press, June 14, 2016 10. “U.S. Court of Appeals Denies ISPs' Attempt to Block California’s Landmark Net Neutrality Law,” Free Press, Jan. 28, 2022 11. “Net Neutrality State Actions Tracker,” National Regulatory Research Institute, Oct. 1, 2018 12. “More Mayors Pledge to Champion Net Neutrality,” Free Press, December 21, 2019 13. “Net Neutrality Politics Is Local,” Free Press, February 14, 2018 14. “The Origins of the Net Neutrality Debate,” MIT Technology Review, July 8, 2006 | ||||||||
|
Loading...
Loading...
