According to Sky News, opponents of the bill often claim to support net neutrality, asserting that Title II and net neutrality are not the same thing. Content from all is served equally and this ensures an equal opportunity for success to anyone wishing to enter the market.
MapLight analysis of federal lobbying disclosure filings from the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives for clients that report lobbying activity on net neutrality, as retrieved on July 3, 2017. Internet access was under Title II until the mid-2000s and there was a ton of broadband infrastructure buildout (and. competition). It has ushered in an unprecedented era of freedom for communication.
For its part, AT&T stressed Tuesday that it has long supported the FCC's previous approach to net neutrality - including the principles it released in 2005, which did not have the force of law, as well as a 2010 order that one of its competitors, Verizon, successfully challenged in federal court.
In dispute are a set of US federal regulations saying that internet providers should not slow down, block or charge websites extra fees while treating other sites differently. Title II is the same law that the FCC uses to regulate traditional telephone companies; by deciding in 2015 to regulate ISPs using Title II, the FCC put internet providers under some of the same obligations as phone companies. People would be better served, Pai said, without the regulations because internet service providers would invest more in their networks and new technologies.
Protest organisers have warned that if the FCC succeeds in weakening or eliminating the legislation - broadband companies will be free to slow web traffic, block rival internet content, censor unpopular viewpoints and charge extra fees.
Like Comcast and Verizon, AT&T is one of several companies that subsequently spent hundreds of millions of dollars to thwart these efforts, yet now would like you to believe they're somehow still a major ally in the fight to keep the internet healthy and open. There are also conflicts of interest where the largest ISPs own media outlets, and can give more favorable treatment to their content over our creations. "These regulatory changes will give ISPs vast influence over how we as creators can connect with each other and our audiences", they write.
The current net neutrality rules in place under Title II do allow for some "reasonable discrimination", but protest organizers balk at Hultquist's assessment.
Separately, more than 100 online video creators who post on YouTube have signed an open letter opposing Pai's proposal. That includes the FCC's three commissioners as well as members of Congress. "Instead of a company's success stemming from innovation, internet businesses could be subject to the bias and control of cable, telecom and wireless internet providers". "We urge you to undertake temporary measures to ensure a functioning system on and around the anticipated surge of legitimate comments".
"The internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet, It's simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field."