> Reclassification is at best a hack that's going to have a lot of unintended consequences.
It's not that Title II is the ideal option. On a practical level, it's the only option left on the table.
The EFF is well aware of the issues with Title II, which is why it held out for so long (until just six months ago!) before advocating reclassification, and which is why even then the EFF was very clear to advocate forbearance[0] alongside reclassification, not just reclassification no-strings-attached.
Given the current political climate, I really don't see any way of implementing net neutrality other than Title II reclassification that has even a remote chance of both coming into effect and standing up to the courts. Title II reclassification may be an uphill battle, but any other proposal that I can think of has less than a snowball's chance in hell of actually coming into effect, let alone achieving the actual goal.
We've already seen that there's no way that the FCC can regulate a neutral net under its current authorization without classification under Title II - that's almost literally what the federal court ruling last year said. And there's no way that Congress will pass a new law that either expands the FCC's authority or somehow provides for a neutral net independently of the FCC. So repurposing an existing piece of legislation is what we're left with.
> This is common sense: an agency can't just rewrite a statute by ignoring the 90% of it that it doesn't like.
Of course the agency can't "rewrite" or "ignore" the statute -- but forbearance itself is a mandate in the statute, which requires that the FCC "shall forbear from applying any regulation or any provision of this chapter" if the Commission determines that doing so is in the public interests and that enforcement of the provision at issue is not necessary either "to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory" or "for the protection of consumers". 47 USC chap. 5, subch. 1, sec. 160(a) -- "Title II" of the Communication Act of 1934 is 47 USC chap. 5, subch. 2.
It's not that Title II is the ideal option. On a practical level, it's the only option left on the table.
The EFF is well aware of the issues with Title II, which is why it held out for so long (until just six months ago!) before advocating reclassification, and which is why even then the EFF was very clear to advocate forbearance[0] alongside reclassification, not just reclassification no-strings-attached.
Given the current political climate, I really don't see any way of implementing net neutrality other than Title II reclassification that has even a remote chance of both coming into effect and standing up to the courts. Title II reclassification may be an uphill battle, but any other proposal that I can think of has less than a snowball's chance in hell of actually coming into effect, let alone achieving the actual goal.
We've already seen that there's no way that the FCC can regulate a neutral net under its current authorization without classification under Title II - that's almost literally what the federal court ruling last year said. And there's no way that Congress will pass a new law that either expands the FCC's authority or somehow provides for a neutral net independently of the FCC. So repurposing an existing piece of legislation is what we're left with.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/forbearance-what-it-wh...