> Your typical net neutrality advocate has probably never heard of the Universal Service Fund
As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works.
> That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.
I don't think anybody reasonably argues that Title II reclassification is a panacea; the Title II regulations may very well need to be updated themselves, but the structure of being regulated as a "cable service" no longer makes sense for ISPs.
Either way, we're talking about massive changes that need to be made, so you're correct that no single change is going to be sufficient, and it's often the case of "six steps forward, five steps back". But it's still an improvement.
> As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works.
That's not the point. If Title-II gives the FCC the right to force VOIP companies to contribute to the USF, how is any other content service that runs over the internet safe? It's just an example of the kind of unforeseen consequences of Title-II that net neutrality advocates don't think about.
I probably should add this is why I said it would need to be re-written to change the USF funding mechanism so it makes sense. Likely a flat fee on the ISP bills. People will complain, people will always complain...but it isn't raising taxes, just changing how they are paid.
As opendais mentioned, an easy fix is to allocate this fund towards broadband connectivity instead of (just) phone service, which seems to be already in the works.
> That's not the way forward, it's the way backward.
I don't think anybody reasonably argues that Title II reclassification is a panacea; the Title II regulations may very well need to be updated themselves, but the structure of being regulated as a "cable service" no longer makes sense for ISPs.
Either way, we're talking about massive changes that need to be made, so you're correct that no single change is going to be sufficient, and it's often the case of "six steps forward, five steps back". But it's still an improvement.