democracy) took a hit in 2015 when policy-driven fervor led the reluctant FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler to change course from his proposed net neutrality rules and instead impose the most draconian of price regulatory regimes on the innovative internet — Title II regulation. The general lack of analytic rigor in the underlying analysis of that 2015 order was well documented at the time (here and here, for example) and the “economic analyses” and predictions on which the order relied have already been proven false.
#CommActUpdate” process through a series of thought papers on regulatory modernization, spectrum policy, competition, interconnection, universal service, and video content and distribution. This rational, inclusive, and orderly process collected hundreds of substantive responses until it was hijacked by advocacy groups which aimed to nationalize networks by reclassifying broadband network providers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. This was a beginning step by the FCC to tax and regulate the internet like the telephone network and to limit free speech, which fortunately has been halted by a backlash of 60 million voters against over-regulation.