Agreed, actually. None of that was an outright lie. I spoke impulsively.
It's a lie in the sense that it takes all the benefits out of the fact. The ACA will cost many people more money, especially if they were not paying for any health insurance to begin with, but it will also help many more than those that will have to pay more be healthier. Same with telecoms: regulating last-mile networks as a dumb pipe isn't going to magically take all the profits out of consumer internet service. Verizon has been using their utility privilege (public right of way and private property allowance) in rolling out FiOS since their regulated landline falls under Title II, but their broadband falls under Title I, yet both run over the exact same wire. Moreover, cellular voice was put under Title II in 1993 with forbearance from regulations that applied to landline service, and that industry is not struggling to keep it's doors open, nor is it encumbered from some draconian price cap. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act already gives the FCC the capability to impose price caps on broadband providers to encourage network infrastructure growth as a means to an end, not as the end. The only harm that could come about from Title II to the carriers is the interconnect methods (peering), but when the FCC drafted reclassification in 2010, Section 251 was noticeably absent, and there has been no mention of that from the FCC since.
It's a lie in the sense that it takes all the benefits out of the fact. The ACA will cost many people more money, especially if they were not paying for any health insurance to begin with, but it will also help many more than those that will have to pay more be healthier. Same with telecoms: regulating last-mile networks as a dumb pipe isn't going to magically take all the profits out of consumer internet service. Verizon has been using their utility privilege (public right of way and private property allowance) in rolling out FiOS since their regulated landline falls under Title II, but their broadband falls under Title I, yet both run over the exact same wire. Moreover, cellular voice was put under Title II in 1993 with forbearance from regulations that applied to landline service, and that industry is not struggling to keep it's doors open, nor is it encumbered from some draconian price cap. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act already gives the FCC the capability to impose price caps on broadband providers to encourage network infrastructure growth as a means to an end, not as the end. The only harm that could come about from Title II to the carriers is the interconnect methods (peering), but when the FCC drafted reclassification in 2010, Section 251 was noticeably absent, and there has been no mention of that from the FCC since.