On Wednesday, the FCC's Trump appointed chairman, Ajit Pai, announced the new plan to roll back Obama era net neutrality rules created by the agency’s 2015 Open Internet Order, calling it “an aberration” that “puts the federal government at the center of the internet.”

The FCC then quickly went on defense, and released the following fact sheet to get ahead of expected detractors. I've added some additional annotations to qualify the claims of the FCC.

Myth: Title II regulations are necessary to preserve a free and open Internet.

Context: While yes, the internet was free and open prior to the 2015 regulations, internet providers were attempting to "monitor, modify, block, and throttle internet traffic depending on the content, user, or application."

Myth: Title II regulations haven’t reduced infrastructure investment and broadband deployment.

Context: These statistics are somewhat out of context, and ignore the fact that the FCC classified cable internet as Title I in 2002, and investment fell. Many service providers have actually increased spending, and others predicted this decline years ahead of Title II.

Myth: Title II regulations are good for broadband competition.

Context: Smaller providers are exempt from these regulations to help avoid this issue. Additionally, judicial interpretation allows the Title II regulations to evolve in the modern world.

Myth: Title II regulations are good for online privacy.

Context: Privacy and security protections have shifted from the FTC to the FCC under Title II. The FCC put in place stronger rules to protect consumers, which were repealed last month.

Myth: Title II regulations are good for innovation.The Open Internet Order would not block "innovative new offering" for small internet service providers, but it

Context: does "ban paid prioritization, throttling, traffic interference, and misleading commercial terms."

Myth: Title II regulations are good for free speech and free expression.

Context: This "fact" doesn't make sense in the context of the Title II regulations which are meant to protect individual rights to a free and open internet.

U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is apparently not convinced, tweeting out:

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/857311837255290880

Do you agree?