[natermer]

Red herring.

Title II is how the FCC protected the AT&T monopoly.

Due to various regulatory goals (such as controlling telecommunications for cold war purposes) FCC found it much easier to deal with and regulate one corporate entity then a wide variety of different corporations.

Title II gives the FCC authority to regulate pricing in peering agreements and because of this they were able to essentially price AT&T's competitors out of the market and prevent new companies from being created.

There is no reason to believe that Title II common carrier rules would improve competition or prevent companies like Comcast from continuing to own huge government-protected regional monopolies.

More bad regulation is the wrong answer to the problem of bad regulation.

[greglindahl]

... the FCC said it would never use Title II to regulate Internet prices, and they did not. Nor have I ever seen anyone say that Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market. So you're vigorously beating a strawman.

[natermer]

Uhh...

The ENTIRE POINT of Title II is common carrier.

Common carrier means they get to regulate peering costs. They don't regulate the costs ISP charge you personally. They regulate how peering agreements between businesses work.

That's why they call it 'common carrier'. That's the whole point to establishing common carrier in the first place. It gives FCC rights to step into a dispute and regulate. What other disputes are going to happen other then ones over pricing?

> Title II was going to solve all of the problems caused by the un-competitive ISP market.

It's not going to solve any of the problems and it never will.

[opo]

The FCC said at the start:

"...As part of this decision, the Commission also refrains (or "forbears") from enforcing provisions of Title II that are not relevant to modern broadband service. "

The rules they were enforcing were:

"Bright Line Rules:

No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates."

I don't think three is a lot of evidence we will gain more competition or improve the quality/quantity of broadband by giving them up.