[wintercharm]

Title II is a double edged sword, IMO.

Yes, it keeps NN agreements fair, but it also prevents expansion.

However, the ISP's are not to be trusted. They are not benevolent, and have already tried to mess up the internet for everyone.

I hope that the follow up to this is congressional rules (that are not so easily repealed) about broadband and how it must reach X amount of speed by Y date.

[s73ver_]

"Yes, it keeps NN agreements fair, but it also prevents expansion."

I've not seen any reason why this is, other than ISP greed. Phone companies were regulated under Title II, but I've not heard anyone complain about that.

[amatwl]

Google has complained re: Title II for phone service with Google Fiber.

There is so much red tape that's added simply by being classified under Title II.

[s73ver_]

All businesses complain about regulation when they could have no regulation. I honestly don't care. What I'm saying is I'm not hearing any actual complaints regarding Title II, and not something that doesn't boil down to, "It's haaaaaard. I don't wannna dooooo it" whining from ISPs.

[Spivak]

Because greed is basically the only incentive to expand. Whether you loved it or hated it at the time, 10c text messages built a lot of cell towers.

[s73ver_]

There's the greed of wanting more marketshare and more customers, which is just fine. Then there's the greed on display here, which is just wanting more money per customer without doing anything. Take care not to conflate the two, and treat them the same.