[wwweston]

> why risk the FCC getting involved?

In national communications policy?

> Also, can anyone honestly see rates being reduced because of this?

Prices are pretty much an orthogonal issue to net neutrality. If you don't have a source/destination neutral network, it's possible you won't be able to buy the services such a network supports at any price.

> The FCC is made up of unelected officials

I think it's reasonably clear that doesn't mean they're unaccountable. Congress or the President can heavily influence policy if they screw it up.

But strangely, at the moment, they seem to be doing policy better than most elected officials. :/

[gojomo]

"Last-mile" broadband need-not be a 'national' issue except to the extent national politicians want to grandstand about it.

The options at every location are different... from city-to-city and even block-to-block. Some local broadband markets are competitive; others aren't. Creating options requires specific locally-adapted work – new wires, new antennas, new hardware. Three regulators signing-into-law new regulations adds no capacity, only new constraints on the people doing the real work.

One set of national service-shaping rules for all, because some localities have limited choices, is an overreach that doesn't match the problem.

[dustin1114]

I agree, it is national communications policy. But why not try getting a new statute passed that isn't based on telephones from the switch-operator era? It just seems to me that it's being pressed so hard because it's such a "fad" issue right now. Most people honestly don't even have a clue what the FCC or "net neutrality" is. Sure, the FCC is accountable to the President (ultimately), and to congressional oversight committees, but they don't have to worry about being thrown out of office for any decisions they make.