New bill would prohibit FCC from reclassifying broadband as utility

Translation: "Someone just paid me a lot of money."

Wouldn't enforcing neutrality be the most minimal form of regulation, where without that baseline it's impossible for some companies to compete?

It's not like declaring it a utility would mean, like in the days of AT&T, that Comcast would be required to put up pay internet terminals in the middle of the woods, no matter the cost, or lock in to a particular pricing structure.

> Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband providers

Can anyone shed some light on what this baggage might consist of? I've heard rumblings that common carrier status might have unintended consequences, but I haven't actually seen them enumerated.

> imposing monopoly-era telephone rules and obligations on the 21st Century broadband marketplace

Last-mile ISPs are usually local monopolies. I see a lot of handwaving here about regulating "the Internet" rather than specific classes of company.

Would Title II reclassification only involve consumer ISPs, or would it also affect backbone providers like Level 3?

> We support the efforts ... to codify current policy

A great tactic on both sides is to claim that you're fighting for the status quo, which works pretty well. The Net Neutrality argument is "let's fight to keep ISPs from selectively deprioritizing traffic because that would break the Internet." The other side's argument is "let's fight to keep government from interfering because that would break the Internet".

Jeepers, our legislators really suck. You think utility regulation is too onerous, reform that. But trying to pre-empt the regulatory process (which involves exhaustive solicitation and categorization of public comment, unlike the legislative branch) is just pouring sand in the works. The government would function a lot better if Congress would let it operate instead of constantly trying to fine-tune it.

I'm at a friend's house who has Comcast and I can't load any pages from pcworld.com, and http://www.isup.me/pcworld.com says it's just me. Hopefully that's just a coincidence...

I'm tempted to refute his points, but it's not like anybody here doesn't get why "the internet economy" would be helped by neutrality. So I'll just sigh and vaguely wonder what it costs to buy a congressional representative these days.