Seems like Title II is a double-edged sword, granting the FCC power to stop internet fast lanes, but also potentially giving them power to impose all kinds of other controls. Thoughts?
Of course Title II isn't the only option. There's tons of other things the government could do, including writing completely new legislation - or, for that matter, doing absolutely nothing at all.<p>I know many disagree, but I don't think Comcast messing with p2p downloads and a few carriers throttling Netflix speeds justifies getting the federal government involved, with all the oh-so-hilarious unintended consequences that usually come with it.<p>The above goes double when you consider the executive branch's first instincts here - instead of crafting something specific, let's just throw Title II at it. Have you <i>read</i> Title II? It's horrifying! But don't worry, they'll use 'forbearance' to just not apply the horrifying parts. We can trust them, after all - who has more restraint and self-control than the federal government?
Figure out how to break the monopoly on decent broadband that these companies have. If I had a viable alternative, I'd have switched away from Comcast as soon as they made NetFlix pay extra. There's an Ars Technica article about how hard it is to start a new ISP. We could address some of the roadblocks to starting an ISP. That'd help some.<p>Does the conflict of interest between streaming video and cable tv have any legal effects? Maybe anti-trust laws?<p>Ultimately, power given to the government is seldom taken back. I prefer the dangers of our current system to giving the government more power.
Since the courts have basically explicitly said that anything that doesn't fall well short of neutrality fails without the FCC making a common carrier determination, yes, basically it is the only regulatory route to neutrality. The other alternative would be explicit pro-neutrality legislation from Congress that bypasses Title II, but that's realistically not happening with this or the next Congress.