So the FCC set up a fight between ...
... the Telephants - TWC, Comcast, AT&T, etc - and the likes Google/Netflix/Facebook/etc.
Google/Netflix/Facebook aren't broadband operators. They are "content providers" - whatever that means.
TWC/Comcast/AT&T aren't "content providers" - their delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. They are just infrastructure operators.
So what exactly is so bad here. That Google has dominance in search or Facebook has dominance in cat pictures? That was already an established fact, and we already knew it.
I'd rather have Google or Netflix fight with TWC or AT&T over bandwidth throttling or congestion than leave that fight up to the Invisible Hand of the Market and the Telephants. That hasn't worked. The new rules explicitly forbid Paid Prioritization and throttling. Let Google, Facebook, Netflix, Hulu, etc, spy on each other to see if any of their competitors gets "better packets", and let them fight with Comcast or Verizon or AT&T over it.
Is it an ideal regulatory framework? I don't know what an ideal regulatory framework would have been. The set of consumer complaints against the Telephants that has led to this Title II classification was pretty small and clear: abuse of monopolistic power, price-gouging, non-delivery of contracted services (bandwidth throttling, etc), paid prioritization.
Is this framework better - for consumers - than what was in place before? Most likely yes. At least it is now printed in black on white that the ISP's have to provide the bandwidth that we pay for, and that they have to tell us - in writing - what we are paying for, and how much their services cost, and that Comcast or TWC can't throttle Netflix.
The fight over Google's/Facebook's/Netflix's dominance in content is for another day, and it's not even up to the FCC to take up that one.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
