BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new 'utility' regulations.

I can't get to the article, so it wouldn't be reasonable to comment on it. I can answer your question to TL, though.

None of the industries that are currently covered under Title II started out regulated. They were initially chaotic, driven by small and innovative companies, which ended up being aggregated into monolithic corporations under the heading of vertical integration.

The concept of "natural monopoly" being balanced by the public good is important in this discussion. You already know what it means, so I don't suppose there's any need to get into that.

At this point, there's no chance of a monopoly in the sense it applied to phone companies and electricity suppliers. It barely applies to phone service any more. Every day I experience a live example of why. I have a landline which is less reliable than my cellular desk phone, a smartphone that doubles as a backup Internet connection, and a VOIP line I use for specific other purposes.

I can video conference or voice chat with people all over the world via the cell or cable systems. Ma Bell not required.

And virtually all of that innovation occurred after the regulation of the phone companies.

Cable TV developed more quickly, but in much the same process. It was eventually regulated to protect local stations from "importing" of shows from areas outside their reach that would compete in the same programming. This was considered appropriate, in some part, due to the fact that those stations were already regulated by Federal licensing of broadcast frequencies.

Innovation in cable offerings and technology have continued quite nicely since regulations were enforced, and the profitability of cable companies has grown enviably over that time.

The content of cable programming has always been subject to regulation, but much less so than broadcast television stations. That, too, is based on the concept of public ownership of frequencies, but it worked in cable's favor. They don't use limited public frequencies.

Given the potential competition from DSL, community wifi, cell and satellite service, and municipal fiber, I don't see innovation in data carriage being stifled any time soon. UNLESS the current providers are allowed to create content- or source-based filters to control the speed of information based on their own priorities.

If you're concerned about things limiting freedom of access or innovation, or infringing on one's personal rights, your time would be better spent looking into Google fiber, and the implications of allowing an already megalithic data aggregator to have that kind of access to personal communications of that many people.

Or the notion that cable companies, if allowed to control speed of access to various types of content, could fall under the sway of the regional equivalents of a Texas school board.

Either of those should scare the hell out of you, Steve.

This battle isn't about technology. It's about content and money, and who controls both. And the net neutrality side is about leaving that control in the hands of end users, not the government or monopolies.


Paul