That reading would seem to permit the Feds to override any and all State laws against political subdivisions doing anything. Some States have decided as a matter of public policy not to engage in public solid waste collection but rather to rely on the private sector for such services. Can Uncle Sam override such decisions?

I would agree with the FCC's action if it was limited to overriding laws that preclude people from starting co-ops. I think it's a bridge too far for the FCC to tell a State that it must allow a political subdivision into the telecommunications business.

*shrug*, Rush makes his living by being a showman. I don't really care for the show, though as a human being I have respect for anyone that can laugh at himself, which Rush does (he has played himself on Family Guy, amongst other things), so there's that. If you're looking for an in-depth and impartial analysis of the issues you're probably not tuning into The Rush Limbaugh Show. Conservatives see a slippery slope here to further regulation. I don't entirely discount that argument and it's hard to escape the fact that the internet became what it is today by being unregulated and free of top-down mandates that impede innovation.

I'm generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to accomplish but I think the means they're using is questionable at best. They're also going after hypothetical impediments to innovation (the oft-discussed fast lane hasn't actually happened) while ignoring real threats (data caps) to innovation. Frankly I'd rather see them in the business of regulating tariffs than telling the ISPs how to run their networks (*), because I view data caps as a far more serious threat to internet video (the "killer app" that started this whole conversation) than a fast line that has yet to come to fruition.

(*) Here's a hypothetical for you: Is it "reasonable network management" to prioritize one's voice service over other applications? Keep in mind that circuit switched voice is fast becoming a thing of the past, on both wireless and wireline. On the wireline side you've got the cable company's VoIP service running on the same DOCSIS node as your neighbor's bittorrent download. On wireless you've got VoLTE replacing circuit switched voice, so voice is just another data application there as well, one that's competing for bandwidth on an increasingly congested wireless data network.

If the answer is "Yes" then you've advantaged Time Warner/Verizon/et. al's voice product over Skype and similar offerings. If the answer is "No" then you're placing phone calls at the same "best effort" level as your neighbor's porn addiction.

Employee's can leave and start their own firm, making life better than working for someone else.

The best negotiation an employee can make, is be more valuable to someone else, which includes themselves.

By "far right" you mean anyone that is not a communist socialist that wants to enslave the world in their own utopia?

That model does make sense for the internet and very few people argue with pricing broke down by speed tiers. It breaks down when people expect that they can utilize 100% of their pipe 100% of the time. In my area Time Warner sells 50mbit/s connections and has eight DOCSIS channels on their coax plant. At ~42mbit/s per channel that's a maximum of 336mbit/s shared amongst all users on a particular node. Some simple division will reveal that less than seven users subscribing to the highest speed tier are enough to completely saturate that pipe. You can translate this into your water analogy easily enough by observing what happens to your water pressure when the fire department decides to flush the hydrants in your neighborhood.

Caps really aren't the best way to manage this "problem" because they ignore the actual limiting factor of bitrate. 95th percentile billing would make more sense but good luck explaining that to the masses.

Rush Limbaugh remembers the days of the fairness doctrine. There are a handful of politicians who think it should make a comeback. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Limbaugh's but in his defense if you read what has been said by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine it would send shivers up your spine:

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use 'better judgment.'

Most people, left or right would recoil whenever a politician starts talking about a need to rethink the "parameters of free speech."

If you're a Libertarian how do you feel about the second vote, the one where the FCC is claiming for itself the authority to preempt State level legislation against municipal broadband services? I am not a Libertarian, nor a Republican, but I find that vote extremely disturbing; it has always been the sole province of the States to set the parameters within which their political subdivisions operate. If New York State wishes to preclude my municipality from setting up an ISP what business is that of the FCC? Can the Feds also preempt a decision that precludes municipalities from operating solid waste services? Sewer services?

I am generally supportive of what the FCC is trying to do with Title II but they're going a bridge too far if they think it's appropriate to step into the middle of the relationship between States and their political subdivisions. Three of five unelected Federal bureaucrats do not get to override the parameters my State Legislature sets for my city.

Six .... sigh

Change "religious right" to "Leftist/Democrats" and I could make the exact same point.

Large groups of people operate on "emotion and ignorance", both left and right. It is PEOPLE who do these things. I mean, have you seen Mark Dice interviews of idiot left wing people?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Obeying dumb "we said so" laws is dumb.

Which means exactly what? They have fulfilled a bureaucratic check list of meaningless drivel?

Yeah, that is one of the "there ought to be a law" kind of crap laws that make noise signifying nothing.

Let me put it to you this way, would you know if you got into a taxi that the guy had three accidents last year or none? Rookie Driver or one that has been driving the town for seven years (and knows his way around)? What do you know exactly?

What you know, exactly, is that someone filled out a form somewhere, once upon a time. That is about all you really know, after that it is really a crap shoot. AT LEAST with Uber, you have all the information available, including "customer" reviews. Which is a hell of a lot more relevant.

Corporate Greed and Unions are the exact same issue. Both want more than the market can bear, and eventually it all collapses. And government comes in an props up the failing Corporation/Union, often at the same time (think GM).

Why? because we're afraid of allowing failure. YET Failure is a great teacher. Something we keep failing to learn ;)

No, but neither are CNC mills regulated ;) That is what we're talking about.

Anti Gun is POPULAR, maybe just not as Popular as Pro Gun.

Your argument is that the Cowboys are more popular than the Patriots, therefore the Patriots aren't popular at all.

We're not talking guns here, we're talking about CNC mills, which haven't killed anyone. Next objection?