So, what the FCC should really focus on is ... to open up the broadband market to more competition.

Except they don't have jurisdiction, AFAIK.

The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?

An infrastructure funded by the entire community, both those that sign up for high-speed Internet and those that don't. That sounds wonderful - free infrastructure for the providers, funded by taxpayers... Unless you are one of the folks that doesn't have an interest in high-speed internet access...

A sizable percentage of Americans that are offered high-speed internet service opt out, either for cost or lack of interest. 'Sizable percentage' is far from a majority, but in many communities that rate is about 25% (from memory), and includes people with access, but no interest in high-speed internet access.

It makes no difference to a person in one municipality how many ISPs there are are in other municipalities...

Probably the most intelligent, logical, and well-reasoned argument I've seen on Slashdot in years!

A municipal Internet service, funded with tax-payer dollars, what could go wrong?

Gee, there isn't any chance some activist groups would file suits forcing the government to filter out hate speech, pornography, extreme violence, gun sales, etc on their "tax-payer-funded Internet"? No, that would never happen...

Oh wait, we already do that on taxpayer-funded Internet in our schools and libraries!

Because wired Internet service so often is a natural monopoly, there are all kinds of situations in which towns or villages or even small neighborhoods find themselves cut off from any service by a company that simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market.

Really, because the "company simply does not feel it worthwhile to extend service to that market"?

They decline to extend services to areas that they don't think will be profitable, see they are a profit-driven enterprise in most cases.

Now, what we'll see is taxpayers absorb the losses extending services to areas that were otherwise unprofitable to service - that's a great step forward, I can just see your local taxpayer having no problem running fiber cable for miles down a rural road to offer high-speed internet service to the seven farms over 20 miles of county road...

How so, deductions are a part of the tax code, put there for a reason. It is the government saying you owe us X% of your income above a certain amount, but if you have a mortgage you don't owe taxes on the money you spent on interest, if you have children we know they can be very expensive, so keep some of that money you were going to pay in taxes to cover the expense of your children, etc.

Deductions is the government telling you what money it is not entitled to, not 'taking money from the government'...

Wheeler changed his position just as fast as Chief Justice Roberts did...

Because Democrats really, really want it (whatever it is - have yet to actually know what's in the 300+pages), no laws can stand in their way.

Obamacare was so good, they had to pass it in the dead of night in a rushed manner because Republicans had a chance to stop it.

The Loans to Solyndra were so important that they ignored repeated warning of the company's flawed business model and right before it finally imploded (exactly when it was predicted to, BTW), the administration had to put private investors ahead of the American taxpayers for recovery after bankruptcy, violating federal law - but they really, really wanted solar panels made in a half-billion dollar factory in Silicon Valkey to succed!

They were so sure that straw gun sales were happening along the southern border that they had to force gun shops to make the sales, so they could record them on video tape and then, inspector Clousseu-like, sit by and watch the guns slip across the border I to Mexico, with no one on the other side of the border knowing what was going on - they just really, really wanted to stop the gun sales!

The President really, really wanted to fill some vacancies I the NLRB with friends of big labor, but darn it, the Congress wouldn't go on recess - so he just decided they were in recess and made his appointments. Then the Supreme Court told him he couldn't do that, but it was too late.

See, a deeply-rooted belief that something is needed trumps all laws.

UPS and FedEx are bared from competing with the post office for mail delivery.

While the USPS is structured like a business, Congress often prevents it from actually operating like a private company, such as taking actions to reduce costs, improve efficiency, or innovate in other ways. The agency is also obligated by statute to provide mail services to all Americans, irrespective of where they live and the cost of serving them. Furthermore, it is required to deliver first-class mail at a uniform price throughout the nation.

While Congress imposes various costs and obligations on the USPS, it also protects it from competition. The USPS has a legal monopoly over first-class mail and standard mail (formerly called third-class mail). Thus, we have a postal system that encourages high costs and inefficiency, while preventing entrepreneurs from trying to improve postal services for Americans.

See the Postal Code of 1872 for further information on the USPS monopoly on mail delivery.

Don't you understand this decision? It's not about 'self-control' of the Internet backbone, it's about allowing municipalities or utility companies to offer services outside their service area, the locals don't want to run their own Internet backbone, they want someone else to come into their territory and offer service.

I can't quite reconcile this:

On Thursday, before it voted in favor of "net neutrality," the Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 to override state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that have barred local governments and public utilities from offering broadband outside the areas where they have traditionally sold electricity.

With this:

"allowing communities to be the owners and stewards of their own broadband networks is a watershed moment that will serve as a check against the worst abuses of the cable monopoly for decades to come."

How does allowing the neighboring municipality or neighboring utility somehow allow "communities to be the owners and stewards of their own broadband networks"?

Think about it, don't react emotionally.

If I live in a community that is served electricity by power company A, and power company B in the neighboring community offers internet access that I want, allowing power company B to sell Internet access in the territory served by Power company A isn't 'self-ownership'... If the county next to me offers Internet access and now they can offer Internet service in my county, does my county now control the Internet backbone in our county or does the neighboring community?

Communities and public utilities can already offer service in thief own areas, this change would allow them to offer service in other communities, exchanging their old provider for another, neither owned or controlled by them.

I guess you have to believe that it will be better when the big power utility companies displace the big cable companies...

These companies follow the tax code as written/enforced. If you don't like the revenues the current tax code generates, rewrite the tax code - but don't be surprised if they seek out a new location with lower taxes.

Those corporations are investing $1.75 for every dollar they are asking the state of Washington to invest in the education for jobs in the state of Washington... Do you suggest those companies should invest in the education of Nevada residents instead, or should they just keep their money and let the lack of qualified graduates help them make the case for even more H-1B visas?

Don't students pay tuition? Shouldn't that help recoup the costs?

For every dollar the companies are asking the state to contribute, the companies are going to match with $1.75