At first, yes, but...If that's what it takes to get the service we've been paying for, then so be it. The ISPs have shown they do not know how to behave under Title I.
Yeah. You might see higher costs at first, but the prices would inevitably come down because of the increase in competition. Right now we essentially have an Oligopoly system with essentially zero competition. That's why people pay high prices for relatively poor service. They charge you that because they can, and don't have to improve their service because you have no alternatives. In short, as far as the consumer is concerned, it's a broken system and needs changing.
It's very obvious to me that Grover G. Norquist and Patrick Gleason both have an agenda, which has nothing to do with the internet and everything to do with being anti-taxes. If that was the point of the article I could maybe get behind it, but the article was about Net Neutrality. Most of the article was talking points or outright lies and conjecture. It pisses me off there are so many business writers jumping on the anti-net neutrality bandwagon under the guise of "less government regulation." I don't like government regulation any more that the rest of you, but when children misbehave you spank them and send them to their room. The ISP's need to be spanked and put in time out. They act like children so we should treat them that way.
Just as Kai said, here in the UK broadband/phone lines are effectively a utility. Owned and operated by BT they were told to slit it up from the company (creating openreach) and allow equal access for ISPs. Everyone who uses a phone line pays a line rental which basically goes to openreach for maintaining the infrastructure. Then your free to choose any ISP you want, the big 6 are the large cheap main ISPs but you also have access to the more specialist ISPs that have more features, better service, but more expensive.
If it wasn't for allowing equal access we would effectively have one choice, BT, and BT aren't the best ISP out there, they could also price the internet however they like. With equal access theres competition, BT have to compete with the big 6 just like the big 6 have to compete with BT.
People in the US seam to be against government regulation but you forget that businesses are in it to make as much money as possible, not to provide a moral, cheap, fair service, and they will do so by any means as long as it doesnt break the law (and even then sometimes they do). If they can create a monopoly and charge you a fortune for a service that you effectively cant live without these days then they absolutely will, because its more profit for them, and at the end of they day, the _only_ thing shareholders care about is how much money they are making.