How do you want to see your Internet?


Figured here "what the heck"?
This topic is only related to internet to the home. 
Mobile 4G internet is another topic.  (4G in the US is the slowest 4G throughout the world is all I am saying for now).
There is a tug of war going on relating to the Internet in general; well how it is managed and who has the most say about its management.  (its really all about money anyways right now).  The rules set here in the US is currently very fluid(?).
FCC wiki:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government, created by Congressional statute (see 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security. The Commission is also in the process of modernizing itself.

The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission. The FCC's mandated jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions. The FCC also provides varied degrees of cooperation, oversight, and leadership for similar communications bodies in other countries of North America. The FCC is funded entirely by regulatory fees.
Just recently tested an FTP connection over to Norway.  It was my current BB provider to another BB provider in Norway.
The speeds, ping times et all were great.
Note here that the internet infrastructure from the CO to the house is public and not owned by any one BB company whether that is using fiber, copper, wireless or cable today. 
The transport between the CO and the internet is provided by whatever company chooses to utilize the infrastructure and typically provides a service / connection based on a tiered bucket charge (data) monthly fee.
It is an international broadcast 2 way broadcast medium.  Anybody can use it.
Here I sometimes like to hear radio broadcasts from international radio stations to get a sort of feel about what its like in other countries.  (that is something I guess from my old amateur radio days).  Years ago I would look at old magazines / newspapers to get a better feel for history. (old 100 years back to present for example).  Not just the comments or news but also the advertisements to see what people were purchasing et al. 
Well here are a few Wiki paragraphs on the Internet. 
The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to link several billion devices worldwide. It is an international network of networks that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government packet switched networks, linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless, and optical networking technologies. The Internet carries an extensive range of information resources and services, such as the inter-linked hypertext documents and applications of the World Wide Web (WWW), the infrastructure to support email, and peer-to-peer networks for file sharing and telephony.

The origins of the Internet date back to research commissioned by the United States government in the 1960s to build robust, fault-tolerant communication via computer networks. While this work, together with work in the United Kingdom and France, led to important precursor networks, they were not the Internet. There is no consensus on the exact date when the modern Internet came into being, but sometime in the early to mid-1980s is considered reasonable.  From that point, the network experienced decades of sustained exponential growth as generations of institutional, personal, and mobile computers were connected to it.

The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. Though the Internet has been widely used by academia since the 1980s, the commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life. As of June 2012, more than 2.4 billion people—over a third of the world's human population—have used the services of the Internet; approximately 100 times more people than were using it in 1995.  Internet use grew rapidly in the West from the mid-1990s to early 2000s and from the late 1990s to present in the developing world. In 1994 only 3% of American classrooms had access to the Internet while by 2002 92% did.

Most traditional communications media including telephone, music, film, and television are being reshaped or redefined by the Internet, giving birth to new services such as voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Internet Protocol television (IPTV). Newspaper, book, and other print publishing are adapting to website technology, or are reshaped into blogging and web feeds. The Internet has enabled and accelerated new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking. Online shopping has boomed both for major retail outlets and small artisans and traders. Business-to-business and financial services on the Internet affect supply chains across entire industries.

The Internet has no centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage; each constituent network sets its own policies.  Only the overreaching definitions of the two principal name spaces in the Internet, the Internet Protocol address space and the Domain Name System, are directed by a maintainer organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The technical underpinning and standardization of the core protocols (IPv4 and IPv6) is an activity of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a non-profit organization of loosely affiliated international participants that anyone may associate with by contributing technical expertise.
Most traditional communications media including telephone, music, film, and television are being reshaped or redefined by the Internet, giving birth to new services such as voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Internet Protocol television (IPTV). Newspaper, book, and other print publishing are adapting to website technology, or are reshaped into blogging and web feeds. The Internet has enabled and accelerated new forms of human interactions through instant messaging, Internet forums, and social networking. Online shopping has boomed both for major retail outlets and small artisans and traders. Business-to-business and financial services on the Internet affect supply chains across entire industries.
The first pre-recorded audio programs wiki (note this is just a little historical thing here). - 1947
Crosby exerted an important influence on the development of the postwar recording industry. He worked for NBC at the time and wanted to record his shows; however, most broadcast networks did not allow recording. This was primarily because the quality of recording at the time was not as good as live broadcast sound quality. While in Europe performing during the war, Crosby had witnessed tape recording, on which The Crosby Research Foundation would come to have many patents. The company also developed equipment and recording techniques such as the laugh track which are still in use today. In 1947, he invested $50,000 in the Ampex company, which built North America's first commercial reel-to-reel tape recorder. He left NBC to work for ABC because NBC was not interested in recording at the time. This proved beneficial because ABC accepted him and his new ideas. Crosby then became the first performer to pre-record his radio shows and master his commercial recordings onto magnetic tape. He gave one of the first Ampex Model 200 recorders to his friend, musician Les Paul, which led directly to Paul's invention of multitrack recording. Along with Frank Sinatra, Crosby was one of the principal backers behind the famous United Western Recorders recording studio complex in Los Angeles.
A bit more history on the first video recording devices and commercial skipping: (most folks prefer to watch content rather than commercials except maybe during the Superbowl?) - note that this is not specific to the internet but is related to media content presentation on the internet. - 2002
Commercial skipping is a feature of some digital video recorders that makes it possible to automatically skip commercials in recorded programs. This feature created controversy, with major television networks and movie studios claiming it violates copyright and should be banned.

For many years, video recorders manufactured for the Japanese market have been able to skip advertisements automatically, which is done by detecting when foreign language audio overdub tracks provided for many programmes go silent, as advertisements were broadcast with a single language only.
The first DVR which had a built-in Commercial skipping feature was ReplayTV with its "4000 Series" and "5000 Series" units. In 2002 five owners of the ReplayTV DVR sued the main television networks and movie studios, asking the federal judge to uphold consumers' rights to record TV shows and skip commercials claiming that features like commercial skipping help parents protect their kids from excessive consumerism. ReplayTV ended up filing for bankruptcy in 2003 after fighting a copyright infringement suit over the ReplayTV's ability to skip commercials.

In May 2012 the US Dish Network began offering a DVR with what it calls AutoHop. The device would automatically skip commercials when displaying programming that the viewer had previously recorded with the PrimeTime Anytime feature. It does not skip ads on any live programs. US broadcasters were angered at the news, and FOX embarked on legal action.

By 2014 many PVR programs such as Windows Media Center, SageTV and MythTV had the capability to skip commercials segments in recorded TV broadcasts after installing third-party add-ons such as DVRMSToolbox, Comskip and ShowAnalyzer, which use various advanced techniques to locate the commercial segments in the video files and save their locations to text files. The text files can also be fed into programs such as MEncoder or DVRMSToolboxGUI which can delete the commercial segments from the recorded video files.
Many CT members here today use the internet for all sorts of stuff.  IE: automation in the cloud versus automation at home type of stuff. 
I am not going to post right now what I think but would like to know what everybody else thinks?
Here I started to utilize my phone to manage my home automation internationally with the first Palm / Microsoft internet connected phones in the late 1990's.  It was slow using GPRS but it worked.
I really want to know what you think it should be like; not what other folks are saying or writing about what it should be like?
Here on Coocoontech I see us as both experimenters and users of new technologies which utilize the internet.
We are also a collection of technophiles here driving much by new technologies and most recently using the internet.
Relating to 4G it was wierd to read that we had the slowest 4G in the entire world of 4G.  I had though quite the opposite until I read about it.
That said the OP relates to this whole net neutrality thing sort of and I am really curious what folks here think about it.
pete_c said:
Relating to 4G it was wierd to read that we had the slowest 4G in the entire world of 4G.  I had though quite the opposite until I read about it.
That said the OP relates to this whole net neutrality thing sort of and I am really curious what folks here think about it.
I think that the reality of it is that bandwidth is a commodity and that the ISP needs to make a profit selling it. If they can't charge for usage and everyone pays the same regardless of how much bandwidth they use then the system will be abused and the ISP will go broke. I would love to have cheap fast access but if I don't pay for it who will? If the government subsidizes it that means that I still pay for it in taxes.
net neu·tral·i·ty

noun: net neutrality; noun: network neutrality

  1. the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Net Neutrality WIki
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.  Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms. Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and considered a "father of the Internet," as well as Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web, and many others have spoken out in favor of net neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality claim that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance. Despite this claim, there has been at least one case where an Internet service provider, Comcast, intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. In 2007, one other company was using deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom "value added" services, and bundling. Critics of net neutrality also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but is actually highly desirable. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, has called the term "net neutrality" a "slogan" and states that he opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants. Opponents of net neutrality regulation also argue that the best solution to discrimination by broadband providers is to encourage greater competition among such providers, which is currently limited in many areas.

On 23 April 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reported to be considering a new rule that will permit Internet service providers to offer content providers a faster track to send content, thus reversing their earlier position on net neutrality.  Municipal broadband could provide a net neutral environment, according to Susan P. Crawford, a legal and technology expert and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. On 15 May 2014, the FCC decided to consider two options regarding Internet services: first, permit fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; and second, reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service, thereby preserving net neutrality.
Definition of Net Neutrality

Simply put, net neutrality is a network design paradigm that argues for broadband network providers to be completely detached from what information is sent over their networks.  In essence, it argues that no bit of information should be prioritized over another.  This principle implies that an information network such as the internet is most efficient and useful to the public when it is less focused on a particular audience and instead attentive to multiple users.

To draw a simple example, take two content providers such as the Verizon website and the University of California website.  If net neutrality were upheld, both entities would pay their monthly fees to the network provider and if all else equal, any bit of information from the Verizon website will make the same trek as one from say the UC Berkeley website.  There would be no roadblocks or shortcuts any of the websites can take to make the end user desire their content more.  However, without a neutral stance in what is carried over their pipes, network providers can choose to discriminate and decide how fast data will be transmitted and at what quality.  So in our example, say Verizon (which is also a network provider) chooses to prioritize their data over that of UC Berkeley.  Information from Verizon will then be more desirable to the end user since it is so much faster than the UC website.  The problem then arises when Verizon is trying to promote something opposed to that of the beliefs of the University of California.  Is it fair that Verizon has these advantages over the university?  What would happen if network providers bar content providers that they think have a conflict of interest from using higher speed networks?  What if the network providers degrade the service of specific content providers?  These are just some of the many questions that plague the net neutrality issue. 
Here is a quote from Wired Magazine posted in June 2014.
What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality

By Robert McMillan  06.23.14  6:30 am

Even Sunday night HBO watchers are worried the Federal Communications Commission will soon put an end to net neutrality.

Earlier this month, on the HBO comedy news show “Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver went on a 13-minute rant against the new set of internet rules proposed by the FCC. He warned that the rules would lead to a world where internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon can sell special treatment to web companies like Google and Netflix, charging extra fees to deliver their online videos and other content at fast speeds, and he urged viewers to bombard the FCC website with protests, saying the rules would end up hurting smaller web outfits that can’t afford to pay the fees. The next day, the FCC site buckled under the traffic and went offline.

It was just part of a sweeping effort to squash the proposed rules. When the rules first leaked out in May, protesters camped out in front of the FCC’s Washington offices. Big tech companies such as Google, Amazon, and Netflix signed a letter asking the government communications agency to bar internet providers from discriminating “both technically and financially against internet companies.” And last week, two big name Democrats on Capitol Hill unveiled a bill that seeks to undermine the new rules. Nearly everyone, it seems, wants to prevent the FCC from allowing some companies to have internet “fast lanes” while others toil at slower speeds.

‘Most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works.’

The only trouble is that, here in the year 2014, complaints about a fast-lane don’t make much sense. Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works.

“Fast lane is how the internet is built today,” says Craig Labovitz, who, as the CEO of DeepField Networks, an outfit whose sole mission is to track how companies build internet infrastructure, probably knows more about the design of the modern internet than anyone else. And many other internet experts agree with him. “The net neutrality debate has got many facets to it, and most of the points of the debate are artificial, distracting, and based on an incorrect mental model on how the internet works,” says Dave Taht, a developer of open-source networking software.

The concepts driving today’s net neutrality debate caught on because the internet used to operate differently—and because they were easy for consumers to understand. In many respects, these concepts were vitally important to the evolution of the internet over the past decades. But in today’s world, they don’t address the real issue with the country’s ISPs, and if we spend too much time worried about fast lanes, we could hurt the net’s progress rather than help it.

Even Tim Wu, the man who coined the term net neutrality, will tell you that the fast lane idea isn’t what it seems. “The fast lane is not a literal truth,” he says. “But it’s a sense that you should have a fair shot.” On the modern internet, as Wu indicates, the real issue is that such a small number of internet service providers now control the pipes that reach out to U.S. consumers—and that number is getting even smaller, with Comcast looking to acquire Time Warner, one of its biggest rivals. The real issue is that the Comcasts and Verizons are becoming too big and too powerful. Because every web company has no choice but to go through these ISPs, the Comcasts and the Verizons may eventually have too much freedom to decide how much companies must pay for fast speeds.
Just posting information stuff here......
Net Neutrality is not about the government paying for your bandwidth. It's also not the "Obamacare of the Internet."
It should be pulled back in under Title II.
So why should it be pulled back in under Title II and what exactly is this Section 706 stuff?
Note just wanting to learn a bit here while concurrently curious about how the CT community feels about this stuff?
"Net Neutrality" is a meaningless term all sides are using to influence the public.  It is used to hide their agendas behind [SIZE=14.4444446563721px]philosophical discussions about "freedom" and "equality".  Which have nothing to do with it.[/SIZE]
There are technical reasons why the internet is engineered the way it is.  The simple fact is, all data is not alike and can't technically be treated "equally" or the internet will cease to function.  The last thing we need are politicians and regulators getting involved in something they don't understand.   Those things need to be left up to standards bodies with professionals that understand the technical issues.
Now if we want to discuss specific points like should a cable company be allowed to block access to a competitor's content or who should pay (all ISP users or the product users) when Netflix  or Google decides to arbitrarily upgrade their service to 4k and quadruple the bandwidth overnight on backhauls.  Those are things that can be debated and I would argue, are mostly rooted in the fact that ISPs are monopolies.   :) Which is a problem the State and Federal governments have created and can resolve.  De-regulation is the answer, not more.
Thank you Wuench. I would like to see more.  I haven't yet commented and have tried to post whatever is related right now.
OP started at 6:20 CT.  4 folks have commented 19:46 CT.
History tends to repeat itself.
Well off on another tangent post....
Breakup of the Bell System
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The breakup of the Bell System was mandated on January 8, 1982, by an agreed consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies that had provided local telephone service in the United States up until that point. This effectively took the monopoly that was the Bell System, and split it into entirely separate companies which would continue to provide telephone service. AT&T would continue to be a provider of long distance service, while the now independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) would provide local service, and would no longer be directly supplied with equipment from AT&T subsidiary Western Electric.

This divestiture was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T. AT&T was, at the time, the sole provider of telephone service throughout most of the United States. Furthermore, most telephonic equipment in United States was produced by its subsidiary, Western Electric. This vertical integration led AT&T to have almost total control over communication technology in the country, which led to the antitrust case, United States v. AT&T. The plaintiff in the court complaint asked the court to order AT&T to divest ownership of Western Electric.

Feeling that it was about to lose the suit, AT&T proposed an alternative - the breakup of the biggest corporation in American history. It proposed that it retain control of Western Electric, Yellow Pages, the Bell trademark, Bell Labs, and AT&T Long Distance. It also proposed that it be freed from a 1956 anti-trust consent decree that barred it from participating in the general sale of computers. In return, it proposed to give up ownership of the local operating companies. This last, it argued, would achieve the Government's goal of creating competition in supplying telephone equipment and supplies to the operative companies. The settlement was finalized on January 8, 1982, with some changes ordered by the decree court: the regional holding companies got the Bell trademark, Yellow Pages, and about half of Bell Labs.

Effective January 1, 1984, the Bell System’s many member-companies were variously merged into seven independent "Regional Holding Companies", also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". This divestiture reduced the book value of AT&T by approximately 70%.
Really idealogy wise what is driving the current debacle (well it is to some and it isn't to others) folks?
How do you fellow CT users intrepret what is the issue?
I'd say there may or may not be a large difference between what I'd want and what will actually happen. I say that because I don't think net neutrality will ever happen. For starters, as stated above, some data has a higher priority and thus should have QoS by default. Having said that, ISPs and content providers are already sleeping together and at the end of the day they are the ones whom, together, will provide the content.
Similarly, I'd LOVE to still have my Verizon unlimited data plan... Providers will always set the playing field in a manner that will benefit them.
drvnbysound said:
For starters, as stated above, some data has a higher priority and thus should have QoS by default.
QoS is different from net neutrality.  There's no issue with giving certain types of data higher priority than others (say VoIP traffic over file data traffic). Where net neutrality comes in is that Netflix streaming video data shouldn't have priority over other video data from the latest small video start up service.
RAL said:
QoS is different from net neutrality.  There's no issue with giving certain types of data higher priority than others (say VoIP traffic over file data traffic). Where net neutrality comes in is that Netflix streaming video data shouldn't have priority over other video data from the latest small video start up service.
Good luck with that :)
Chalk up another one to politics, bureaucracy, those with the most money... and most to gain. I'm not at ALL saying it's right, but that's exactly where I'd place my money if we were taking bets.
Sure, we all want a level playing field at everything... but it's not the case with most anything.
If I want to start a business and compete with Walmart... they are going to squash me (actually they wouldn't even have to try). They have more money to pay for better advertising. They have teams that scout prime locations and perform all the demographic work. They buy in larger quantities so they get better pricing from manufacturers. So on and so forth. There is no even playing field. I don't see the net neutrality any differently... it's just me (little ole startup) competing with Netflix, Hulu, and ....
Offer a better product, that people want and "your" business will grow - just like everyone else's has. Apple, Facebook, and Google weren't always big...
BaduFamily said:
Net Neutrality is not about the government paying for your bandwidth. It's also not the "Obamacare of the Internet."
It should be pulled back in under Title II.
You put words in my mouth. Don't utilities get subsidies from the government? Might not the ISP's get subsidies when they become governed by the FCC as a utility?
The "wire" from your home to the CO whatever it is considered part of residential standard infrastructure not owned by the ISP/Telco; rather just used.  Well it is a "utilitiy" wire as the electric and natural gas feeds are.
There are cages inside of the old telco switching CO rented by whatever ISP. (well it used to be like this from what I saw 10 years ago).
In this town we have AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.  In this small subdivision we have AT&T and Comcast. 
In the midwest / Chicago there still are other broadband cable internet service providers (other than Comcast).
While much today of the infrastructure is being upgraded to fiber; its done for upgrading the infrastructure by whomever to make monthly reoccurring revues.  The available speed tiers / bandwidth is much better and while we consider this a premium; its really now just a base standard.  But then its similiar to compliance to new broadcast standards of HD and having to pay for it as a premium or say when the first iPhone was available calling all users data hogs (well it was that the 3G infrastructure wasn't ready).  At the time I was using AT&T / Windows mobile (before the iPhone) using 3G and had no issues with it.  Geez how chatty was the first iPhone anyways?  I went to an AT&T "store" the other day for one thing.  Most of the folks in the store were negotiating new family phone rate plans; their eyes were glazed over with an almost drug induced euphoria relating to their phone use; no matter what the costs; which I guess is a normal thing knowing about the addiction today to that portable tethered (need to be) device.
Bucket size / bandwidth et al though isn't the issue rather as said above its what vendor  / wares are used.  The squelching  / purchase of competition is much easier than coming up with competing solution.  Big companies have done that for a long time.
I mean even today its easier to meter buckets of data bytes and charge monthly.  Old traditional methodology that started in the 1960's / 1970's.  Its been a few years now and relating to a "work" endeavor....I went to a neato presentation of new available data for air to ground communications.  I was impressed.  That said the transport charges never did change.  I tested it and it worked very well.  Only thing was at the time; I left the new data spigot on and my next bill included all of the data charges per bytes (not bucket charges).  (new technology went from plain old text to using graphics et al).  The air to ground communications were "owned" by only a handful of companies throughout the world.  (maybe 2-3) such that said byte charges were uniform.
Just recently AT&T went door to door to sell their wares.  From talking to the sales person; it appeared to me that they were going to use my existing cable to bring in the AT&T stuff as I stumped them by saying I wanted the service in addition to my already connected Comcast service.
In Florida all three are present in a 3 street 50 home subdivision.
Today I do not currently utilize AT&T for my still in place copper lines; rather its just another telco that is still around.
I am probably the only house though in the 100 home subdivision not using AT&T for copper.
You are paying for the base infrastructure.
Its been like that for a while now.
We now have the fuzzy line of crossover of just what is considered internet data and what folks are now doing relating to multimedia stuff like audio and video.  On one hand its just considered data and should really be the same for anyone using it if you look at that as a pure utility connection.  That said folks are utilizing cloud applications which connect to their home and their cellular phone and wherever they may be on the internet (in a virtual sense).  If there is no tweaking of this methodology then then there will be no competition  when the rules sets are managed or configured by same said providers of service.   Its already happened before when 3rd party VOIP companies started a few years ago. 
Well geeze; Comcast and Verizon or even AT&T do not have most monies/toys anyways. 
How easy it would be for a more bang bang money Internet/IT company to just "do" and take over the infrastructure.  
Well its like letting the kids fight and getting tired of listening to them arguing (well I did that); and putting your foot down saying enough is enough.
After all the CO's are public anyways and not locked down to any one ISP. 
I am reading it will end up maybe in court; which is a bad thing to happen anyways (from all of the sides involved).