Yeah, except this falls into the category of CTS (consider the source). I'm all keeping the Internet free and open to all, but the FCC also has a point about regulating access TO keep it open. If too many access ports are privatized, that's free and open access—that's paid access that can be censored by the access company, if they choose. I'm not sure of what's best here. Having had my FCC radiobroadcaster's license since 1980, I find myself usually siding with the FCC against blatant corporate interests.
I would side against both blatant corporate interests and blatant government interference myself. Had this been undertaken by the Bush administration I suspect there would have been a great hue and cry from the usual suspects.
Well, actually . . . the process behind this particular FCC move WAS instigated during the Bush Admin. There were some new members put on the FCC board during the Bush Admin., as a "shake up," and this was on their agenda. Nonetheless, I agree with you about siding against both blatant corporate interests and government interference—although those are sometimes indistinguishable. And even more so when it comes to media corporations, which have actually written some of the media-regulation bills that Congress has passed, over the past decade or so.
But it is this administration that is implementing it, as it continues to implement much else initiated by the previous administration, and many case going that administration one better or more. The "regulated" always have input into regulation, and it almost always turns out to be to their advantage.