As for Title II: You can’t have jurisdiction that’s “ancillary to” Title II unless Title II also applies in some way to what you are regulating.

I think you need to understand the consequences of what you are advocating.

As for my Transition work, you seem to know what happened behind closed doors better than I do, so I won’t get into a pissing match. I’m very proud of what all of us did in that process, and the work that people like Susan Crawford carried forward into the Administration.

And, yes, I’m well aware of the work you did on the Obama transition team. You and Ms. Crawford labored long and hard to have a network neutrality “poison pill” inserted into the ARRA, preventing me from using that funding to expand service to unserved and underserved areas. You’ve delayed our expansion to areas where citizens really need us. Hope you are proud of that.

To your final paragraph, like the vast majority of the Obama transition team, I was a volunteer. In fact, I spent a couple thousand dollars out of pocket, because under the ethics rules I couldn’t accept reimbursement from the Wharton School fund that pays for my normal travel. Worth every penny.

In your posting, you advocate placing broadband under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 — in other words, under antidiluvian regulations meant for 19th Century analog telephone technology and framed with the assumption that telephone service would be provided by a heavily regulated monopoly.

Hey…. If we’re going to go all the way back to the days of Alexander Graham Bell, why not go even farther back — to the Middle Ages? We could JOUST for radio spectrum (not a very efficient way of allocating it, but more fair than the system we have now). And any network provider whose practices were ruled, arbitrarily, by the Chairman and his nobles not to be “reasonable network management” could be pilloried or perhaps beheaded. How colorful!

Or perhaps we should go back farther still, since — talk about Darwin! — you’re talking about bringing back regulations that are as old as the dinosaurs in today’s modern world. And which fossilized telecommunications for decades.

In any event, these antiquated regulations should be retired and deleted altogether, not revived. The result of doing otherwise would be to kill innovation (no one can innovate in a straitjacket), destroy competition (only the largest players have the buildings full of lawyers necessary to cope with regulation), and deter broadband deployment (who wants to invest in a heavily regulated industry that’s run under rules that assume a monopoly?). For the past 18 years, my life’s mission has been to deploy innovative wireless broadband to areas unserved by any other terrestrial technology. I’ve done it, and my customers appreciate it and rely upon it. And you’d destroy it with a stroke of a pen.

It’s also very telling that the second half of your posting focuses entirely upon the needs of Google, the corporation which contributed nearly $1 million to the Obama Administration and more to its “transition team” (on which you served; some of that money must have paid your salary). Google — itself the owner of the third largest fiber backbone in the world — is attempting regulatory capture of telecommunications, hoping to leave its own network unregulated while regulating the networks upon which all of its competitors rely. And you are aiding, abetting, and facilitating this.

Seriously, how can you get there from my post?