I wonder about that too. In my mind at least, there is a distinction between requiring neutral treatment of traffic routing through a network and requiring an operator to let a competitor hook up their equipment in your facilities and sell a competitive service using infrastructure you laid.

The latter IMO is a lot less fair, even though my personal experience is that I had more choices for service when it was done w/ DSL.

The latter makes sense for DSL, but most of the cable monopolies are not government-granted at the Federal level. Some localities have a cable monopoly, but the local government is responsible for that.

Yes, the cable companies have gotten government hand-outs to build out infrastructure, but teasing apart which of that was public and private money (and therefore which would be 'fair' to force open) would be a nightmare.

Many things that are worth doing are difficult. This is one of them.

My point was mostly that the argument for doing so w/ DSL is more cut-and-dry in that most/all of the infrastructure was laid under a nation-wide government-granted monopoly. The Federal government weighing in on the matter makes sense.

I agree with you except where you imply that the Federal government weighing in on cable doesn't make sense.

Political capital is a finite resource.

I think it's a case of 'one thing at a time'.

There's a lot of change packed into this, and I'm sure Wheeler's plan will be to keep the changes and shakeups rolling.