This isn't going to be a popular point of view here on HN, but the article isn't wrong. Title II isn't just "net neutrality." It's a heavy-handed regime dating from the 1930's, the sort of overbearing regulatory regime that even Democrats abandoned decades ago, during Bill Clinton's tenure.

There's also a strong desire here to "have your cake and eat it too." Everyone wants high-speed fiber infrastructure that's also neutral, with no tie-ins to content. In the current market, it's not clear that such service is even profitable: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_13/b42210461... (recent asset sale suggests that Verizon might be losing money on FiOS). Having high-speed "dumb pipes" may be great for internet companies, but building "dumb pipes" isn't exactly a lucrative business. As long as we are reliant on private companies to build internet infrastructure, you'll have to make it worthwhile for them to invest billions of dollars in such infrastructure, and that's not going to happen by imposing heavy new regulatory burdens on the industry.

To circumvent the WSJ paywall, search for the URL in Google and click on the article there. Alternatively, use a browser extension to spoof your referer as Google.com.

Paywall? No thank you.

There are some especially idiotic comments on that article.

1) Its behind a paywall 2) Its a hack piece.