It's an interesting issue that is more nuanced than the talking points on either side. Not that it matters much, but I've decided I'm against it by the narrowest of philosophical margins in the sense that I would rather have my ability to use the internet impaired by a private monopoly as opposed to a government one.

Last-mile issues are a very small part of the debate, but the one I am most interested in. I want to see fiber to my curb, but it isn't going to happen because the large cable companies function in a manipulated market instead of a free one, and Google and it's ilk aren't prepared to launch a local lobbying war over my small rural community. So my internet bandwidth is controlled by a defacto single carrier without much vested interest in swapping in fiber when they already have RG9 and other Coax strung through my entire neighborhood. I like my cable television just fine and wish the many Comcast employees on here long and continued employment, but I'd rather have fiber for my internet consumption. I don't want the government manipulating private industry, but that does not preclude me from desiring private industry to quit using contract negotiation and local legislation to stop other players from entering the fiber market. I simply think private industry is the slightly lesser of two evils.

I'm also a little irate that I can't get an email response back from Cory Gardner on the M855/SS109 issue, but I am being spammed to death by a half dozen Senators with emails written by the cable lobby about how my world is going to end. Meanwhile, my set-top Comcast box went nuts and arbitrarily started ordering movies for me. Comcast and Verizon are willing to spend on Title II, and that has gotten our legislature's attention in a way that the M855/SS109 reg changes have not.