"virtually no competition"? Title II was designed for phone-line utilities in the 1930s, where there really was a total monopoly: you either got service from y

"virtually no competition"? Title II was designed for phone-line utilities in the 1930s, where there really was a total monopoly: you either got service from your single phone company, or not at all. For broadband, most Americans had not one but zero options 20 years ago. Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. Some have extra fiber, cable, or DSL options. Some have other wireless options in the unlicensed spectrum. (Most people have more broadband options than smart-phone OS options; should the iOS/Android be federally-regulated as a software utility?) There are certainly places where the options are too few and too expensive. But that's a local issue, often created by correctable local government errors. To say there's "virtually no competition… for most" is a false claim lacking perspective. Based on that false impression, Title II puts every ISP, even where there is competition, under federal-review rules designed for the single-provider telephone monopoly of the mid-20th century. Utility-style regulation tends to lock-in incumbents: it doesn't expand competition or options, but rather gives up on competition, and just tells the presumed-permanent "monopolist" what to do.