>Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data.

Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch). Title II seemed to work pretty well until then.

>Look at mobile data (exempt from title II) versus "broadband"/cable speeds.

The difference in infrastructure costs makes those two incomparable.

Look, you just suffer under a reality distortion field.

> Only voice and SMS mattered until 2007(iPhone launch).

So the areas in which regulated are the ones which stagnated and became dramatically less relevant?

It seems to me like you're suffering the distortion field.

Are you trolling? Data is to voice as electricity is to fire; one is inherently more versatile and can handle all applications the other can. You're basically asking the equivalent of "why has all the innovation happened in electricity and not in fire? Must be the gubmint's fault"

What did you expect? That a robot would read out websites to us?

> Wheeler actually points to the success of title II on "mobile" while ignoring the fact that it only applied to voice. Meanwhile, all the relevant growth and innovation occurred in data.

Innovation like single-gig data caps? Or do you mean innovation like "unlimited data, except no streaming and no hotspots"?

Compared to the voice situation on mobile, or to landline Internet, mobile Internet is garbage. I don't understand what you mean. Heck, IME, 50mbps landline Internet is easier to get than 4G Internet is outside of cities. And the price isn't much better either. I pay $50/mo for 50mbps down for cable Internet, I pay $40/mo for my 2GB capped Verizon Internet which is 4G (sometimes).

Wireless carriers compete directly with one another on price and performance regardless of geo. There's no local monopoly. Huge difference.