no. It means that the FCC can now levy fees and taxes on everyone who uses the Internet. This is a stealth tax on everyone, and a big one.
it means that under the provisions of "a public service" they have the power to regulate content, service, and override contracts.
"It means that the BS practices of limiting internet service to specific regions, and forcing outrageous prices for those outside of those regions IS OVER." never existed. What does exist is that areas that don't have enough people to support a service don't get served. That's the Free Market and customer base at work, not Restraint of Trade as alleged.
"The days of internet companies deciding what sites I can visit based on how much I pay, is OVER." never existed.
" It also means that the ISP's can't charge me more because I use "more Internet" just for using Netflix. Or charge me more because I want to multi-player game." it means that those who don't use heavy bandwidth will now be charged more to subsidize the heavy users and make everyone "equal" rather than charged for service.
There was never a "slow lane" as some people alleged. There were "fast lanes" that gave the option to people who wanted a higher level of service. That will now go away and everyone will have the same level of sub-par service. Kiss your fast lanes goodbye because the broader market won't support it.
"It keeps the ISP's from charging unfair rates to areas that are remote because there isn't enough people in a given area." that isn't unfair. It is market conditions. If there isn't a customer base to support extension of wired service then service doesn't go out there to remote areas. Instead, there are wireless options in some areas or satellite. Neither will compete with landlines (whether cable, wired, fiber, etc.) but that is a market condition tied to a customer base, not a Restraint of Trade or "unfair" service.
"My ISP ATT U-verse offers several packages. If I want more speed I have to pay more they press a button and I get it." you will lose that.
"My understanding is that if Comcast got their way they can charge providers say CombatACE monthly fee so CombatACE can provide content in a timely manner." no. Comcast and other service providers contract with large volume users, such as Netflix, because Netflix is such a large volume. (I read somewhere that Netflix is about 40% of the Internet). But nothing that has gone on or was going to go on would have required content provides, such as CombatACE, to have such a contract to carry their content. Contracts do provide assurance of service for large volumes. Internet Service Providers don't block content (other than porn). Under the new FCC rules that now will become an issue.
essentially, what many of you all thought you were going to prevent, will now become a very likely probability under that part of the FCC regs. You all were duped. Big time.
of course, the above is stated without having seen the actual rules since they still haven't been released and posted for review. So who really knows what is actually in these secret regs? I'll wager that there is very little of what some of you all thought were in them and whole lot of taxes, fees and heavy-handed regulation, including potential content regulation.
hopefully the time in court will enable a full vetting of what the regs actually are and sanity may yet prevail. But I doubt it. The Obamanet is now here and the free and open Internet will become a thing of the past.
If you liked your Internet, you don't get to keep your Internet.