I'm also reviewing Barton-Dingell for my work at Public Knowledge. Because of the definition of "Broadband Video Service Provider" as a person who delivers ".. a broadband video service ... directly to subscribers over facilities the service provider owns," Titles I and III would seem to apply pretty much only to cable companies and telecos. Thus, while the Act would equalize cable and telecos by qualifying both as broadband video service providers, it does nothing to fix the obsolete "silos" of current telecommunication regulation. It only makes the silos look more alike. The limitation of the early titles to the owners of the curb-to-house wiring makes the broad language of Title IV that you point out even more surprising. Suddenly the FCC is regulating all BITS providers, which seems to include every ISP in the country. As you said, a lot of work to be done here. Good luck. =)