There were no surprises from the FCC on Thursday on the Title II front as the Commission voted as expected along party lines (2-1) to advance the effort to end utility-style regulation of internet service providers, and ovations and scoffs came from many of the places you’d expect. Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly voted for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) looking to return classification of broadband service to that of a Title I information service. It also calls for the elimination of the “internet conduct standard” included in the 2015 Title II order, and seeks comment on the existing rules governing ISPs’ practices.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn dissented strongly and suggested the move would weaken the Commission’s ability to advocate for competition in the internet space. “If ratified it would deeply damage the ability of the FCC to be a champion of consumers in competition in the 21st century,” she says. “It contains a hollow theory of trickle down internet economics, suggesting that if we just remove enough regulations from your broadband provider, they will automatically improve your service, pass along discounts from those speculative savings, deploy more infrastructure with haste, and treat every provider fairly.”

Many of the reactions to the vote on both sides of the argument will ring familiar to anyone who has been following this topic since most were basically reiterations of stances already expressed in the past.

“Notwithstanding the multiple mischaracterizations of the FCC intentions, this is not a proceeding designed to eliminate enforceable open internet protections. The purpose is to find a path to protect the openness of the internet without reliance on the dangerous and inappropriate Title II as the source of authority for such rules,” David L. Cohen, senior executive VP and chief diversity officer at Comcast, says in a blog.

While applauding the FCC vote for “remaining focused on creating a light touch regulatory environment that is pro-consumer, pro-investment, and pro-innovation, especially with the present partisan political rhetoric and debate,” Cohen also stresses that Comcast “supports strong, legally enforceable net neutrality protections that ensure a free and open internet for all of our customers. We do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content.”

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association put out a statement saying that public utility regulation is not synonymous with net neutrality. “The cable industry has supported and delivered an open internet for decades. That open experience – which allows consumers to go anywhere and run any application on the internet – will not change,” NCTA says. “We look forward to participating in this proceeding and to forging a reasoned approach that will promote continued investment and innovation, and protect the open internet without the heavy yoke of public utility regulation.”

But of course, there are plenty who are not in agreement with that idea. For example, open internet advocacy group Public Knowledge says the FCC proposal ignores what it sees as the realities of the market for broadband services dominated by a few large companies.

“Contrary to Chairman Pai’s vague promises, this proposal will not magically produce a competitive broadband marketplace. It does nothing to address the economic and structural barriers to greater competition and deployment. Instead, it would give broadband providers far more unconstrained power to manipulate internet traffic and customer behavior for profit,” Ryan Clough, general counsel at Public Knowledge, comments in a statement. “This proposal paves the way to an internet dominated by vertical integration and opaque dealmaking between giant firms.”