| I have a few issues with his reasoning. > "The most famous example of an ISP acting badly was a company called Madison River Communication ... Vonage quickly complained to the FCC, which quickly obtained a consent decree that included a nominal fine and guarantee from Madison River Communications that they would not block such services again." Basically his defense of the old regulatory framework in this instance is that the FCC took action. I don't have much confidence that Ajit Pai would have the FCC take action if he were faced with this same scenario. > "Another popularly cited case is Comcast’s attempted throttling of BitTorrent in 2007 ... The FCC ordered Comcast to stop in 2008" Once again his defense of the old framework is that the FCC will take action should this scenario recur. Chairman Pai doesn't exactly engender confidence in his willingness to take on ISPs. > "if the furor over net neutrality has demonstrated anything, it is that the media is ready-and-willing to raise a ruckus if ISPs even attempt to do something untoward" So the author acknowledges that what the ISPs are trying to do with net neutrality is "untoward"? Not sure why he's written this article then... But even so, what good has that furor caused? It has become clear that the ISPs are going to succeed regardless of the ruckus. So this doesn't really support the idea that the media can successfully regulate ISPs. > "it is an acknowledgment that ISPs can and will self-regulate." The author may be right that they can and HAVE self-regulated in the past. That does not mean they WILL self regulate in the future. > "ISPs bear massive fixed costs, which means they are motivated to maximize the number of end users." Not exactly. They are motivated to maximize profits. Maximizing the number of end users is certainly part of the equation, but monopolies tend to engage in other profit maximizing practices such as price discrimination (which is mentioned shortly after this in the article). However the author seems to assume that ISPs will only engage in price discrimination with regards to companies, and not consumers ("they could price discriminate and charge the Netflix competitor nothing at all!"). I find that unlikely. It is not unreasonable to think that blocking user access to some sites unless the user purchases a certain "package" will be used in service of price discrimination. > "Ajit Pai is right to RETURN REGULATION [emphasis added] to the same light touch under which the Internet developed and broadband grew for two decades." In my opinion this is a false equivalency. Though it may nominally be the same regulatory framework, there are differences between the regulatory environment then and now; primarily the FCC's and Chairman Pai's willingness to take on ISPs and support the principles of Net Neutrality. |