[zuminator]

Thanks for that link but I'm having trouble parsing Ben Thompson's argument.He says that he's in favor of net neutrality but against this specific regulation.

Why?

Because...I think...at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet? Also because regulation is bad because of..completely unrelated example of regulatory excess involving restaurants in SF?

I mean, is he saying he's against any regulation of anything, now? Or just against Title II? I'm sure he can't seriously mean the former. But as to the latter, I honestly missed the part where he substantiates why Title II specifically is excessive.

Seriously, I think I clearly missed a crucial step in his argument.

[jahabrewer]

You're right--I don't read a specific "here's the onerous parts of Title II" bit in that article. I think his argument is that:

1. The problems that supporters say net neutrality would fix are fictitious (the tweet), already handled (Comcast and bittorrent traffic), or not necessarily addressed by net neutrality (zero rating)

2. Title II classification entails much more regulation than net neutrality

3. Therefore applying Title II to ISPs will raise the barrier to entry for new entrants and not address the supposed harms

> at some point somebody fell for a fake tweet?

Not just "somebody"--the guy who coined the term "net neutrality" and advises the government.

[zuminator]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Even there I think he's presuming some bad outcomes and discounting good ones, but I do understand the reasoning. I appreciate your reply.