here is a snippet of the case he makes for why net neutrality is bad and his argument for why it is presently having a negative impact on the economy as a whole.
From Ajit: and reference 2 above.
"
Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that
Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more
heavily you regulate somethin
g, the less of it you’re likely to get.
Now, when you talk about less infrastructure investment, many people’s eyes glaze over. But it’s
important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. Reduced investment means fewer
Americans will have h
igh-speed Internet access. It means fewer American will have jobs. And it means
less competition for consumers.
So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment
declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Inter
net service providers, domestic broadband capital
expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the
Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."
if providers can redefine internet service from 'dumb pipe' to 'pay as you go services' and extract more money, then sure, they may invest more as they see a greater return.
it seems less clear that allowing such a redefinition is in the public interest. dont we already have a parallel infrastructure that works on that model? one thats declining because its so much less useful?
here is a snippet of the case he makes for why net neutrality is bad and his argument for why it is presently having a negative impact on the economy as a whole.
From Ajit: and reference 2 above.
"
Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. Most importantly, I said that Title II regulation would reduce investment in broadband infrastructure. It’s basic economics: The more heavily you regulate somethin g, the less of it you’re likely to get. Now, when you talk about less infrastructure investment, many people’s eyes glaze over. But it’s important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. Reduced investment means fewer Americans will have h igh-speed Internet access. It means fewer American will have jobs. And it means less competition for consumers. So what happened after the Commission adopted Title II? Sure enough, infrastructure investment declined. Among our nation’s 12 largest Inter net service providers, domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6% percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, the first two years of the Title II era. This decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era."