[kictanet] Fwd: [Internet Policy] eisenbach on net neutrality -- testimony.

[Barrack Otieno]

Ali, Listers,


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:14:15 -0800
Subject: [Internet Policy] eisenbach on net neutrality -- testimony.
To: "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" <forum at justnetcoalition.org>,
internetpolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>

Net neutrality by the assumed to be head of the US FCC…



M



Sent: November 11, 2016 8:47 PM
Subject:  eisenbach on net neutrality -- testimony.



http://www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2014/EisenachOpenInternetTestimony_0914.pdf

My testimony today advances three main points. First, net neutrality
regulation cannot be justified
on grounds of enhancing consumer welfare or protecting the public
interest. Rather, it is best
understood as an effort by one set of private interests to enrich
itself by using the power of the
state to obtain free services from another – a classic example of what
economists term “rent
seeking.” Second, the potential costs of net neutrality regulation are
both sweeping and severe,
and extend far beyond a simple transfer of wealth from one group to
another. Third, legitimate
policy concerns about the potential use of market power to
disadvantage rivals or harm consumers
can best be addressed through existing antitrust and consumer
protection laws and regulations.
To begin, net neutrality regulation cannot be justified as a means of
enhancing consumer welfare
or advancing or protecting the public interest, and instead is best
understood as a classic example
of rent seeking.1 This is particularly true of the more extreme
flavors of net neutrality regulation
advanced by companies like Netflix, which would ban payments from
companies like Netflix to
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like AT&T.2




-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254733206359
Skype: barrack.otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A