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