Professor Crawford does not understand that the existing, well-functioning, Internet peering system has never suffered from common carrier regulation.
The fact that U.S. senators and representatives imagine that a billing dispute among companies could be considered a net neutrality violation illustrates how arbitrary and capricious net neutrality politics and the FCC’s Open Internet order have become.
If we are to truly achieve a national goal of greater broadband adoption including more ubiquitous broadband in schools, then states, localities and the FCC, even if pushed by the President, cannot be allowed to continue the shameless pile up of discriminatory taxes on wireless communications.
Much of the federal government’s communications core management and operations hasn’t changed since the General Services Administration created the Federal Telecommunications Service in 1960.
Since the EU is already pushing net neutrality regulation of broadband and set on banning mobile roaming charges in the EU, it would not be surprising for the EU to propose that the U.S. also adopt net neutrality and broadband pricing restrictions in order to “harmonize” the EU-U.S. communications market as part of the upcoming U.S.-EU Free Trade Agreement.
The FCC and DOJ do not want to look ridiculous applying a spectrum cap to Verizon and AT&T and not Sprint when the FCC’s own Wireless Competition report shows that Sprint controls roughly twice as many MHz per population as either Verizon or AT&T.
The CTIA just released its semi-annual statistics on the wireless industry’s performance, and its bad news for all those supposed data-driven, pro-regulation proponents who are in search of evidence or data to justify regulating wireless or wireless spectrum holdings.