This op-ed left my confused. I know Ms. Crawford doesn’t like the cable companies; I don’t care for them either. But Cable One’s website says it charges $55/mo for 100Mbps. That doesn’t seem unreasonable compared to other ISPs. I wish I could pay $55 for 100Mbps in my neighborhood where I’m stuck with Comcast.
Second, it seems strange she’s telling us that the term “net neutrality” is a fancy politicians’ word used to obscure the harmful things they’re trying to do. Net Neutrality was a term coined by Tim Wu, a passionate defender of Title II regulation for the large cable companies, which is what Ms. Crawford desires. If net neutrality is meaningless jargon meant to obscure what is truly taking place, the ultimate blame lies with proponents of Title II regulation — they created and popularized the term.
Third, it would be nice to see the evidence Mr. Moffat relies on to show that the large cable companies are upset with Cable One’s price increases. There’s no link or quote or anything.
Fourth, when the FCC imposed Title II regulation on ISP’s the Chairman swore up and down that he wasn’t interested in price regulation. Yet, it appears that that is what Ms. Crawford is looking for here, as she’s so focused on the prices cable companies charge. Or is she looking for another solution? If so, what is it? Competition? What’s holding competition back? The lack of Title II regulation of ISPs? If so, how would that help things? I wish she’d gone into more detail here. There’s a lot of antipathy for cable companies here (believe me, I understand why), but the op-ed is short on solutions and explanations of how Title II regulation would be used to fix things.