<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reclassification Redux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-policy/reclassification-redux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-policy/reclassification-redux/</link>
	<description>AT&#38;T Public Policy Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:20:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://attpublicpolicy.com/broadband-policy/reclassification-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://attpublicpolicy.com/?p=561#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Hank, as you know, I&#039;m a wireless ISP. I&#039;ve been bloodying my knuckles for nearly two decades building out a facilities-based, competitive network with the understanding that my infrastructure, like that of a cable provider, would not be subjected to regulation. (Ironically, I do offer wholesale transport and rebranding, though no other ISP has taken me up on the offer so far.) 
&lt;br /&gt;
In any event, the article above proposes that the Federal government say, &quot;Gotcha! Guess what:  we&#039;re gonna regulate that infrastructure you built after all.&quot; How is that fair? How could a small business like mine be expected to file tariffs, etc. and cope with the volumes of regulations which Bob Quinn recently pointed out to the Washington Post -- and which (as you know) takes buildings full of lawyers to deal with? You are correct that &quot;network neutrality&quot; regulations are not necessary in the presence of competition. Why would regulation of infrastructure be necessary except in the cases where there is market power?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hank, as you know, I&#8217;m a wireless ISP. I&#8217;ve been bloodying my knuckles for nearly two decades building out a facilities-based, competitive network with the understanding that my infrastructure, like that of a cable provider, would not be subjected to regulation. (Ironically, I do offer wholesale transport and rebranding, though no other ISP has taken me up on the offer so far.)<br />
<br />
In any event, the article above proposes that the Federal government say, &#8220;Gotcha! Guess what:  we&#8217;re gonna regulate that infrastructure you built after all.&#8221; How is that fair? How could a small business like mine be expected to file tariffs, etc. and cope with the volumes of regulations which Bob Quinn recently pointed out to the Washington Post &#8212; and which (as you know) takes buildings full of lawyers to deal with? You are correct that &#8220;network neutrality&#8221; regulations are not necessary in the presence of competition. Why would regulation of infrastructure be necessary except in the cases where there is market power?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

