"Mr. Genachowski has provided no evidence that the current regulatory approach is failing." Like the fact that ISPs are throttling the traffic of their custome

"Mr. Genachowski has provided no evidence that the current regulatory approach is failing." Like the fact that ISPs are throttling the traffic of their customers, inspecting packets and giving preferential treatment to some in the name of "reasonable network management"? Like the fact that virtually everyone who has access to broadband at all has at most two provider choices, despite investment of "$576 billion in communications equipment and structures"? Like the fact that we lag behind other industrial nations in both speed and access to broadband, despite the "explosion of investment and Web innovation" this article attributes to light regulation? Regulation isn't perfect. As others have pointed out, it tends to benefit the big guys, and raise barriers to entry for competition. But given that we have big guys, that's going to happen anyway: oligopolies are very good at pushing out or buying up competition, entrenching the need for their services, and bullying consumers. They do so all the more aggressively if no one is watching them. If we accept that Internet access should be provided by the Verizons, Comcasts, and AT&T's of the world, then we should accept that they should be regulated, as effectively as possible and as heavily as necessary so that this compromise doesn't give the public the short end of the stick. Whether we should accept these companies as Internet gatekeepers at all is another matter.