I've read these arguments over and over, including your [1-3]. First, Pai clearly decided whose side he was on, then came up with these arguments. (And yes there are sides: the abolition of NN will transfer wealth to ISPs from everyone else in a zero-sum process.)
Second, lots of what he says are clear lies or contradictions. "I don't have predetermined views on where this will go" ... he announced many times exactly where he wants it to go! "I just want a competitive marketplace" ... he is trying to remove limitations on size of marketshare!
Third, we've seen his "arguments" over and over and they don't hold up. His main argument completely lies in revisionist history. The idea that somehow there was a "bipartisan light-touch" approach that was carefully applied and managed to grow the Internet, therefore imposing NN will destroy growth. The truth is very simple, that NN has almost nothing to do with infrastructure investment, it will just allow them to exploit their position as middlemen, and the truth is that large ISPs don't invest in infrastructure because they are unregulated near-monopolies and abolishing NN won't change that.
The "wait-and-see approach" is a classic vague generality that applies very poorly to this situation. There's a specific thing that the vast majority of consumers don't want these companies to do (discriminate traffic), and they have past histories of trying it only to widespread outrage, so we got a very simple, general regulation in place to stop them from doing it.
If anything, the wait-and-see approach he claims to support would be the one that leads to "an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws". He says he wants to play whack-a-mole with laws, when we already have one extremely simple law that will age just fine: when a consumer pays for traffic, they get that traffic treated equally regardless of content or source.
Apologies if I seem angry at you but it really galls me when people are taken in by this.
Second, lots of what he says are clear lies or contradictions. "I don't have predetermined views on where this will go" ... he announced many times exactly where he wants it to go! "I just want a competitive marketplace" ... he is trying to remove limitations on size of marketshare!
Third, we've seen his "arguments" over and over and they don't hold up. His main argument completely lies in revisionist history. The idea that somehow there was a "bipartisan light-touch" approach that was carefully applied and managed to grow the Internet, therefore imposing NN will destroy growth. The truth is very simple, that NN has almost nothing to do with infrastructure investment, it will just allow them to exploit their position as middlemen, and the truth is that large ISPs don't invest in infrastructure because they are unregulated near-monopolies and abolishing NN won't change that.
The "wait-and-see approach" is a classic vague generality that applies very poorly to this situation. There's a specific thing that the vast majority of consumers don't want these companies to do (discriminate traffic), and they have past histories of trying it only to widespread outrage, so we got a very simple, general regulation in place to stop them from doing it.
If anything, the wait-and-see approach he claims to support would be the one that leads to "an encyclopedia of rapidly dated laws". He says he wants to play whack-a-mole with laws, when we already have one extremely simple law that will age just fine: when a consumer pays for traffic, they get that traffic treated equally regardless of content or source.
Apologies if I seem angry at you but it really galls me when people are taken in by this.