Net neutrality supporters want to overturn a “two-decade...

trillion dollars on infrastructure, but make those investments only when they believe they can get a return, Sununu said. Under Title II regulation -- which the net neutrality NPRM asks about (CD May 16 p1) -- government would have the right to regulate rates, investment and return on investment, Sununu said. “There’s no question that the private sector would be both more reluctant to invest in that kind of a regulatory environment, and approval for investments would take longer.” The push for net neutrality rules might be more understandable if there were a specific market failure the FCC is trying to address -- but there isn’t one, Sununu said: The Internet has outpaced just about every other industry in the country, with speeds increasing 25 percent in the past year, and its level of innovation has never been stronger. “We've got a market that’s working today.” Harold Ford Jr., co-chair of Broadband for America and former Democratic representative from Tennessee, criticized the idea of slow lanes and fast lanes; there are “fast lanes” and “soon to be ultra-fast lanes” for those that need it, Ford said. Some activities require faster speeds, Ford said, citing access to emergency services and “amazing advances in telemedicine” such as “remote surgery.” As for Title II, a light regulatory approach is “proven” to produce innovation, he said, especially compared with Europe’s utility-style regulation of the Internet that has resulted in slower innovation. Broadband for America attorney Bryan Tramont, managing partner of Wilkinson Barker, said that no one knows what Title II would look like as applied to the Internet. “There is a cascade of regulations that would apply,” he said. “How would forbearance work?” Could a future commission come in and “unforbear"? All that uncertainty would have a tremendous impact on business, Tramont said.