Interesting paper here from Jon Peha.  He's listing all the ways in which network discrimination can be helpful and harmful, and suggesting that both sides of the debate need to be addressed in any NN rules.  Very worth listening to.

Co-authored paper here from Bill Lehr, Marvin Sirbu, Jon Peha, and Sharon Gillett.  End users have tools too -- they shouldn't be viewed as passive in response to carrier discrimination.  But the arms race has costs that shouldn't be ignored.  And the issue remains complex and unresolved (good for those writing about NN).  Lehr asserts that the welfare implications of NN are ambiguous. 

I'm not so sure about that, because society needs diversity (requires it) in order to create greater wealth (monetary and otherwise).  Diversity above the network layer will be better for all of us. 

Thomas Nachbar is talking now about pre-New Deal public works cases.  Looking at lines of argument (eg, apartments in DC during WWI, political exigencies).  Necessity is a great justification (eg railroad).  But we often have things that we don't provide open access to - like food, and medicine, even though necessary.  If hold yourself out as providing a common resource, held to that (but that's mostly about civil rights).  How about market power?

Well, Nachbar points out that those who hold market power tend to be politically unpopular.  These cases are really rhetorical.  This isn't a traditional justification for open access regulation.  Wagons didn't have market power! 

Nachbar points out that all open access provisions have to do with networks.  There isn't an open access regime for bottled water.  Roads have always been subject to these requirements.  Always a special treatment of them.  How does recognizing this role help us be principled?

Nachbar gently suggests that we should look beyond market power as justification for open access.