I haven't fully studied the issues but based on the little I do know, I'm gonna have to go with Ma Bell on this one. Neither side really presents a clear case in the article because the issues involved are complex.
Addressing the anitrust issues involved. The key phrase for me was, "if broadband providers discriminate by price, those who can't afford the more expensive service could lose vital access to tools that so far has been available to everyone." Price discrimination does not cause anyone to lose access. It simply forces users to pay a price equivalent to their demand for service. The price I pay for my little piece of bandwith connecting my blog to it's few readers would be very low. Google on the other hand with it's tremendous demand for bandwidth would pay a much higher price. The result would be a transfer of revenues fom Google to AT&T. Why should we as consumers be concerned about that?
It reminds me of an anti-trust case against IBM settled in the mid 60s. Most of you probably have never seen a punch card, but if you wanted to enter data into a computer, that's what you had to use back in the good ole' days. IBM would practically give companies the computer equipment (which filled large rooms) but they were required to buy blank punch cards from IBM. The greater your demand for computing services, the more you paid IBM. It was ruled a violation of the Sherman Act and IBM had to discontinue the practice, but from the perspective of economic efficiency the practice was fair and provided lower demand computer users with services they may not otherwise be able to afford. The case is used as an example of what's wrong with antitrust law in the USA.
Robert Bork would very likely agree with me on this, G-man.
