Eisnach makes the better argument. He just makes an overall better argument in my eyes, using better figurative language and emotions. He also uses better key arguments such as the fact that the F.C.C would be "upending two decades of bipartisan precedent by declaring the Internet to be a “public utility.”" which can be a problem. The internet should not be a "natural monopoly" such as the electricity and water. He uses logic when he compares the slow growth of the government controlled regulated industries versus the "Wire line and wireless carriers [who] compete – and innovate – at a furious pace." Logically the loss of freedom for these carriers will just lead to the downfall of a faster internet. Moreover he uses facts like "Utilities, on the other hand, operate where it makes sense to have just one provider," logically toying with the emotions of his readers who cannot deny the truth. He also attacks the F.C.C itself who he claims has "put to the lie by the [the politics of the internet and who]... has allowed its net neutrality rule making" into a circle of influential power. Attacking the people who want to make the change themselves questions the future of the internet. Just to make his argument even more credible he demands his readers to "search the phrase "America's Aging Infrastructure". which he believes to prove further his argument. He also uses examples such as the state of the aging infrastructure run by the state of Washington and drawing a parallel between the 50 year old gas mains in Washington to the future state of the broadband service monopolized by the government.
In my opinion the internet should not be run by the F.C.C. If the claims by the author that a government regulated internet would slow down service and decrease advancement then there is no pros to the situation. Our country needs advancement in technology to stay a part of the world that depends so much on such things. Just like Eisnach said, as seen by other infrastructures in America, there is no benefit to a regulated internet. If anything it would just hurt America's growth and advancement in the world. Although Eisnach believes there should be no regulation, I agree partly with the views of Bodkin who believes the internet should be somewhat regulated as long as there is a watchful eyes on the F.C.C to make sure frauds are not evident. In my own experience the internet is very expensive. Or, at least fast internet is, and if internet isn't fast then it's basically useless. Many people cannot afford the hefty prices of the internet, and the affluent often monopolize that market. There should be a loose regulation on providers as to eliminate an inflation in prices.