Barely even noticed the doc, though .pdfs and this computer are annoying enough to work with I also dun wanna' read it, heh, particularly with a headache trying to form. Still, the quoted bit is actually the opposite; it's pretty clearly trying to claim that stifling smaller companies is hurting the ground level consumer.
... that said, from that second quoted bit, I can't help but find your second one to be
incredibly telling. The measure of a title II failure is capital expenditures among the big 12. Not quality of networks or access, not actual effectiveness of investment, not ground level customer costs or infrastructure saturation.
And nevermind that first bit, now it's bothered me to actually read the statement and jesus hell
fuck that guy. I mean, that was my previous assessment as well, but this just hammers that shit in. His measure is capital expenditure shit for the big businesses (and note, apparently even that was part bullshit; casual checking shows the amount quoted was drops from only eight of the 12, with the other third not seeing the effect, and it looks pretty likely at least a good chunk of it is easily attributable to things that
aren't title 2) and "letters" from 150 mostly unnamed small businesses, and specifically from their CEOs and chairmen and whatnot for what names
are mentioned, with not a single goddamn thing said about anything else or any other figures, save one mention of potentially counting investment amounts incorrectly as a blanket dismissal of findings contrary to the bullshit he's spewing. From that he's pulling junk out of his ass about that being something like a bloody end of the market for ground level consumers, and crap along those lines.
I still haven't gotten around to looking into who owns Ajit Pai's ass, but that is a man who is bought and paid for by
something, and it damn sure ain't something whose interests are aligned with the general public... and quite possibly not aligned with a lot of the 'net related business, either.
---
... all that said, a little checking into singer shows that independent that guy
ain't. He has significant business connections with
all sorts of high level members of the industry, and apparently (and unsurprisingly, given some of the clients he works with) is someone commonly called up to support an anti-neutrality position, among other things. Little blurb you had actually says that a fair bit, now that I read it closer. That's not an independent source, it's one of the upper ends of the industry's pocketed experts.