More un-economics nonsense from FreePress: Regulation does not discourage private investment

Does anyone else see the irony of a staunchly anti-business and anti-property activist organization like FreePress -- which openly advocates for an information commons and a broadband public utility model -- attempting to be credible doing private investment analysis for the FCC? 

• Mr. Derek Turner of Free Press wrote  "Finding the Bottom Line: The truth about network neutrality & investment." 
• The last time FreePress attempted economics in a public forum, FreePress asked in a letter to Congress "whether above-cost... pricing for broadband constitutes an unfair business practice." 
  • Given that FreePress was not aware that "above cost... pricing" is called profit and has always been legal in America, despite FreePress' views to the contrary, call me skeptical about FreePress' competence and genuineness in attempting private investment analysis.

If FreePress does not believe in free enterprise or private property, and does not understand concepts like profit, I am doubtful they can accurately or objectively analyze the economics or the business case for private long-term capital investments. 

Mr. Turner tries desperately and unsuccessfully to assemble "evidence" to prove the ridiculous assertion that regulation does not deter private investment.

• Obviously Mr. Turner has no real world understanding or experience in private investing.
• The premise that regulation -- that bans existing legal and profitable business activity, and ultimately takes away a property owner's control over what prices, terms and conditions a product or service can be offered -- will not discourage investment is preposterous. 
• Investors are not charities or government, they seek a return on their investment.
  • If their investment cannot earn a profit or a earn a profit commensurate with the increased risk, investment is obviously discouraged. 

Apparently this FreePress report may only be the first of many dsytopian and incompetent economic arguments that attempt with sophistry to convince people that up is really down, and night is really day. 

• The notion that government regulation does not discourage private investment? 
• Ridiculous on its face.