I believe what you have stated is the commonly expressed fears of not having the regulatory requirements in place.
I can see an argument for both sides. Thing is, it wasn’t much of a problem before the reg was in place, and those that tried, like Apple’s eworld and AOL didn’t do very well at all. In fact those business models failed.
I think it is always a bit of a worry when regs are imposed where there currently isn’t a problem, and it is only a fear there might be in the future. Regs are not cost free (well, they are quite free to the government people imposing them), especially to those directly impacted, and who knows what new businesses and business models didn’t get up because of the existence of a reg? Compliance costs demonstrating consistency with regs are a real cost to business, in this case where 99 percent of businesses would not be interested in exclusive enclaves or privileged access. They want to maximise their customer base.
Nothing wrong with imposing a reg if the benefits are demonstrably exceeding the current cost of no regs, but there is at least a little bit wrong with imposing a reg when the actual problem is currently negligible.
I think overall a bit of a cart before the horse issue. But also something people can be passionate about. Government policy should not be driven by passions.
Anyway, lets run for a few years without the reg. If it appears to be developing into a common problem then reimpose the regs.