I keep getting this question and I wasn't around to answer it this week on @Marketplace. So here's a thread. 1/
The argument for getting rid of Net Neutrality is the same as giving tax breaks to companies. Business will flourish, consumers will get better services, employees will get higher wages, and ISPs will invest like crazy w/o regulation red tape to slow them down.
Then, the thinking goes, self-reporting and transparency and market competition will prevent ISPs from cheating or unfairly blocking traffic or throttling the competition because consumers don't *want* that, as they have clearly stated many times.
So whether you buy the argument for scrapping the rules depends on whether you believe that companies are fundamentally trustworthy and/or governed effectively by competition.
And another argument is that we need some damn legislation, already. The FCC is fundamentally a partisan body, with a 3-2 majority based on the presidency.So you've got three party warriors making the call until the next presidential turnover.
Congress needs to come up with an enforceable framework for how the Internet is supposed to work. Granted, a Republican framework might look a lot like @AjitPaiFCC's. But it might stop the ping-pong.
But did the rules need throwing out? It’s worth noting here that there’s not a ton of evidence that big incumbents reduced investment in their networks at all since Title II went into effect — if it did, they weren’t telling their own investors about it. arstechnica.com/information-te…
There was also concern that the additional compliance and reporting requirements from the Title II would particularly hurt small ISPs, who’d have to pay more to deploy access and prove they were following the rules. thehill.com/blogs/congress…
However, since implementation, the impact on small ISPs has been mixed, at worst, and at least 30 of them signed a letter to @AjitPaiFCC saying the rules haven’t impacted them, and to keep them in place. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
But here’s the thing that IS true. Classifying the Internet as a utility under Title II WAS a kludgy solution that did assign an old framework to a new product.
Nobody REALLY wanted it, but the FCC had no power without it, and Congress never came up with anything better. lawforhumans.com/the-nuclear-op…
Also, I've been covering this since 2005 and there are only a small handful of examples of ISPs engaging in non-neutral activity. Comcast’s was worst—throttling Bittorrent traffic to stop illegal downloading (and dragnetting legal files in the process). consumerist.com/2009/12/25/com…
Then there were some interconnection spats during which Verizon throttled Netflix and (extremetech.com/computing/1865…) and one memorable instance in which Netflix throttled its own mobile customers right back (cnet.com/news/netflix-a…).
But there hasn’t actually been large-scale, regular cheating by ISPs, like we kind of all thought there would be as Internet providers moved more and more into content. HOWEVER … there’s been a lot more consolidation of Internet providers and content providers since then.
That makes the potential a lot more likely seeming—see how AT&T has zero-rated its own DirecTV services on mobile. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
At the end of the day, the best guarantee of Net neutrality is a healthy marketplace with lots of competition so that providers who are tempted to offer less than an open Internet get run out of town on a rail.
The competitive landscape *has* improved, but not enough, and not everywhere.
And Chairman Pai’s proposal throws out almost every possible piece of consumer protection along with the Title II bathwater. Personally, I think consumer protection *should* be built into how the Internet is governed and the FCC could enforce at least some.
But his point of view isn't all that different from any other Republicans in charge of our government rn. In corporation, we trust. Does that mean the end of the Internet? It doesn’t have to, as long as customers and at least some corporations think it ought to remain open.
Also, let’s be honest. This is *far* from settled. Expect 10 to 100 lawsuits before we even get to the FCC’s Dec. 14 vote, and lots more to come. And in the meantime, the Internet, much like The Dude, will abide.
The end.
