I used to support net neutrality. Then I did my homework on the issue and realized so many of the arguments in favor of net neutrality rely on fear-mongering and a false history of the internet.
Internet from the beginning treated all traffic the same, this was because:
- lack of technology to do deep packet inspection at large scale
- competition, during dial-up times anyone with a phone could become an ISP, the phone did not discriminate due to regulation, then ISDN and DSL came and due to regulations telcos were required to lease their lines to anyone keeping the competition
During those times Internet was neutral and all sites were treated the same.
In last decade we switched to cable which has regional monopoly and doesn't have such regulation. They already were used to control what we could see and for how much. Earlier we had to deal with cable because we had no choice. High speed internet came and caused wave of "cord cutters" because people hated how the cable companies treated them. The cable companies do not like that movement, because with Internet they are losing control.
So why not make Internet like a cable? Provide basic access and allow paid access to premium sites. Perhaps consumers wouldn't have to pay, maybe the sites would? And if the users don't like it what they going to do, switch from Comcast to Comcast?
There is also another issue that no one talks about and is even more important. Current cable companies are also media companies and already have power over traditional media (did you wonder why they never talk about NN?).
This change essentially gives them freedom to perform censorship. They can alter/slow down/block sites they don't agree with. This gives them power to decide which sites users will see and which sites will survive and can and will be used for political gains. Imagine replacing ads and cutting income for the site, or replace ads with messages that contradict articles. It slowing down the site to be practically unusable.
I can't believe anyone would be ok with giving power to companies (ones that have monopoly and consumer don't even have choice to vote with their wallets) what sites we are allowed to see or not.
> I can't believe anyone would be ok with giving power to companies (ones that have monopoly and consumer don't even have choice to vote with their wallets) what sites we are allowed to see or not.
Likewise, I can't see why anyone would give more power to government (especially those who don't support the current government) to decide what is "fair" and "neutral".
In US Internet was classified as a telecommunication service, so it was following similar restrictions. Back in 2002 FCC reclassified it as information service, with lesser restrictions. Since then companies violated net neutrality multiple times[1], but each time they backed out after FCC got involved. Not until Verizon sued them and won in 2014. The court ruling essentially stated that FCC has no control over ISPs anymore until the Internet would be reclassified. Because of that FCC reclassified it under Title II.
So no, what happened in past ~20 years is just small taste what's will happen. The 2014 ruling got the cat out of the box. Now all ISPs know that if Title II classification is removed FCC no longer has any power over them. And worst of all since there's monopoly, we can't just vote with our wallet, without regulation we as customers are simply screwed.
> Likewise, I can't see why anyone would give more power to government (especially those who don't support the current government) to decide what is "fair" and "neutral".
The decision what's fair and neutral is very simple to make. ISPs are just there to provide Internet access and can't control what we can access and what not similarly as an electric company provides electricity, but can't tell me what brand of a dishwasher I can use.
Regulations are there to protected a consumer, would you also be ok if FDA would allowed companies to add poison to our food if that would help them save money, because they will (especially when they are public companies when number #1 goal is to make profit) if they were able to. Before you answer that, know that requirement of labeling what's in the food is also imposed by the FDA.
I know that you're thinking that FCC planned is not an issue, because free market will solve this. The problem is that there's no free market right now. Vast majority of people have at most 1 viable ISP, if you have 2 you're really lucky.
It's extremely hard to enter the market right now, the best example is Google Fiber, a company which almost has unlimited resources (they can afford to work on projects like self driving cars, or photograph streets all over the world so they can improve one of their products (not even a core product) that they offer) is giving up. If they can't who else do you think could enter that market?
When cities want to provide a municipal network they get sued by these ISPs.
The FCC plan to repeal also wants to prevent states on implementing own rules in that area.
How can you be ok with this? It's not just other people who are affected by it, you will be too.
Also, and it is sad that this is not mentioned, it's not just net neutrality that is at stake here. Once that change is made, there won't be anything preventing incumbent ISPs from filtering content that they don't like. A small example is Telius from Canada blocking site that was supporting labor strike against them. Imagine that this could also be used for political control.
[1] https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...