FCC explains how net neutrality will be protected without net neutrality rules

There is so much red tape that's added simply by being classified under Title II.

I'm not saying those aren't valuable (I think we should have them), and I agree that premature regulation can choke future growth, but I think we would need some fundamental regulation to actually prevent the worst fears. Maybe exclusivity limits on ISPs that lay the groundwork so they can recoup costs, and even collect some rent, but still allow others to compete on that groundwork.

I'm sure this had all been debated ad nauseum, and there will always be some reason why any decent idea will be argued against. But I think if we can try to find some way align ISPs and customers incentives, it'd be far better than the current situation.

Nope. The internet (or rather, providing internet access) is not now, and has never been, a free market. Ever.

Monopolist ISPs have been tacitly constrained by the FCC for at least 20 years. They don't do crazy anti-consumer stuff, and the FCC leaves them alone. Verizon comes along in 2014 after many years of this compromise, and says screw this: we're gonna do what we want, and we'll get the courts on our side and say the FCC doesn't have the authority to regulate us in this way under Title I. And, well... it worked. The courts agreed. Verizon, however, thought it would be politically untenable to classify ISPs under Title II. But the FCC didn't flinch and did it anyway. So we have strong net neutrality regulation as of 2015 because Verizon pushed too hard and forced the FCC to do something. But in reality, we had a "gentleman's agreement" of net neutrality much, much longer than that.

Radio spectrum is a scarce resource. The allowance to dig up roadsides is not (and should not be!) granted to everyone. I can't just start up an ISP company tomorrow and meaningfully compete with Comcast or Verizon. And that's not entirely bad. We can't let any random person broadcast on random radio frequencies and interfere with everyone else. We can't let any random person come up and dig up the ground and lay cables and fiber whenever they feel like it. That would be incredibly disruptive and wouldn't be in the public interest.

So we have very little competition in last-mile internet service. And that can be ok, if we regulate it properly.

But are we? Do we have a perfect system to compensate for that? Hell no. Far from it. It's actually pretty terrible. But things like net neutrality are the only things keeping last-mile internet from turning into a minefield of anti-consumer, anti-competitive behavior.

If there's another system that can give us more competition in the ISP space, then by all means, let's pursue it. But anything like that will take years to come into being, and until that happens, we need the current regulation in place.

> While I agree 'something' should be done to preserve the competitive nature

Two things:

1) What should be done, then? If you have no actual concrete ideas, then what are you actually arguing? Let's just throw everything in the toilet and hope it sorts itself out?

2) There is no competitive nature. There never has been, and unless we do something incredibly novel, there won't be. We tried the idea of requiring the incumbents to allow RAND access to their infra, but it didn't work. What else?

Seriously, if you have actual, concrete ideas, please make them known. If you don't... why are you arguing against something that has proven to work, however imperfectly, and replacing with... nothing?

There is a burden, yes, because you've got to ensure that traffic to external networks is not unduly impeded. That means that as you expand your infrastructure, you've got to expand your interconnections to other ISPs. Additionally, if your competition expands, you may need to expand just to keep up. It's could make investment in infrastructure more expensive since you can't just grow; you've also got to upgrade. It the big players will feel like they need to create infrastructure that will be used by the little players, and the little players may feel like .

Of course, the above has to happen anyways because faster networks is one of the best ways to reduce costs and attract more customers. So the real issue is that if you don't do it, you'll get FCC regulators knocking on your door.

Here's what the FCC said Net Neutrality is in the FCC Open Internet Order (2010):

1. Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;

2. No Blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic, prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;

3. Level Playing Field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;

4. Network Management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules don't forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;

5. Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;

6. Vigilance: The order creates an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.

Interestingly, one of the chief arguments against Net Neutrality has been that it could allow regulatory capture. That's rather hilarious, given what's happened with this FCC chairman.