I like this analysis. The thing that worries me though, is that it's not necessarily predictive of future behavior.srothstein wrote:The problem with the debate, as with many issues, is the framing of it. The rule the FCC passed under Obama was promoted as being net neutrality but it really wasn't. The rule that is being repealed really was a decision to treat the Internet like a utility, giving the government the authority to regulate it heavily. The repeal of the rule does not say any more about net neutrality than the passing of it did.
Net neutrality is a concept that may or may not have merit and may or may not be feasible. There are two aspects to net neutrality: freedom of speech and access to broadband. The freedom of speech issue is whether or not the web site host is responsible for what people post, under libel and slander type laws along with false advertising and such. This gets reflected in what you can post, and an example of it that applies most to this forum is if advertising guns on the internet should be allowed or not (not to mention what constitutes advertising). Along these lines, this gets into if you can be held liable for stating that Glocks are lousy for home defense when compared to a 1911 (or vice versa). Both political parties want to do something about the posting of "fake news" on the internet though they differ a little on what should be done. A second side of the net neutral free speech issue is if we need to go back to the fairness doctrine in all media. This is what required TV stations to provide opposing political viewpoints with air time at the same cost as the side they supported.
The second half of net neutrality is the access to band width. Some rumors have flown about companies who want to charge different Internet access rates to some companies based on their usage or content. So, for example, Spectrum could say I have to pay an extra $2 per month to get Netflix at full speed because it is so much data that it bogs the lines down too much. This is technically feasible but may not be market feasible. We do see this on cell phone internet connections in a way. I can get so much data at a higher speed before my connection gets throttled down to lower speeds. I also can get Netflix and some other video services free because I have that feature on my cell plan. The net neutrality argument is that all users should get the data at the same speed and same cost no matter what.
Note that while the FCC got the power to enforce Net Neutrality when they adopted the utility rule, they never did anything about it. Part of the reason is that the market is making this work instead, and a free market will do so. I would change Internet services if they tried to charge me extra for some data. They already charge me extra if I want some faster speeds overall, and I choose to stay at the base broadband speed. I get my cell phone video data free because it is a benefit offered as part of the marketing between the companies, and I see others now moving towards it to stay competitive (and I note T-Mobile is even offering to pay for the Netflix subscription now to stay competitive).
I see the media controversy over this as much more of a biased partisan plan to support big government than due to any real neutrality arguments. It is also helping to distract people from other more important issues (like the federal budget and the tax plans). Being a libertarian at heart, I support letting the free market determine how to respond to the net neutrality issue and getting the government out of the regulations where I can.
Amazon, for example, has the cash to pay for priority access to bandwidth. How does a startup compete with Amazon if my ISP throttles the startup in favor of the big company that can afford to pay? On the flip side, will I have to pay my ISP an additional fee to access Netflix? Amazon Music? Hulu? I could argue both sides of that question.... I don't want my internet bill to look like (or be as expensive as) my cable bill.... But if I don't use a lot of bandwidth why should I pay a fixed fee, essentially supplementing my neighbors kid playing video games?
The closest example might be electric power. Texas and other states chose to regulate the physical infrastructure separately from the electrons flowing through the grid. As long as I have the ability to use a different ISP over my fiber connection, I'd be OK with stripping other regulations. However, today my fiber is owned by Frontier. If I want to enjoy the same bandwidth using a different ISP with different pricing and services, I cannot. In my area nothing compares to frontiers bandwidth. I absolutely believe that unless this is solved, internet pricing will skyrocket without "net neutrality". I could argue that this would bring in market based competition, but would be painful (to my wallet) to live through.
So, no, I don't have a firm position. Only lots of questions.