Despite what you may have seen on the internet or on your “educated” friend’s Facebook, net neutrality is not a good thing. Last Tuesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that he plans to repeal Obama-era regulations on Internet Service Providers, known as “net neutrality.” The idea behind this is that all internet traffic should be treated as equal. Internet service providers(ISP’s) shouldn’t prioritize access to some sites at the expense of some others. Critics contend that ending this regulation would reduce internet freedom, increase the size and power of ISP’s, and harm consumers. It must be nice to ignore the plethora of facts and evidence that contradicts you. Here are the major arguments in favor of net neutrality, and why they are dead wrong.
1. Repealing Net Neutrality Means A Less Free Internet!
Tech Giants like Google and Facebook have openly campaigned against the recent push to deregulate the Internet, claiming that repealing net neutrality rules would mean a less free and open internet, where ISP’s have the power to determine the accessibility of certain content, making some more available and some less.
The hypocrisy of the situation is laughable, as both Google and Facebook have been caught red-handed in promoting leftist content via social media and Youtube. Prager University details the institutional bias at play within Google and its Orwellian attempt to marginalize those who disagree with them. Google and Facebook have been found guilty in censoring conservative content on their websites repeatedly. Google and its subsidiary, Youtube, have been censoring conservative creators, demonetizing their videos as well as increasing the barriers to viewing videos from these same creators. Facebook has been embroiled in a controversy surrounding its “trending” page, where leftist stories and talking points are presented as what is currently trending, when stories from conservative sources are outperforming them in terms of mentions and views. The idea that these tech companies are concerned with an open internet is laughable, as they have been the biggest offenders regarding openness and internet freedom.
Advocates of net neutrality have argued that repealing the regulations would spark anti-competitive behavior from ISP’s, allowing them to slow down or block access to certain sites. However, there is actually little precedent for this. In 2010, when the FCC first attempted to implement net neutrality regulations, they could only gather four examples of such anti-competitive behavior. Why is this the case? Because doing so would actually hurt their own bottom line. If one ISP slowed down access to certain websites, that would provide an opportunity to competitors to secure a profit in delivering access to previously blocked sites. Competition between ISP’s is what will lead to a free and open Internet.
2. What About Telecom Giants Like Verizon And Comcast? Don't Let Them Become A Monopoly!
Advocates of net neutrality have repeatedly argued that repealing net neutrality will lead to a reduction in the amount of Internet Service Providers. Of all the possible claims against net neutrality, this is the strongest. However, the Internet existed free and fair from monopoly before net neutrality was enacted. The concern about a monopoly is hypothetical. However, net neutrality itself actually encourages monopolies. Due to the broad powers given to the FCC to approve technological innovation or changes in business models, smaller start-ups that wish to compete with larger ISP’s face a massive barrier to entry.
If proponents of net neutrality are truly concerned about monopolies among Internet Service Providers, setting short-sighted price controls is the wrong way to cure that ill. The proper solution to this problem would be to lower the barriers to entry for smaller Internet Service Providers, thus promoting competition.
3. Repealing Net Neutrality Hurts Consumers!
Those on the left have spent considerable time arguing that net neutrality prevents businesses from having to choose what types of data they pay for. However, this actually increases the power of consumers, especially those at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. Instead of paying a flat fee for Internet service that includes social media and online gaming functions, consumers can choose to pay for what they want. For example, if someone wants to pay for email and video, but doesn’t want to pay for expensive video data that they won’t use, then they have the power to do so.
Inherent in all of these objections to net neutrality is a fundamental bias against free markets and their ability to provide goods and services to consumers. The case against repealing net neutrality regulations is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. In policymaking, we should always err on the side of freedom, and deal with unintended consequences if, and when they arise.