I think people argue that without net neutrality, we didn't see much negative impact. Except that it is not always about what is happening, but what could happen. This can be useful if at some point the internet providers started to collude or think about changing the status quo. It is one thing to rely on the status quo to be the same by the good well (maybe market forces, but they often fail to protect customers) of the providers but another if they are required to do.
It's also about what did happen in the past. ISPs explicitly targeted P2P protocols like BitTorrent instead of identifying and fixing the underlying network problems (bufferbloat) that were first exposed by p2p but eventually became problematic for many other use cases. ISPs extorted streaming video providers that competed against their own bundled services. Cellular providers implemented various zero-rating schemes to explicitly privilege access to certain partner services. All of these are real, documented harms that were inflicted on the public and can be prevented and punished by reasonable net neutrality regulation without interfering with the ability of an ISP to compete in the market by trying to be a better ISP.
> All of these are real, documented harms that were inflicted on the public and can be prevented and punished by reasonable net neutrality regulation without interfering with the ability of an ISP to compete in the market by trying to be a better ISP.
Exactly. We just watched this exact situation play out when twitch left Korea due to ISP greed [1]. ISPs double dipped by charging both twitch and their users. It is frustrating so many commenters here are acting like there is zero benefit from having net neutrality when the examples are so obvious.
> I think people argue that without net neutrality, we didn't see much negative impact. Except that it is not always about what is happening, but what could happen. This can be useful if at some point the internet providers started to collude or think about changing the status quo.
This is a very good point - but one that applies equally to the FCC. Per the dissent[1] linked by ChrisArchitect in a sibling thread (which, while written from a rather biased and slightly inflammatory perspective, makes very good arguments), the FCC is not voting to implement net neutrality, but to give itself more power, with the promise of only using it to implement net neutrality - which, as we know from our experiences granting powers to individuals, companies, and government agencies alike, never actually happens.
I believe that net neutrality is something that is 100% good for consumers with no downsides for them, and opposed only by companies that want to charge extra for prioritizing traffic. However, I think we should be very careful about what powers we give to federal agencies to regulate and control private industry.
Targeted regulation is good, wide-ranging powers granted indiscriminately are bad.
Regulators shouldn’t waste time on non-existent problems that might come to pass (unless it’s a catastrophic outcome, like nuclear weapon proliferation).
Instead we should keep the threat of neutrality on hand, but only use it if the market fails. It hasn’t failed yet. ISPs seem much less willing to filter content than tech giants like Google and Facebook are.
Always keep in mind that regulations get corrupted by industry over time. Regulatory capture is worse for the consumer than is a well-functioning market.
> but only use it if the market fails. It hasn’t failed yet.
First of all, regulators should at a minimum have enough investigatory power to monitor for and uncover abusive market failure situations. But your assertion that the market hasn't failed yet only seems to hold up if you set a pretty high bar for what kind of malfeasance qualifies as a market failure. Do you honestly believe that none of the instances on record in the US and elsewhere are individually or collectively sufficient justification for preventive measures? Just how much abuse has to pile up before regulation stops being a waste of time?
The only violation I currently experience is that T-mobile gives me a free Netflix subscription and free wifi on flights. Both benefit me without hurting others. And both would be allowed under the previous regulation, since it largely exempted cellular service.
At home I regularly use unsavory services like Bittorrent without throttling. (And so much of traffic is now encrypted and served from a small number of CDNs, the ability of ISPs to shape traffic has been dramatically reduced.)
> And so much of traffic is now encrypted and served from a small number of CDNs, the ability of ISPs to shape traffic has been dramatically reduced.
Pointing to lasting effects from previous net neutrality violations as evidence that neutrality regulations are unnecessary doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me.
Or do you have an explanation for the dearth of p2p traffic (especially for voice and video conferencing) that isn't rooted in ISPs providing only a very locked-down "internet" service that barely permits anything other than www?
I have a 1200 GB cap on my cable internet since 2020. Prior to that there was no cap. Now I have to either use my ISP's modem, double my monthly payment, or pay $10 per GIG beyond the cap.
