FlipBoard
Shutterstock
Yesterday, the FCC repealed net neutrality regulations, setting the stage for an enormous legal battle. But, like any bad decision, there are people defending it. So, to clear up the confusion, here are some of the arguments against net neutrality, and why they’re inaccurate.
- “The internet was never regulated before!”: The argument espoused by Senator Ted Cruz, calling everyone a “snowflake” and insisting the internet wasn’t regulated before, so what’s the problem?
The problem is that it was regulated before. In fact, regulation applying to the internet dates back to around 1996, with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and then in 2005 bolstered those regulations. In fact, the FCC attempted to strike a compromise in 2010, but Verizon sued and got two parts, which prevented blocking sites and prevented “unreasonable discrimination” against lawful internet traffic, overturned. Which is why in 2015, the FCC passed its net neutrality regulations in the first place. What the FCC has done here is tell your internet service provider it has to abide by the bare minimum established by law.
- “But Ajit Pai was an Obama appointee!”: True! But he wasn’t made commissioner by Obama, just appointed to the commission, and that was at the recommendation of current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. It was Donald Trump who made Pai the head of the FCC. Pai is a Republican, supported by Republicans, so any decision he makes as commissioner is going to feel like it’s the responsibility of Republicans.
- “You’ll still be able to do stuff on the internet!”: That’s not really under debate, despite what Ajit Pai would want you to believe in whatever the heck these videos he made are supposed to be. What is at debate is how much it will cost you, and whether you will be free to do it in the way you like. Sure, you can take a selfie, but what if your internet service provider decides to block Instagram? Or charge Instagram $5 for every selfie you upload? It’s that last part that’s in question here.
- But regulation is bad! Really that hits deep at the heart of all this: There’s an ongoing argument in America about government regulation, how much is too much, and how bad too little might be. But that kind of misses the point of regulations. The speed limit on the highway is a great example. The law says you can’t drive so fast you risk the health and safety of others, but it’s the regulation that decides what speed that is. And if you think the speed limit on the highway is too slow, you can go to your state’s department of transportation, make your case, and if your case is compelling, the department can just go change the sign. Individual regulations can be good or bad, but regulation as a concept is neither. It’s all in how you execute it.
![[avatar]](https://profilecdn-woven.netdna-ssl.com/photo/569/profile)
This article is elbow deep in b.s. When the internet becomes better and they don’t “charge $5 for every selfie” then please come back and write about it. I’m assuming you probably won’t do that since your hypocrisy bleeds out.
I’d love for you to explain how this is going to make the internet better. And in terms of the “$5 for every selfie,” that is clearly a hyperbole to make the point that ISP would have the option of charging you more to access certain sites, such as Instagram. They could create different packages like cable providers do.
Ah yes, the “$5 for every selfie” argument, but you know what’s hilarious about that one? Back before the rise of the smartphone, Verizon (Ajit Pai’s former employer) used to sell feature phones like the Motorola E815 that were loaded with features like micro SD card slots, cameras, and a processor powerful enough to run applications… and lock it all down so they could charge you $0.25 or $0.50 to email yourself a photo you took with your phone. And they made it very hard to save them to the memory card so you could get them off your phone. So they’ve already basically *done* that kind of shit in the past. It won’t look like that again, but it has a whole host of other ways to get bad.
Most of the discussion I’ve seen on this focuses on the direct impact to the consumer in terms of paying ISP’s for plans to include high speed access to certain sites. While this is very bad, I’m more concerned on the impact this is going to have on innovation and start-ups.
I used to work for a small business that had an ecommerce suite targeted to independent businesses in a specific market niche. Great product built by a small business for other mom and pop shops. But under these new rules, companies like Amazon and Shopify and BigCommerce can pay ISP’s for faster service to their sites. A small business like the one I was at could never afford that. As a result, they’ll probably go out of business because why would anyone use their service when a shop on Shopify is 25% faster?
This is going to be true for any startup in a garage with a good idea and not a lot of money. The cost to entry into the market just exploded.