Basically, unintended consequences. That there's a risk that it accidentally outlaws something that will be truly beneficial to the internet. The internet is still young - it's arrogant to presume that we know enough about what the next 20 years will bring.

It's perfectly plausible that 50 (? whenever) years ago when cable providers were awarded geographical monopolies in exchange for providing coverage that it made sense in the context of the day and wasn't quite the crony backroom deal it's made out to be today.

> Basically, unintended consequences.

Generalized "unintended consequences" is, inasmuch as it can be used as an argument, always an argument against changing status quo policy, even when the change is superficially a reversion to status quo ante policy (because path-dependent signalling effects are one important source of unintended consequences.)

Evidence of specific consequences of the status quo policy (unintended or not) may be an argument for policy change, but unintended consequences potentially are in play with every policy change.

Yes, unintended consequences are in play with every policy change (not just 'potentially') and they are never considered nearly enough, which is the reason there are so many bad laws (and regulations and whatnot) on the books. People are way too eager to accept that a given change merely brings the benefits that the proponents promise with no downsides.

Interestingly in the case of net neutrality, it is relevant to keep in mind that the status quo is pretty good, having provided home markets for a very large number of the world's most successful internet companies. ISPs by and large are not doing the things that net neutrality prohibits. Netflix is exactly the kind of service that cable companies should want to shut down, but it's alive, well and extremely successful (Verizons peering shenanigans aren't to my best understanding covered by net neutrality). Early YouTube famously thrived on pirated content, which would even give cable companies a semi-legal cover for filtering them, but that didn't happen. The things that are wrong with the status quo are things that aren't addressed by net neutrality: connections are crappy and expensive. But crappy, expensive connections are fine under net neutrality, as long as they are neutrally crappy.

So, basically, none of the intended consequences of net neutrality does much more than perpetuate the status quo. But it adds a large body of new rules that nobody knows what could be used for, and God knows the US has its fair share of creative lawyers. I'm thinking about stuff like getting DMCA safe haven overturned on the back of some ambiguous phrasing written in the 1970s with phone lines in mind.

But hey, nobody says anything will happen. Nothing remarkable did for the past two years. Phonelines are regulated under the same regulations, and it's not obvious that anyone are missing out because of it.

Not 'made out to be', is today. A baseless argument for 'plausibility' about something you weren't around to experience 50 ("(? whenever)") years ago is one thing, but doesn't support taking a similar complacent head-in-the-sand approach in the modern day.

The progenitor of a given practice doesn't actually matter when its implications w.r.t. your actual system begin with some person learning about it deciding to use it to better their position. Modern day barons don't actually have to care about or hail the world of yesteryear that created the mechanisms by which they grow or maintain their wealth; getting hung up on them is as pointless as hanging onto precedent for its own sake.

I don't believe we've arrived at some kind of maximum level of understanding that means that we're better suited for making decisions with impact decades into the future. Sure, we've learned something things, but there are plenty of things to be wrong about still. When everybody agrees, somebody's not paying attention, as they say.

I used the cable monopoly decisions as an analogy, not because it's important as the progenitor of a practice. Back then, I'm sure reasonable people were convinced that it was a good deal, but the deal didn't foresee the internet, yet we're still stuck with it.

The entire basis of your argument is that you are unaware of any specific argument to support your claim.

I think the argument is that certain services warrant a faster internet pipeline. Doctors performing remote surgeries, scientific collaborations, emergency services...etc. But the problem ultimately comes down how to make the distinction between essential vs non-essential.

> Is there a single good argument for removing net neutrality?

I think it's relatively unknown among the public. Techies are trying to raise awareness among public and politicians while content lobbyists are angling from the other side.

If the public agrees with lobbyists, then they won't factor this issue into their votes. However, if they make a stink, politicians will take note and make sure they end up on the right side of their constituents.

You can thank our democracy for the flood of propaganda on both sides of this issue.

I don't think there's much argument for privatization, but I don't doubt that content lobbyists are trying to make one a la "free market" and "I should be able to do what I want".

Yes Free Market. Less regulations is always beneficial in the end.

That's not an argument, it's a statement of ideology. You might believe it, but it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't share your premise that less regulation is always better.

Many people believe that regulations can create something far closer to the economic ideal of a Free Market than property rights alone. For example, food labelling regulation arguably moves the market closer to perfect information, which is a necessary feature of an idealised Free Market.

The problem is, its difficult to control people who create those regulations.

But is that an inherent problem with regulation? Or with the way they're created in (e.g.) the US?

Also, regulatory capture can lead to regulation that causes market inefficiency, but (if you accept my previous argument) lack of regulation may also cause market inefficiency (e.g. due to obfuscated product information) so it's not necessarily better.

If nutrition facts regulations went away tomorrow, I suspect the market would enforce their existence anyway.

I think consumers want to know what is in the food they're eating, so you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy, or finding cheaper ways to list calories and ingredients, instead of listening to the government telling you about the food pyramid etc.

Even if customers deem it too expensive to pay for the nutrition facts, then how do you or others gain the right to intervene in a voluntary act between two people?

This is demonstrably false as we've already seen companies fight against regulations that force them to provide information about products (like country of origin or GMO labeling). The companies actually argue that giving the consumer more information puts them at a disadvantage because consumers might be misinformed about the implications of this new information, e.g. "GMOs are bad, so I won't buy them".

For the record, I think the argument is correct, I just don't think it justifies concealing the information, people should be able to use whatever arbitrary or incorrect criteria they please when it comes to how they spend their money.

>If nutrition facts regulations went away tomorrow, I suspect the market would enforce their existence anyway.

Yes, because people are used to it now, so they'd be suspicious of products omitting them. Nonetheless, I suspect even that would slowly be eroded over time.

>you would get many startups who study what makes something healthy

You have plenty of diet purveyors telling you what to eat now. Most of them are not particularly evidence-based, and many of them are straight up wrong, but people listen to them and they make money regardless. People have little way to judge their accuracy.

I am strongly on the side of free markets.

The problem is that large infrastructure based industries like the internet are very vulnerable to monopolies or oligopolies. That is clearly the case with the internet and it is getting worse with the infrastructure owners are buying the content companies.

When oligopolies own the infrastructure needed for other companies to innovate then that is exactly where the government needs to step in to prevent them from abusing their position to stifle innovation. That move actually protects the free market.

Do you know how they become oligopolies, by using regulation. Government should just help by removing barriers. Let there be innovation in ISP space.

> Do you know how they become oligopolies, by using regulation

Perhaps. Without any regulation, what we might consider criminal activity increases.

> Government should just help by removing barriers. Let there be innovation in ISP space

Not sure I would call content silos "innovation"

It isn't true that any and all regulation is bad, nor is it true that it's all good. We've chosen to make some laws as a society over which we will punish law-breakers for thousands of years. We just need to decide how to approach net neutrality in 2017 and make the best choice for increasing quality of life.

Yup, but that's not what this net nuetrality removal will do - it keeps the regulations that give monopoly positions possible, while removing regulations that prevented certain abuses.

I'm in favor of removing some regulations here. I'm not in favor of calling all regulation removals good.

As a libertarian, I am disappointed in the appeal to ideology here.

We aren't talking about regulations in general. We are talking about one specific regulation.

To bring up an ideology as an argument against something specific is to disregard any productive conversation about the topic.

I am a libertarian, and therefore, in general, abhor regulation. I am also a realist. This regulation is necessary in the reality in which you and I preside.

I have yet to hear any actual argument (not an appeal to ideology) - for me to agree or disagree with - stated in opposition to net neutrality.

Adam Smith thought that the free market was termed as such because it is free from the control of its participants. The 'free' market isn't very free for those certain labourers, especially in those developing countries. It isn't 'free' for those most people who cannot accumulate sufficient capital without putting their life on the line. It isn't 'free' for the people who have no way to get clean water without paying exorbitant amounts for it.

The 'free market' being good is a myth. It's only free for the owners of private property.

Follow up question, do you honestly believe Murica is a free market?

No, thats why we need less regulation not more. Have them as a guiding principle. Regulations are always used to stifle competition.

In my opinion this statement is false when it comes to regulations that limit the ability of monopolies to form.

Monopolies have been a well-proven failure point of capitalism, in that monopolies have the ability to also stifle competition in itself. A large point of net neutrality, as I understand it, is to hinder monopolistic-style traffic shaping that might potentially stifle upstarts.

Already the situation with high speed Internet is pretty bad in this nation -- with few choices in many locations (sometimes only one!), America has one of the highest cost high speed Internet networks among developed nations; high speed Internet providers often are ranked very poorly when it comes to customer service.

If you want to focus on getting rid of regulations, focus on the actual laws that prevent good true competition in the ISP realm from happening in the first place. Look at, say, legal issues Google Fiber ran into -- http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/08/13/council-atto.... Look at the 21 states that have codified restrictions against municipal fiber -- https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-21-laws-state...). Etc.

False.

You will need to look at extremes.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/how-india-grows-at-night-whil...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zst4uzUGGqM

There is an argument for metered usage, which is non-neutrality of resource usage by quantity, not kind. I think the activists should cede this point if they want to strengthen their case.

As far as I'm aware, few people talking about Network Neutrality were ever talking about metered usage? The concern has always been about traffic discrimination based on destination.

Indeed, even QoS optimisations need not violate Network Neutrality if done in a destination neutral way, e.g. using the IP QoS flags. You could offer someone 1Mbit of dedicated low latency bandwidth out of their normal higher bandwidth connection, and let them use it however they want.