"As a preliminary matter, it’s important to recognize that net neutrality principles and protections in different forms have actually been around since 2005 and even earlier. So the flourishing of the internet and everything relying on it during that time occurred under the protections. A few years ago, however, the courts struck down one form of net neutrality protections (those that had relied on Title I of the Communications Act), so then in 2015 the FCC put net neutrality protections back in place under Title II instead (they also expanded the earlier protections, e.g., to include protections against abuses related to interconnection, which had not been the subject of net neutrality protections before 2015). Now, in 2017, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing to repeal net neutrality protections altogether (and the courts’ earlier decisions effectively foreclose a return to net neutrality protections under Title I). So that would be entirely new territory for the internet.
Why do we think that’s bad? Well, as I explained in my own public comment in the current proceeding (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10717583023587/FINAL%20RIF%20Co...), we’ve seen how companies behave in the absence of net neutrality protections, specifically in the area of interconnection before it was regulated in 2015, and their unregulated conduct harmed consumers. In essence, they made a deliberate business decision to let the quality of internet access degrade, knowing that it hurt consumers, to try to squeeze revenue out of edge providers like Netflix and backbone providers like Cogent and Level 3. Plus, we know that many consumers have few ISPs to choose from, so competition isn’t as effective a check as in other markets. So I believe strong net neutrality regulations are needed to avoid harms to consumers."
The reason the internet was pretty good without any rules for the first 20 years is because big commercial interests didn't understand it until relatively recently, they didn't see the opportunities to exploit the exclusive access to the subscriber's home. They understand it now.
Only in the past 10 years or so have we come to need reasonably-priced and stable internet almost as much as we need electricity or water.
In countries where there is competition, there is no need for net neutrality laws, because people don't want arbitrary restrictions, and they will naturally vote for net neutrality with their wallets.
Furthermore, net neutrality rules don't solve every problem, because it doesn't deal with peering. For example if an ISP is also a content provider, they can connect their servers directly to their backbone, it will be fast. But their competitor isn't, which mean traffic will have to go through the global internet, which can result in congestion. Effectively having a fast lane without explicitly violating net neutrality: they don't discriminate traffic, they just deploy their network following their best interests.
I'm not saying that it is a bad idea to enforce net neutrality, but IMHO, the priority should be to restore competition.
So you'll often see the biggest support for fighting a "bad" change, "holding the line" at the current compromise.
You realize your analysis completely ignore the 2001 tech bubble?
Big corporations have known and invested heavily in the internet for a lot longer than the last 10 years (since 2007?!?)
Most people used dial-up for many years, and that sort of piggy-backed on the common-carrier status of the landline phone companies. So there was plenty of competition there. Cable internet providers were new around that time, and competing with cheap and good-enough dial-up and roughly-equivalent DSL (which could deliver service from a third party, somewhat like dial-up, e.g. earthlink). So the idea of only having one fast-enough option for internet in your town was novel.
Further, there were far fewer paid online services. So there wasn't an ecosystem to support partnership/promotions/schemes like today.
It survived, blossoming depends on your definition. In that regard the human race has only blossomed in the last hundred year or so, quadrupling in size.
Part of the problem is that telecos are too large. Over the last 25 years we've seen a consolidation of companies into a few large telecoms that absolutely dominate the market. Most customers don't have choice like they did in the dial up days. Deep packet inspection technology means ISPs can effectively filter traffic. And, as they merge with entertainment giants, they have their own media business interests to protect and foster.
I'm just as sad an anyone to see the internet becoming a place of rules and laws but the internet is a different place than it was 25 or even 10 years ago (when the net neutrality discussion began)
Also, the argument that "the internet worked fine before" is misleading, because technically the FCC worked under the same wireline "neutrality" rules and norms applied to AT&T back in the 70s. A little more history here: [1]
[0] https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EA10373F...
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan...
This is patently incorrect. The Open Internet Order of 2010 established a set of rules based around 3 concepts[0]:
1.) Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services
2.) No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services.
3.) No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.
From 2010 until 2014, that was Net Neutrality. In 2014, in Verizon vs. the FCC[1], the appeals court struck down the No blocking and No unreasonable discrimination sections of the Open Internet Order. The court at the time noted that as long as ISPs were considered under Title I, those sections could not apply to them. However, the court also noted that, in general, the FCC did have the power to enforce the Open Internet Order using Title II, and that the FCC had the ability to reclassify the ISPs under Title II.
Thus in 2015, the FCC reclassified broadband providers under Title II, thus making the No blocking and No unreasonable discrimination sections apply to them once again.
The history goes:
2010-2014: Transparency, No blocking, No unreasonable discrimination
2014-2015: Transparency, blocking ok, unreasonable discrimination ok
2015-now: Transparency, No blocking, No unreasonable discrimination
What the FCC wants to do now is to repeal the action taken to classify broadband providers under Title II, and move them back to Title I. This would again eliminate the ability of the FCC to enforce the Open Internet Order's No Blocking and No Unreasonable Discrimination sections.
If you believe that Net Neutrality is something that the FCC made up in 2015 and that for 25 years the internet blossomed without net neutrality rules in place, then you are believing an obvious, and easily researched lie.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
No, after a court ruling the need for stronger net neutrality laws became evident and they put the regulations in place because of that.
1. I'm not in the USA :-)
2. Competition will result in the more rapid expansion of things like Google Fi.
3. I wouldn't mind paying less if I don't use Netflix.
4. I'm wary of regulation. The FCC was founded to ensure radio waves don't conflict. Now it regulates speech.> Competition will result in the more rapid expansion of things like Google Fi.
You may not be aware of this, but in the US there is almost no competition whatsoever for ISPs. Most people are lucky to have two choices for internet, and they tend to keep their prices relatively similar.
> I wouldn't mind paying less if I don't use Netflix.
How about paying less if you use less data?
> Now it regulates speech.
As opposed to, say, the ISPs doing it.
No, that was the FRC. The FCC regulated more stuff from the start, as per the Communications Act of 1934.
A longer article that details some of this: https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/