3 ms·
The argument that network neutrality is a new regulatory burden is wrong. Before the 2000s network neutrality existed because the ISPs did not have the network
by guelo 9y ago
The argument that network neutrality is a new regulatory burden is wrong. Before the 2000s network neutrality existed because the ISPs did not have the network equipment to do deep packet inspection and filtering at large scale. By 2004 the FCC began looking to enforce network neutrality and began testing various legal authorities starting with the Madison River case, and culminating in the 2014 loss in Verizon vs FCC which forced Tom Wheeler to reclassify ISPs as common carriers in order to enforce net neutrality.
In other words, the whole history of "the single most important driver of not just economic growth but overall consumer welfare" has occurred under defacto network neutrality.
- Terr_ 9y agoRight, I think it's increasingly important to distinguish between (A) the end-result situation of neutral-networks and (B) any specific regulations/laws that are trying to preserve that status-quo. I fear there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the distinction and are confused when they hear that NN is both the status-quo and that NN is new regulation.
- ScottBurson 9y agoGreat point! I would add that we also had real competition among ISPs in the 1990s, with many small providers. Pai's idea that somehow deregulation will take us back to that time is just lunacy; it's certainly not going to reverse the consolidation that has occurred.
- theptip 9y agoI think this is the most convincing counterargument to Thompson's position; to the extent that NN was actually the defacto law of the land, his concerns about adding regulatory burden don't apply.