Real-world results justify move to end ‘net neutrality’ regulations

O NE flaw of “net neutrality” regulation is that it addresses hypothetical problems based on premises contradicted by the real-world results of roughly two decades of light regulation.

So it’s welcome news that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has called for rolling back the cumbersome and heavy-handed internet regulations imposed late in the Obama administration.

In an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, Pai lays out his case, noting “a free and open internet flourished” under the “light-touch regulation” imposed starting in the 1990s.

“The world’s most successful online companies blossomed right here in the United States,” Pai writes. “And American consumers benefited from unparalleled innovation.”

Yet in 2015, based on activists’ fears that internet service providers were suddenly poised to start stifling internet activity, the Obama-era FCC declared internet service providers to be public utilities subject to Title II of the antiquated Communications Act of 1934, which was an update of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 that regulated railroads.

But, as Pai notes, “there was no evidence of the dysfunction that regulatory proponents feared.”

The imposition of heavy-handed and outdated regulations had predictable effect — the country’s 12 largest internet service providers decreased domestic broadband capital expenditures by 5.6 percent, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016, Pai writes.

“This was the first time that such investment declined outside of a recession in the internet era,” he writes. And small internet services providers now find it more difficult to obtain financing.

“Because of Title II regulation, fewer Americans have high-speed broadband access, fewer Americans are working to build next-generation networks, and fewer Americans have competitive choice than would have been the case had the FCC not gone down the Title II path,” Pai writes.

Thus, he’s pushing for a return to the light regulation of the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Critics have responded as though the Apocalypse is nigh. Common Cause said Pai’s plan was “jeopardizing core protections for online free speech.”

The idea that people have been heavily censored and restrained in online communications no doubt surprises anyone who’s been online in the past 20 years.

Similarly, the idea that “net neutrality” benefits small business is undermined by the identities of those supporting the Obama-era rules. The Internet Association has urged the FCC to maintain the Obama regulations. Its members include Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix and Uber. None qualifies as a small, struggling start-up.

The Associated Press reports that Netflix has conceded as much, recently admitting “that weaker net neutrality wouldn’t hurt it because it’s now too popular with users for broadband providers to interfere with its service.”

In reality, the Obama-era FCC instead focused its firepower on things like free-data programs that allow unlimited streaming, a service especially popular with lower-income citizens.

In short, the old regulatory system worked, and the new one has mostly served to reduce investment, service and competition. Based on real-world results, the FCC’s decision regarding “net neutrality” regulations should be a no-brainer.