No One Needs Another Net-Neutrality Fight

tech.hindustantimes.com:

James Joyce once defined sentimentality as “unearned emotion.” The same phrase might describe America's episodic fights over net neutrality. With a new Democratic majority in place, the Federal Communications Commission announced on Sept. 26 that it plans to reclassify internet service providers as “common carriers” under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. The stated rationale, as with a similar effort almost a decade ago, is to impose so-called net-neutrality rules, which would in theory prevent ISPs from blocking rival apps and services on their networks or offering “fast lanes” for paying content providers.

That goal is fine as far as it goes; such conduct might indeed harm competition. But preventing it doesn't require a century-old telecoms rulebook that imposes reams of irrelevant red tape and confers outsized power on regulators, including the ability to set rates. A second run at this failed experiment would waste as much time and effort as the first.

Barack Obama's administration originally foisted Title II on ISPs in 2015. Its initial proposal caused an exodus from broadband stocks and reduced telecom investment by as much as $40 billion annually over five years. In the two years the new rules were in place, broadband investment by ISPs dipped substantially, according to research cited by the FCC, the first-ever decline outside a recession. Small providers serving rural and low-income communities were hardest hit.

In 2017, a new Republican-appointed chairman, Ajit Pai, proposed rescinding the Title II designation. Activists went berserk. Politicians warned of the “end of the internet as we know it.” One outlet said the decision would “Destroy Everything That Makes The Internet Great.” Although Pai and his