Contrary to many public commentaries — reflecting the media’s not-so-subtle bias, you’d be hard pressed to find an opinion piece in favor of repeal — the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to weaken net neutrality restrictions is not Armageddon.
While the removal of net neutrality restrictions on internet service providers will allow ISPs to charge more or less for user-access to individual websites, the Federal Trade Commission will monitor ISP activities to provide against monopoly formation and unfair trade practices.
More obviously, however, we need to remember that we live in a capitalist democracy!
Because that explains why ISPs will be reluctant to slow down access to popular websites, even if those websites are not profitable.
Consider Wikipedia, for example. The online nonprofit encyclopedia is a world leader in the provision of knowledge and history. But seeing as Wikipedia is so incredibly popular, only the most idiotic ISP would act to restrict speed flows.
The same example applies to all the most popular sites on the internet. At the same time, the FCC’s decision on Thursday requires ISPs to notify their users as to what they are actually speeding up or slowing down. That means consumers can simply change ISPs if they don’t like their website access speeds (as long as their state and local governments aren’t restricting the availability of other ISPs).
Moreover, the reality here is that the websites which will find reduced speeds will be those that are used by fewer individuals. Those websites that offer less material value to society will lose ground, and those that offer more utility will gain it.
This cuts to the heart of why I’m sympathetic to the FCC’s decision: I believe that evolving public demand, not the government’s hand, is best placed to equitably shape the flow of supply.
Finally, while the FCC’s decision is significant, it is not a final determination for all time: If we don’t like what now follows, we can elect a Congress to change it.
