Net Neutrality is not at all what it claims. It is a grab by the huge bandwidth users (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon), where they don’t want to pay more because they use more, they want the same rate as the low users. Ultimately that means you and I pay more.

Lots of other arguments against Net Neutrality. Seton Motley at RedState.com has quite a few excellent articles about it. Here are a few I found:

In case the acronym flabbergasts you, POTS=plain old telephone service… 😀

If I was super cynical, I would say that this was a ploy by social media giants to undo section 230 and bring in government regulation. How? A large part of the rationale for 230 was that it was simply not practical to effectively police users. However, if the large networks start showing they can, that rationale goes away.

Why? Because overturning 230 and bringing in regulations would cement these networks’ position at the top the hierarchy. this would give the current giants a nearly unassailable position. Additionally, every place that allows for user created content (every forum, every comments section, every public advertising site) would either have to have their own monitoring or outsource it, likely to one of these giants. That could literally give these giants the ability to define the entire internet (for North America at least) as far as user generated content goes.

How’s that for an internet dystopia? Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Thompson stomping on your keyboard, forever.

The Internet, along with television, phones, and all other media worldwide, are now pretty much completely controlled by six huge multinational companies, and they’re all trying to merge and/or acquire all their remaining competitors, thus creating a grave danger of an absolute shutout of dissenters. Even a libertarian ought to see the need for antitrust enforcement in this area; at a minimum there needs to be a moratorium on any further mergers like the recent Time Warner/AT&T merger.

Your first six words provide the answer to your question: “The FCC puts limits on licensees…”.

FCC’s power to license and regulate radio and TV broadcasters was granted by the Communications Act of 1934, which, granted broad non-content regulatory power over licensees’ broadcasting; and specifically granted the FCC only limited power to regulate broadcast content. Content regulation was granted only for “indecency”.

The FCC does not yet have regulatory power over the internet, even for non-content routing and bandwidth matters. Businesses using the internet are not licensees of the FCC.

Although federal “net neutrality” regulations do not currently exist, any proposed power for the FCC to license and regulate content would likely meet strong political opposition.

The obvious question for proponents of FCC content regulation of internet communications: Do you want government to tell you what ideas you can communicate on the internet, like the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology Propaganda Department of China?

Ohhhhh . . . I thought you meant Ford and Kavanaugh.

I agree that government regulation of these sorts of things raise numerous issues. But it’s also not inappropriate for the government to examine these practices.

Commercial speech also has less protection.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.