Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. ‘F.C.C. plans net neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms,’ wrote the New York Times. Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that [provide] content. …
Net neutrality is, generally, good in principle, for it lays down the law that the networks over which we get information should not discriminate between one type of information and another. For example, it would be wrong if AT&T prevented its Internet customers from searching for prices charged by other cellphone providers. You wouldn’t want Comcast blocking access to articles complaining about its customer service.
But a general principle of that sort is often best not codified in a written regulation.
One reason is that the market will take care of wrongdoers. Comcast would lose Internet customers if, for example, it only allowed those customers to see MSNBC (Comcast’s sister company) for news.
Net neutrality regulation also effectively outlaws competing business models, which are good for customers and the economy as a whole. Competing business models allow experimentation, and this leads to providers serving customers better by meeting their needs more precisely. …
Why is it better for the federal government rather than customers to decide how networks should handle data?
