---
date: 2017-08-04
draft: false
title: FCC is ignoring public interest in net neutrality repeal
tags: ['politics', 'net neutrality']
---

**[Ars Technica:](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/fcc-is-ignoring-public-interest-in-net-neutrality-repeal-democrats-say/)**

> Although ISPs have claimed that the net neutrality rules harm investment, the cable industry's top lobbying group recently boasted that US Internet speeds are continuing to soar and that the cost of data per megabit has gone down. ISPs have also told their investors that the rules have not harmed network investment, an important factor because publicly traded companies are required to give investors accurate financial information, including a description of risk factors involved in investing in the company.<!-- excerpt -->

ISPs and the FCC have been pushing this misleading argument for the entirety of the current debate around net neutrality. You can't argue to the FCC that net neutrality has harmed investment while making the opposite claim to investors. Proponents of repealing title II regulations are either lying or being deliberately disingenuous.

> Without the rules against blocking and throttling websites and online services, ISPs "will be subject to economic and political pressures to choke off unpopular conversations or speed up viewpoints supported by the politically dominant," Democrats wrote.

[ISPs are already guilty of consumer-hostile behavior]([Verizon argues throttling video is allowed under net neutrality rules - The Verge](https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16025520/verizon-says-video-throttling-allowed-under-net-neutrality)), even with the current rules in place. Their abuses would only get worse should those protections be rolled back.

> While the Republican-controlled Congress recently eliminated privacy rules that protect consumers from ISPs, the Title II authority over common carriers that the FCC uses to enforce net neutrality rules still imposes some basic privacy protections.

This goes without saying, but losing even more privacy protections _only_ benefits ISPs. Invasive tracking and advertising is bad enough without granting large companies the freedom to take it further.

> The net neutrality rule that forbids ISPs from charging websites for faster access to consumers is important for small businesses that won't be able to afford paid prioritization, the Democrats wrote.

This is, perhaps, one of the most compelling arguments for leaving net neutrality protections in place. ISPs should not be able to hamper new potential competitors that depend on network access simply due to their market position. If ISPs want to compete against, say, Netflix they should make a service that actually appeals to consumers.

You can add your comment opposing net neutrality repeal at the FCC's site.
