There are precisely zero anti-net neutrality arguments that hold any water. There are lots of theoretical libertarian arguments that might if there was actual competition in the marketplace but for the majority of non-metro area consumers in the US there is one option in their geographical market. If consumers are stuck with one provider for a service, there is no market competition and zero price competition.
Still No Competition in Broadband for the Majority of Americans
ISPs have a captive market. The repealing of these regulations aren’t going to create competition, far from it; we will continue to see consolidation of the content and media markets into even larger and larger media monsters. When small towns and municipalities have tried to lay their own fiber, they are sued into oblivion by the regional ISP because they claim unfair competition or cite regulation that they pushed that essentially allows them to shut out the upstart competition. Let’s not forget that we, the taxpayers, paid for that infrastructure, and they did not. They were permitted by Congress to act as monopolies under the condition they provided telecommunications services to the rural parts of the United States.
They did not, and because telecom giants are some of the most significant money donors on capital hill, they weren’t forced to pay those “loans” back. Furthermore, the argument that it has stifled investment is utter tripe. In earnings calls to investors, ISPs have clearly stated that Title II regulations have had minimal effect on investment in their networks or their operating profit margins.
According to the ISPs Tittle II Hasn’t Effected Investment or Profitability
This act of deregulation is merely a case of lobbying pressure by the telecom industry. They are a significant donor to the coffers of many an election campaign. Chairman Pai is a former Verizon employee. Verizon is also one of the most egregious violators of net neutrality protections and one of the most outspoken opponents of the regulation.
Shell Beach 