[butlerm]

Net neutrality is largely about blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization. Treatment of Internet access and transit services under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is about much more than that, and potentially dangerously so, because Title II gives the FCC vast powers over telecommunications, and there is a history of a heavy handed regulatory approaches authorized by laws like that making things worse rather than better in many respects, especially cost and flexibility.

[jupp0r]

What can be worse than the major ISPs in the US? They offer last decades technology (cable) at extremely high prices (compared to other western countries), have frequent outages, questionable business practices (have you gotten your internet security package surcharge yet?) and generally make you want to move somewhere where Fiber is available. I have no doubt that they would want to make me pay even more money for being able to watch Netflix in 4k (vs their cable TV offering) if they legally could.

[butlerm]

The cable ISPs are exactly the kind of companies that could use a little regulation under Title II, they are horrible.

My point is that government regulation is likely to make costs go up, not down, and cause a certain amount of technological lock-in as well. The history of Title II regulation of the circuit switched telephone network is an excellent example of this, and is why the FCC promises to exercise a "light touch" here.

[2devnull]

Things can always get worse. In fact, that’s often the result when humans try to fix complicated problems.

[JumpCrisscross]

> have no doubt that they would want to make me pay even more money for being able to watch Netflix in 4k (vs their cable TV offering) if they legally could

They legally could. For years. They didn’t.

[csnover]

Could you please be more specific which vast powers and heavy handed regulatory approaches you are referring to?

The last two times net neutrality was in the news (during the initial reclassification, and then the repeal), the main claim then was that it would/did reduce investments and innovation, and that was a lie[0][1][2][3]. So, knowing this, what are the actual risks you see today in treating ISPs as common carriers?

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/sorry-fcc-charte...

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/attverizon-lobby...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/the-fcc-says-net-neutrality-crip...

[3] https://www.investopedia.com/insights/does-net-neutrality-st...

[washadjeffmad]

Do you think splitting internet services into separate private commercial and public utility markets might decrease costs, improve quality, and expand access?

As an example, as long as a customer has access to a public option for comparable internet service, private companies would be exempt from "net neutrality" regulation and penalties.