Comedian Bill Maher recently coined the phrase 鈥�.鈥� It refers to a popular idea or concept that, despite being easily debunked, just won鈥檛 die.
If you look around your daily life, they鈥檙e not hard to find. . . . . So 鈥渢hey鈥� say.
None of these claims are true. But because they鈥檙e repeated over, and over, and over again, they live on.
In the world of tech and telecom policy, one zombie lie reigns supreme: the supposed need for 鈥渘et neutrality.鈥�
Net neutrality is a concept that鈥檚 existed in one form or another for . Its proponents claim that America鈥檚 Internet service providers and their customers are forever at war with one another. In the words of former FCC Chair Tom Wheeler, American ISPs allegedly have 鈥溾€� to degrade their subscribers鈥� service or limit access to certain online content.
Why? One theory posited by regulatory proponents is that ISPs might want to promote their own video or telephone service over Internet-based competition. Alternatively, ISPs might want to act as 鈥済atekeepers鈥� and promote the services of those who have paid a 鈥渢oll鈥� to their ISP, over their competition. So net neutrality defenders claim.
Of course, anyone who鈥檚 used the Internet over the last two decades knows that hasn鈥檛 happened. And it鈥檚 not hard to figure out why.
For one, competition among Internet providers is fiercer now than ever before. Home internet adoption . At the time, even on LTE, millions of Americans found mobile Internet alone to be a sufficient, less expensive substitute for subscribing to both home and mobile broadband. Thanks to new and improved 5G networks, many Americans enjoy even more intense competition between wireless and residential providers鈥攚hether that wireless service is for a mobile phone or for a fixed home device that with traditional cable or DSL broadband options. This competition isn鈥檛 just theoretical. If you鈥檝e watched any TV ads lately鈥攑articularly 鈥攖hese companies are clearly aware that they鈥檙e competing.
Additionally, there鈥檚 no evidence of ISPs meddling with their subscribers鈥� access to content. To the contrary, even during a global pandemic when many Americans were forced to work from home鈥攚hen ISPs arguably had their greatest potential leverage over their customers鈥擨SPs didn鈥檛 harm anyone. Instead, it was Europe鈥斺€攚here services like YouTube and Netflix in order to keep their Internet networks afloat. American Internet customers, meanwhile, emerged from the pandemic continuing to enjoy their shows at full 4K quality.
As for throttling access to, say, Netflix or Zoom to unfairly prop up a cable company鈥檚 own video or telephone services? That hasn鈥檛 happened either. Instead, the video marketplace has become only more competitive in recent years. Netflix, Hulu, HBO, and traditional cable TV compete today with the likes of Apple, Disney, Amazon, and countless other market entrants. Comcast in particular鈥攁 company that sells cable Internet and TV service, as well as makes movies and TV shows鈥攄ecided to compete with streamers by creating Peacock, rather than degrade or limit access to MVPD competitors. The result? Streaming video viewership today . As for phone service鈥擹oom, Teams, Webex, FaceTime, and the like dominate communications both at home and in the workplace today. They鈥檝e hardly been smothered by cable companies鈥� bundled VoIP offerings.
Gatekeepers limiting Internet users鈥� access to online content have indeed emerged since the advent of net neutrality rules. But they鈥檙e not Internet providers; they鈥檙e companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter prior to Musk, and the countless other online actors who have muzzled disfavored political speech under the guise of 鈥渕isinformation鈥� or other rationales鈥攅ven when the content of such speech was .
Net neutrality proponents claim that only their proposed regulations can save the Internet from harm. But precisely the opposite is true. Only during the age of Obama-era net neutrality rules, in 2015 and 2016, did American Internet suffer. Those years marked . More recently, California鈥檚 state-level net neutrality rules .
Sadly, the FCC hasn鈥檛 learned from Europe or California鈥檚 examples. Instead, at the behest of and , FCC Chair Rosenworcel made for just a little while longer. Astonishingly, among the reasons cited in favor of re-instating net neutrality rules was the importance of Internet access during the COVID pandemic鈥攁 time when America鈥檚 Internet exceptionalism .
Like Sisyphus and his boulder, arguments over net neutrality have persisted for nearly two decades. Despite the apoplectic prophecies of regulations鈥� proponents, the Internet . It鈥檚 not . A .
To the contrary鈥攊n the words of one former FCC commissioner, the Internet has proven itself to be . . Americans today have access to all of the entertainment, education, and communication they could ever dream of, all at the click of a mouse or a tap on their smartphone. But that could all be in jeopardy if net neutrality proponents have their way.
Fortunately, this issue might finally reach the Supreme Court. And according to two former Obama solicitor generals, net neutrality rules, if enacted, .
That鈥檚 because the Supreme Court the 鈥渕ajor questions鈥� doctrine, which states that if a regulation involves an issue of major economic or political importance, Congress must have clearly delegated that authority in order for it to withstand legal scrutiny. In the case of the FCC and Title II, the legal mechanism it seeks to reimpose net neutrality rules, Congress clearly didn鈥檛 intend for a law to grant the FCC authority to regulate the Internet. At least one justice as saying so. Moreover, the FCC鈥檚 governing statute that 鈥渋[t] is the policy of the United States鈥o preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation鈥� and that 鈥淸t]he Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.鈥�
It鈥檚 time to kill the zombie lie of net neutrality once and for all鈥攁t the Commission, in court, or in the halls of Congress. The alternative would be to eliminate today鈥檚 competitive and innovate broadband sector and replace it with yet another series of government-dominated, stagnant utility companies. That鈥檚 a future America simply cannot afford.