Pirate's Cove

Of course, the thing is, Obama’s version of Net Neutrality (as opposed to the NN practiced since the late 1990’s) was never about about anything other than giving the federal government more power over the Internet, turning it into a public utility to be regulated, and forcing opposing voices off the ‘net

Who needs net neutrality? Internet providers are handling coronavirus demand just fine.

Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission repealed “network neutrality.”  Many forecast disaster as a result, predicting the rise of miserly internet providers and throttled access. But the pandemic has decisively proved these predictions wrong. The internet has performed admirably despite unprecedented demand — a testament to the wisdom of the United States’ light regulatory approach.

The pandemic has been a nearly ideal test for the doomsday predictions. When net neutrality was repealed, for example, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer tweeted, “Without #NetNeutrality when a couple is streaming their favorite #Netflix show but it keeps lagging and killing the mood, who will be to blame?”

Since late March, the demand for broadband has been enormous, with traffic across cable and telecom networks up anywhere from 19% to 35%. In contrast to the dire forecasts, however, the digital infrastructure has performed very well.

The nation’s businesses have relied on modern video communications as a management and delivery platform, while these same services have become a fixture in social lives. Further, broadband expansion and innovation over the past decade have given rise to the tools we are finding so essential right now.

Well, in all fairness, any company that plays games right now would be excoriated by pretty much everyone. In the very few cases where bandwidth was throttled beforehand was due to people exceeding what they paid for. As for companies giving priority to certain steaming sites? Well, yeah, welcome to business. Don’t like it because you use another streaming site? Switch your wireless provider

For most of the past 25 years, the United States has strategically minimized regulatory interference in a sector of the economy that empowers innovators, entrepreneurs and consumers. This light-touch regulatory environment has encouraged private companies to invest tens of billions of dollars in building the internet’s superstructure while opening the doors to innovators and entrepreneurs.

The result, according to Huddleston, is a “robust innovation ecosystem (that) has benefited American consumers by providing both a wide variety of choices and, in particular, free and low-cost options for services that are available now in a time of crisis.”

With heavy regulation everything is stifled. Think wireless service itself: it exploded in innovation because the government took a lighter touch. So did wired phone service when lots of restrictions were removed.

An important and simple lesson is before us: Federal policies that unleash innovative and competitive forces, penalize anti-competitive conduct, and let consumers vote with their dollars and their feet are the recipe for success in building digital infrastructure. Heavy-handed government regulations are not.

Exactly. But, again, NN was never about “fairness” or any high-minded principles, it was about control. Just like most Leftist policies.