Imposing net-neutrality regulations would be a step backward

Net neutrality is a sometimes well-intentioned, but always misguided attempt to regulate the internet under the guise of fairness and equality. Except for a brief moment during the Obama administration, the U.S. has always embraced light-handed regulation for the internet. This approach has served us well. Today 95% of American adults use the internet and U.S. broadband providers outperformed their more-regulated European peers during the pandemic.

But now Joe Biden’s Federal Communications Commission is poised to abandon this approach and impose its vision of how the internet should work. Given the importance of the internet to American businesses and citizens’ everyday lives, it’s crucial to assess the implications of reversing the tried and true light-handed approach.

As a professor at the University of Florida and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, I have spent years studying the intersection of technology policy and economics. My analyses and those of my peers lead me to a firm conclusion: imposing net neutrality regulations would be a step backward for innovation, consumer choice and the very principles of a free and open internet.

Net neutrality, the idea that all internet traffic should be treated same, regardless of the source or content, sounds appealing at first glance. However, its one-size-fits-all approach to internet governance fails to account for the complexity and dynamism of the digital age. Is it truly sensible for an ISP to give the same priority to a spam email as it does a streaming video for a medical exam? Internet service providers (ISPs) should be allowed to manage their networks efficiently and respond to customers’ desires for new technologies and infrastructure.

The argument for net neutrality often stems from fear and confusion. Some people fear that ISPs throttle internet traffic or block access to certain websites. These concerns are largely hypothetical and ignore the realities of market competition, the almost total absence of any real wrongdoing, and tools that institutions such as the Federal Trade Commission have available to police anticompetitive conduct and protect consumers.

The confusion comes from misunderstanding recent technology advancements and how a non-neutral internet can benefit small business. Recent advancements in broadband and mobile technologies, such as 5G wireless, are specifically designed to enable ISPs to customize services to individual customer needs, such as optimizing for streaming video or for security. Such customization helps small businesses compete with the tech giants, who build their own networks and so would not be shackled by heavy-handed regulations.

Likewise, satellite technologies are advancing rapidly. So much so that the number of active satellites tripled between 2019 and 2022. These innovations were not the product of bureaucratic control but of competitive markets that reward entrepreneurial spirit, investment and innovation.

Furthermore, the push for net neutrality regulations overlooks the substantial progress made in closing the digital divide. ISPs have invested billions in expanding access to underserved areas, a testament to the power of market-driven solutions. And taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to close the remaining gap. Erecting regulatory barriers would only hinder these efforts, leaving the most vulnerable populations at a greater disadvantage.

As a society, we must champion policies that foster competition, innovation, and access to technology. The focus in Washington, D.C., and beyond should be on removing barriers to investment and encouraging technological advancement. Let us not be swayed by the simplistic appeal of net neutrality. The stakes are too high, and the potential costs too great. Instead, we must advocate for a regulatory environment that truly supports an open, dynamic, and inclusive internet for all.

Dr. Mark Jamison is the director and professor of the Public Utility Research Center, director of the Digital Markets Initiative at the University of Florida and a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.