Argument 1: Net Neutrality Stifles the Potential Innovation of ISPs because of its Restrictions.

• Proponents of the removal, or weakening, of Net Neutrality claim that it harms the businesses effected: "The NPRM proposed to end the utility-style regulatory approach to the Internet in favor of more "market-based policies." Additionally, the NPRM claimed that net neutrality regulations put online investment and innovation at risk because some Internet service providers (ISPs) pulled back plans to offer new and upgraded services to their customers." (FCC announces plans)
  

Argument 2: If There Are to be Restrictions, a Title II Classification Isn't Necessary and Title I Would be More Appropriate

• Litan and Singer argue that Title II Classifications are only necessary for for monopolies, which they claim does not apply to ISPs: "The administration’s evolving policies in the telecom arena do not meet these criteria. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has set in motion a rule- making proceeding designed to make “net neutrality” a permanent part of the regulatory landscape. To do so, the FCC is seeking to reclassify Internet ser vice providers (ISPs)— from a light- touch “Title I” to a heavy- handed “Title II” designation. Title II rules were designed to rein in monopoly telephone carriers of the twentieth century, which could not be counted on to price their ser vices at competitive levels. But are such rules needed for broadband? Except in the most remote areas, consumers have a choice of at least three types of broadband providers: cable, DSL (digital subscriber line), and wireless. No monopoly here." (Litan and Singer 216)

Previous Page

Home