Proponents of Net Neutrality claim all they want is an open, fast, and fair internet. The case for net neutrality is the case for equal roads and equal access to the internet. They claim internet service providers could limit access to sites that do not pay as much for a fast(er)-lane.
This seems like a fair idea, in a similar way free health care for all seemed like a fair idea. Placing the internet into the category of public utility has consequences that make the possibility of slightly slower connection to some sites seem trivial.
The Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai says that the public is being misled about the true nature of Net Neutrality.
The commissioner says in a recent statement:
"I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation. I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined."
For some reason, no one outside the FCC commissioners can even read the bill until they vote on it on February 26. Mr. Pai says he is concerned about the broad new regulatory powers at stake. The FCC will be able to micro-manage and regulate anything from new taxes imposed by them or through the service provider, as well as the power to administer price controls which would destroy smaller providers. It would be up the FCC's discretion to enact regulation under their definition of "just and reasonable."
Pai's concerns are ironically about the very potential problems the FCC thinks it can fix, being: less broadband investment (resulting in slower connection), and a reduced competition. Another example of "good" intentions interfering with the free market, same story, different case.
Ajit Rai states in a letter from the FCC:
"The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get."
'It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband," says FCC commissioner Pai.
Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse speaking on the Gleen Beck radio program had this to say:
“This is a government bureaucracy in search of being an Orwellian solution for problems that don’t exist,” Sasse said. “The Federal Trade Commission already has laws that would prohibit the things they say they’re trying to guard against. Contact your congressman and senators and tell them that if there’s a debate that should be had about the governance of the Internet, it should be had in the legislature, not in unaccountable . . . permanent bureaucracies.”.