Do net neutrality rules actually hurt innovation? | The Tylt

John Oliver explains in this video why net neutrality laws are necessary to prevent "cable company fuckery." 

Pai, who's a vocal opponent of net neutrality, says the 2015 regulations which regulate ISPs similar to utilities are "heavy-handed" regulations that were political in nature. Getting rid of the 2015 regulations would bring the Internet back to the status quo. Pai and other opponents of net neutrality say those regulations hurt American businesses by enforcing a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There weren't any companies violating net neutrality to begin with. Critics say it will ultimately hurt innovation and American businesses. 

Moreover, the net neutrality rules will stifle innovations in the marketplace that would otherwise benefit consumers, while also discouraging investment in the sorely-needed expansion of Internet infrastructure. The result, warns Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), will be higher costs for consumers, less accessibility for Internet users, and an open door to government regulation of political content on the Internet. The First Amendment threat posed by the FCC rules is not limited to political speech. Small ISPs that cater to various religious communities by blocking religiously objectionable Internet content run afoul of the net neutrality rules and may well be driven out of business by the FCC.

In his speech to the National Association of Broadcasters, Pai said the net neutrality rules on the books were passed along political lines. Getting rid of them would not hurt the Internet, freedom of information, or anything really. Removing those regulations would restore the status quo and let the FCC make new and better rules. In his speech, Pai said: 

No, it was all about politics. Days after a disappointing 2014 midterm election, and in order to energize a dispirited base, the White House released an extraordinary YouTube video instructing the FCC to implement Title II regulations. This was a transparent attempt to compromise the agency’s independence. And it worked.

Proponents of net neutrality say getting rid of the rules so ISPs can regulate themselves is a bad idea. Do you really trust Comcast, AT&T and other ISPs to get it right? As John Oliver says, net neutrality is about "preventing cable company fuckery." 

Net neutrality ensures ISPs treat all data equally. That means it can't prioritize YouTube data over Netflix data. The Internet has always worked this way. New upstart companies are able to unseat companies dominating the Internet because web is a level playing field. Without net neutrality, ISPs gain the power of choosing who wins and loses on the Internet. Do you really want companies like Comcast to play that role? Mike Fahey at Kotaku writes:

Net neutrality isn't just about gamers, of course. The concept would keep companies from creating artificial scarcity for internet services, or offering premium services by simply slapping a price tag on services other internet operators provide for free.

As it stands right now, the internet is one of the last bastions of freedom left in the world. If the way we access the internet is allowed to be controlled too strongly, we risk losing that freedom. I'd really rather that not happen. 

At a more fundamental level, net neutrality is about keeping things as they are on the Internet. It's not about stopping a widespread abuse by cable companies, but preventing it in the first place.