Net neutrality advocates need to get their facts straight

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules are based on the false premise that American broadband services are sub-standard compared to those in other countries.

Advocates who buy this notion believe that network price and quality can only be improved by regulatory action that forces providers to make uneconomic investments. Before we can have a rational discussion about network policy, we need to get the facts straight.

Average broadband speeds in five of the top 10 are actually declining, while those in the US are improving. Chairman Wheeler’s Open Internet rules aim to preserve the goose that has laid these golden eggs while protecting America’s innovators and ordinary citizens from the hypothetical harms than can arise in markets with minimal competition.

In short, the proposed regulations permit a degree of experimentation with the pricing of technical services on the Internet provided that the common, baseline service continues to be adequate for the common, baseline set of applications.

The most common complaint emanating from the fainting couches occupied by (the mainly far left) net neutrality advocates is that the proposed regulations don’t go far enough to preserve the Internet as it has always been. This is an odd standard to apply to a technical system notable for its disruption of traditional industries such as music, journalism, travel, and retail.

Net neutrality advocates also worry that Internet Service Providers have incentives to exploit customers and harm innovation, fears inspired by every profit-maximizing business. But these incentives are counter-balanced by conflicting incentives to sign up more subscribers and to provide richer services.