The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Obama administration instated a policy called 澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果体彩网:net neutrality, which prevented internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking content or throttling (slowing down connection speeds) based on the cost of the service. With net neutrality, users could access the inte💝rnet equally. Under the Trump administration, however, FCC chair Ajit Pai rolled back the net neutrality rule, arguing that the policy has led to lower investment in broadband. Industry consultants, think tanks and trade associations supported this view, adding that the policy stifles innovation. But is that true?

History

On July 12, 2017, internet companies took part in a protest that was meant to highlight how the FCC chief Ajit Pai's proposal to remove net neutrality regulations would hurt consumers. The organizers of the "Day of Action" called net neutrality the basic principle that protects free speech on the internet. Eventually, though, Pai announced that the FCC would be holding a vote to roll back net neutrality—and the agency decided to do just that. Under the Biden administration, the FCC did the opposite, and net neutrality was back. But then a trade group representing ISPs convinced a court to pause the policy while it weighed the group's appeal. Finally, in January 2025, the court decided in the trade group's favor, stating that regulating ISPs in this way is beyond the FCC's purview.

On Freedom

Both supporters and critics of net neutrality argue that their side (to uphold the policy or eliminate it) promotes inte꧂rnet freedom.

For example, Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) filed comments with the FCC detailing its support for the agency's commitment to "restoring, protecting, and maintaining a free and open internet."

Arguments Against Net Neutrality

Net neutralꦏity opponents argued that the classification of ISPs as public utilities creates regulatory uncertainty, which stifles investment and 🧸innovation in the telecom industry.

Pai said that just the possibility of rate regulation prevents companies from investing in advanced networks because they are "unsure of whether the government will let them compete in the free market." 

Before the FCC under the Trump administration cut the policy, Comcast called net neutrality an "outdated regulatory regime" that harms investment and innovation. Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) worried about the scope of the government's authority, and it asked policymakers to "catalyze innovation" and "encourage investment." AT&T Inc. (T) painted a bleak picture for an America under net neutrality: "Less broadband investment in turn means fewer jobs, lower productivity and lost opportunity, particularly in rural America where broadband investment is needed the most."

On Innovation

In its filing with the FCC, Comcast said that paid prioritization would have uses in telemedicine and self-driving vehicles that may need to communicate with each other. The Verge pointed out that automated cars don't use broadband at all. They rely on the exchange of data wirelessly over an unlicensed spectrum called the Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) band. Moreover, paid prior🉐itization in telemedicine would mean low-ౠincome groups would lose its benefits.

Since it is hard to quantify whether innovation has been depressed, the Internet Association, which counts giants like Amazon (AMZN) and Google (GOOGL) as members, has taken to using patent application statistics. The organization used government data from 2010 and 2012 to show a 5🌼8.4% increase in telecom patent applications at a time when federal regulators were looking to use the 2010 policy to protect net neutrality.

Patents granted under code H04W or "wireless communication networks" increased 10.66%, and patents granted under H04L or "transmission of digital information" increased 5.25% in 2016 from the year before, according to IFI CLAIMS Patent Services. AT&T was among the top 50 companies that received the most patents that year and also saw its patents increase from 2015.

The Studies 

When he argued that net neutrality has led to less broadband capital spending, Pai cited studies by the USTelecom Association and economist Hal Singer. "The key to realize our 5G future is to set rules that maximize investment in broadband," he said at the Mobile World Congress in February 2017. Singer has previously prepared white papers and written testimony for AT&T and Verizon in the past, according to his bio on the Department of Justice website.

But the Internet Association cites studies that show spending by publicly traded telecom companies increased following net neutrality.

Why is there this discrepancy?

For starters, in their re꧒spective calculations, USTelecom Association and Singer did not include Sprint’s leased-equipment capital investments—approximately $2 billion.

Public interest group Free Press, whose study IA cited, said, "That’s nonsense. Sprint purchasing and leasing smartphones is no different from cable companies purchasing and leasing set-top boxes, which USTA does count as investment." The USTelecom Association and Singer also subtracted $2 billion from AT&T’s reported capital spending to account for the company’s acquisition of DirecTV and Mexican wireless operations. 

Pai also cited a study by Free State Foundation, a conservative think tank backed by the telecom industry, which said Title II net neutrality rules cost the U.S. $5.1 billion in broadband capital investment. A look at the methodology reveals it used UST𝓀elecom data, which includes the adjustments mentioned before, and established a trend line from 2003 to 2016 to calculate what broadband investment should have been.

This is similar to a paper from George Ford, an economist at a D.C. think tank with anonymous donors that was cited by Comcast on its website. Ford wrote, "the threat of reclassification reduced telecommunications investment by about 20% to 30%, or about $30 to $40 billion annually." Ford's analysis is counterfactual: the period he looks at is from 2010, when the threat of net neutrality rules first emerged and then estimates what would have been the annual investment had there been no such threat.

The Bottom Line

While it's possible ISPs may invest in more advanced networks because net neutrality has been repealed, it's difficult to find evidence for this, and the companies even reportedly told investors they haven't affected investment. But as of January 2025, the issue has been settled: net neutrality is no longer in effect in the U.S. Still, elsewhere around the world—such as the EU and India—it's going strong.