So Long, Net Neutrality, and Good Riddance

One of the longest, most technical and, as it turns out, most inconsequential public-policy debates of the 21st century was about net neutrality. Now that a federal appeals court has effectively ended the debate by striking down the FCC’s net neutrality rules, it’s worth asking what we’ve learned.

If you have forgotten the sequence of events, here’s a quick recap: In 2015, during President Barack Obama’s presidency and after years of debate, the Federal Communications Commission issued something called the Open Internet Order, guaranteeing net neutrality, which is broadly defined as the principle that internet service providers treat all communications equally, offering both users and content providers consistent service and pricing. Two years later, under President Donald Trump, the FCC rescinded the net neutrality requirement. It was then reinstated under President Joe Biden in 2024, until being struck down earlier this month.

Again, if you’ve forgotten all this — or, more likely, never knew it in the first place — it’s hardly a surprise. Those legal changes do not correlate with significant changes in anyone’s actual internet experience. Had I not been following these debates, I would not have noticed any changes at all, and I “live on the internet” for a significant portion of my day.

So what are the lessons here?

First, during the initial debates over net neutrality, the argument was made repeatedly that net neutrality was essential for freedom of speech and the freedom of the internet. Without net neutrality, according to this line of reasoning, a few small corporations would decide which content could get through the pipes, and they would charge more for content they found objectionable or unprofitable. There was even talk that people would have to pay for the internet one word at a time.