- What is this article’s argument?
The article’s main argument is that the FCC’s 2017 proposal under Pai is a radical break from decades of telecommunications regulation history.
- How does the author use history to support that argument?
The author constructs a historical narrative stretching back to the AT&T monopoly era, explaining that the FCC created rules in the 1970s to prevent AT&T from discriminating against “over-the-top” data services. These historical examples are presented as precedent for modern net neutrality protections. The author also uses the history of the internet, such as its “end-to-end” design principle, to suggest that neutrality is embedded in the architecture of the internet itself.
- What evidence do they use?
The primary evidence presented is regulatory history, particularly the FCC’s 1970s framework distinguishing between “basic” and “enhanced” services. This classification system is used to establish a longstanding tradition of separating network infrastructure from the services that run over it. To reinforce this point, the author invokes judicial precedent, especially the requirement that agencies not act in an “arbitrary or capricious” manner when reversing established policy. The implication is that Pai’s proposal may fail this legal standard. This legal argument is further supported the by citing enforcement actions, such as Powell’s response to Comcast’s blocking of VPN services, as examples of neutrality principles already being treated as binding obligations. Finally, statements from industry leaders and excerpts from user service agreements are included to demonstrate that network operators have both the incentive and the capacity to charge or disadvantage content providers absent regulatory constraints.
- Are you convinced?
The author’s argument is rhetorically powerful, but not fully convincing to me. My main objection is that while the FCC’s regulations in the 70s are framed as a direct ancestor to modern net neutrality, I’m not sure that the two are analogous that the historical precedent is valid. AT&T was essentially a legally sanctioned monopoly, controlling nearly the entire communications infrastructure. Thus, those “Computers Inquiries” regulations were designed to prevent a massive, vertically integrated monopolist from crushing all emerging data-processing services. In contrast, the broadband providers in 2017 seems like a healthier ecosystem with multiple competitive players (cable, fiber, wireless, satellite). Equating the regulation of a single monopoly with the regulation of modern internet service providers glosses over this structural difference.
The author also leans heavily on the “end-to-end” principle of internet design. To me, this seems more like a technical philosophy, which shouldn’t automatically translate to become a binding regulatory norm. Treating a design preference, no matter how noble, as historical precedent for federal intervention, seems like a slippery slope.
- Is this a responsible use of history?
I think this is not an entirely responsible use of history, since the author heavily implies the similarities between the 1970s regulations and net neutrality without noting the structural differences. Furthermore, it seems that some of the FCC regulatory history is painted as relatively smooth and stable, but the actual legal foundation of modern net neutrality has been contested many times. The author’s oversimplified history ignores the instability and experimentation, rather showing a relatively seamless tradition.