I have a long history of supporting net neutrality. I was a stronger backer of the Obama era FCC ruling that ISPs must treat all content and services equally and upset when the Trump changes to the FCC ruled that ISPs could prioritize some content over others. Complaints related to the most recent FCC ruling have now generated some court rulings and the findings seem to me to be a mixed bag.
First, the court concluded the FCC did have the authority to reverse the previous administrations ruling. The court concluded that:
But judges did not dispute the FCC’s decision to classify broadband as an information service instead of a telecommunications service. Classifying broadband as an information service essentially deregulated the industry and helped the FCC repeal the core net neutrality rules. (Arstechnica)
I disagree, but I have no official standing. By this argument, I see problems everywhere. Most U.S. citizens have limited access to alternatives for this information access. To me, this argument is equivalent to suggesting that it would be OK if the only information source you had access to was Fox News. If the provider can manipulate what the only reasonably available channel of input provides, this is potentially a serious problem. Of course, there is an advantage to the provider of selling priority input to the highest bidder or a provider suiting the interests of the provider (e.g., one interested in degrading access to online video sources if it owns its own video service), but self-serving opportunities combined with limited consumer options is potentially a serious problem for consumers. Note also, that this ruling is not about consumer price controls. Neutrality is about an ISP treating all transmitted bits equally. The anti-neutrality position is about what can be expected of information sources which has a more indirect impact on consumers.
Is there an agency responsible for the oversight of information providers. To me, the information providers are the businesses and individuals creating and serving the information. The FCC position would seem to argue that the U.S. mail bringing my magazines is an information provider.
The mixed component of the ruling involved rejecting the FCCs position that simply has the authority to reject all state level rules.
The ruling does not prevent the FCC from trying to preempt state laws on a case-by-case basis. But the FCC can’t preempt all state net neutrality laws in one fell swoop, judges ruled. (Washington Post)
So, the FCC must consider the situation in each state individually. This may make more work for the FCC, but it does not suggest that each state can establish the rules that make sense for that state.