Here are the salient quotes from the repeal which, I think, indicate the tech reaction to it might be overblown and might be "encouraged" by big tech players who aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. The key here is that the repeal allows the FTC to regulate things, and it's better at breaking monopolistic practices. (I'm still not sold on the argument that this will push innovation, though.)
> 500-504 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable. The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”
> 507-508 Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content. These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.
> Invokes Sherman Antitrust acts
FCC also reserves the right to return to Title II classification, which AT&T tried to block in this:
> 176. We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.
Edit: the vote also keeps the government from classifying the internet as a public utility. I think that's a good thing because the govt could otherwise step in and "regulate" content it doesn't agree with.
I can't be both heavy handed regulation and something that when removed, won't change industry behavior. Also, the commitments provided are not eternal and unchangeable. They committed to treat all content equally when it was the law of the land. Now that it's not, they can easily change that stance.
I'm not very familiar with their history, honestly. But aren't you excluding two very good examples? Abstractly, I consider their effectiveness as separate from whether this should be under their purview. If they're ineffective, they should be fixed instead of having other agencies subsume their responsibilities.
I'm actually referring to one example. The reason why I don't count it is because it looks a LOT like it's being blocked for partisan reasons, rather than concerns about an actual monopoly. TWC owns CNN and the federal government wants them to divest it.
> 500-504 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable. The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”
> 507-508 Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content. These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.
> Invokes Sherman Antitrust acts
FCC also reserves the right to return to Title II classification, which AT&T tried to block in this:
> 176. We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.
Edit: the vote also keeps the government from classifying the internet as a public utility. I think that's a good thing because the govt could otherwise step in and "regulate" content it doesn't agree with.