What are the positions on net neutrality?

Net neutrality reduces investment in infrastructure and service quality

Question: What are the positions on net neutrality?
Position‹2 of 2: Net neutrality is bad
Argument‹3 of 3: Net neutrality reduces investment in infrastructure and service quality

Without net neutrality, broadband providers would have an incentive to invest more heavily in improving their infrastructure due to having more liberty in their expenditures.

The argument

It is no coincidence that since 2015, when the US implemented its net neutrality regulations, investment in broadband infrastructure has dropped. Without the ability to develop alternate revenue streams, telecommunication companies have been unable to recoup investments as quickly. The CEO of AT&T has stated that Title II included in the Obama administration's net neutrality legislation was "suppressive to [industry] investment." Additionally, Comcast similarly claimed that FCC Net Neutrality legislation and treatment of providers "harms investment and innovation." And this fact is reflected in data taken before and after legislation where it was seen that 8 of the 12 largest ISPs purposefully withdrew capital from the sector. These 12 companies collectively invested $3.6 billion less in domestic broadband infrastructure. In other words, there was a 5.5% decline in investment and active withdrawal from the market. With decreased investments and less growth in a strained sector, the entire quality of service available via the internet depreciates since the actors who need more broadband are not given these additional allocations or even given the option to pay for them! Ultimately, the needs and demands of consumers are not met, causing a rift between people's preferences and the services provided; hence, the issue of decreased capital and investment lowers the quality of service throughout the internet.

Premises

[P1]Net neutrality rules prevent telecommunications companies from developing alternative revenue streams and recouping their infrastructure investments. [P2] After the 2015 net neutrality regulations, broadband investment fell, with major ISPs collectively withdrawing billions and investment declining around 5.5%. [P3] Reduced investment in a strained sector lowers the overall quality of internet service available to consumers. [C] Therefore, net neutrality is bad because it reduces infrastructure investment and degrades service quality.

Counter-arguments

There are plenty of other factors that influence investment rates beyond profits, including red tape, legal regulations, and market conditions. A far more likely outcome would be that board members and shareholders get richer, and the quality of the product stays the same. Additionally, some studies indicate that investment incentives would not diminish in the net neutrality paradigm as the ISP's claim. Even the companies themselves have said that net neutrality laws do not impact infrastructure investments. In 2005, Verizon issued a statement categorically stating that infrastructure investment was not correlated with net neutrality decisions. Instead of falling, infrastructure spending has actually increased in the US since net neutrality laws came into effect. 2016 saw a large increase in infrastructure spending from the nation’s biggest internet service provider.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is not always the case.

Framing

Telecommunications companies invest more in infrastructure when they have the means and the incentive to do so. Net neutrality affords telecom companies neither the means nor the incentive to promote infrastructure investment.

Proponents cited

Hal Singer
“Domestic broadband capital expenditure ("capex") declined sharply in 2016 relative to 2014, the last year before reclassification as a common carrier. Relative to 2014 levels, the twelve largest ISPs invested $3.6 billion less in domestic broadband in 2016, a 5.5 percent decline.”
Raymond James
“Washington fails to understand that network investment of, say $X billion per year that remains at or near that level going forward represents, essentially, a cut to investment. This is because absent these rules, new models could emerge that would save consumers and businesses money while providing the network returns required to justify further network expansion and investment and a better experience for all. The real investment number should be 10%-20% higher than the base of $X billion and grow from there, but we will never know and policy makers will falsely claim the carriers cried wolf. Since the level of investment began at $X and remained at $X, nothing was harmed they will say.”
Robyn Boerstling
“Continued investment in networks, led by the private sector, allow for improvements and upgrades that keep economic growth moving in a positive direction... A regulatory regime that holds back the development and deployment of the latest manufacturing technology would be a step in the wrong direction.”
Ron Johnson
“What you really want is an expansion of high-speed broadband, and in order to do that you have to create the incentives for those smaller ISPs to invest. They don’t really control their own fiber if the government tells them exactly how they’re going to use their investment.”
Paula Jean Swearengin
“Unlike my opponent, I do not favor price-gouging internet service provider monopolies like Comcast, Verizon, Suddenlink and AT&T. I support broadband as a public utility for all Americans by eliminating barriers to municipal and community-owned broadband networks and building a nationwide public digital infrastructure... such an approach would be good for state businesses and workers and diversify West Virginia’s economy.”
Randall Stephenson
“There is no way anybody can argue that that is not suppressive to investment.”
Jeffrey A. Tucker
“What was sold as economic fairness and a wonderful favor to consumers [Net Neutrality] was actually a sop to industrial giants.”
Ajit Pai
“[By repealing net neutrality] we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas”