Yesterday, EU lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to require device makers to standardize on a device charging connector so that consumers don’t have to buy a new charger every time they buy a new device. This is already a faulty assumption since when such standards change, very inexpensive adapters appear on the market nearly immediately to fill the need for those who want to continue using the adapter they have. If the EU is successful at dictating a standard (at least for the EU), it would almost certainly be USB-C which is the direction the industry is going anyway. For example, despite the fact that Apple has had standard USB in its computers for more than a decade (perhaps two?) and has their proprietary Lightning connector in all iPhones, almost 4 years ago they switched the MacBook Pro line to USB-C. The latest iPad Pro has USB-C as well. Some of the latest Android-based smartphones have USB-C. The industry is moving in this direction on its own. It does this based upon its understanding of consumer demand, something that tech companies spends a great deal of money to understand extraordinarily well. I think I’m being kind when I say that most governments are not well known for understanding the needs of the populous to his level of specificity.

Apple has been complaining to the EU about this but their concerns are falling on deaf ears. They claim (and I agree) that this kind of government interference stifles innovation. Apple’s own Lightning connector is a perfect example of this. At the time Apple was developing the original iPhone, they knew that a USB connector was likely to be the way to charge their new device. The problem they discovered was that USB plugs only go in one way. The average user will get it wrong half the time and then have to turn the plug over and try again. This seemed silly to Apple. Why not simply design a plug that is universal and thus can be plugged in either way? So they innovated and the Lightning connector was born. Years later USB-C came along and provides the same functionality. Based upon the fact that Apple is ahead of many other tech companies by already using USB-C in its MacBook Pro and iPad lines, it’s very likely they plan to move to USB-C as their universal standard. Ironically, I have no doubt that Apple is planning a slow rollout of USB-C for precisely the reasons that the EU is concerned about. Apple knows users don’t want to switch power adapter standards very often because many buy secondary charges.

Imagine if the EU and other governments had dictated this standard prior to the modern smartphone. We would likely be stuck with USB 2.0 which would be awful. And imagine tech companies having to convince law makers to change laws so they can introduce innovations. Part of the EU law makers motivation is to reduce electronic waste and empower consumers to make sustainable choices. Those are admirable and necessary goals. However, by dictating a standard, law makers who are not experts in electronics, are making choices about how those goals should be met. Lawmakers should instead create laws that promote sustainability such as has been done with automobile emissions. What they should not do is be too specific about how that sustainability is to be accomplished. Car companies are not told how to reduce emissions, just that they must. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what EU lawmakers are doing by legislating a power adapter standard. How would it be to have a tech company that has come up with a more sustainable power solution be unable to produce it because the law dictated a standard?

Again Apple is likely moving to USB-C anyway but that’s not really their point. Interference like this stifles innovation. We as consumers are worse off in the long run. Imagine the government deciding that it’s highly inefficient to have programmers writing code in all these different languages. Wouldn’t we be better off with one language to rule them all? If it was Xojo, then sure, though I’m biased. Of course this makes no sense at all. And that’s really the point that Apple is trying to make. They don’t like the precedence this is setting and I don’t like it either.

There are times when government oversight is sensible. We need it for medical treatments. We need it to make sure things we purchase are safe. We need it when we are going to be interfacing with large infrastructure built by the government such as the width of lanes on highways. But government oversight should be applied to only that which absolutely requires it and nothing else. Because if we are not careful, 2040 could end up looking an awful lot like 2020.

The FCC Chairman Ajit Pai believes that the regulation is unnecessary claiming that the Internet worked fine prior to the Net Neutrality rules. Ajit is not a stupid person. Having worked on regulatory issues and broadband initiatives at Verizon Communications, he knows full well that society is far more dependent upon the Internet than it ever was before. His claim is that the regulation is holding back competition and innovation. No evidence is presented to support this claim but it’s being made nonetheless. The central point of the claim is a specific definition of how the Internet works which TechCrunch has pointed out is flat out wrong. Many tech companies have come out publicly against repealing Net Neutrality. These are companies that can afford to pay for a fast lane but know how bad it would be for everyone except the ISPs themselves.

Competition is actually an area no one seems to be talking enough about. I’m lucky to have at least two options for Internet service (Spectrum and AT&T). In some parts of Austin there are four ISP options. So there’s some competition here in Austin depending on where you live. For many in other less tech-centric cities, however, there’s only a single provider. In other words there’s no competition at all. Is this because of Net Neutrality? No. It’s because of the very high cost of the last mile, the infrastructure needed to get Internet service to every home and office. All those cell towers and all that cabling down highways, streets and right up to your front door cost a lot of money to put into the ground. Many years ago, I wanted fiber brought just from the street in front of our office into our building. The cost for that was $15,000. In most cities early ISPs were willing to bare this financial burden knowing that they were effectively being granted a monopoly by the city in exchange for the investment.

Should the FCC overturn Net Neutrality, your ISP could choose to slow or speed up traffic however it wants. For example, AT&T could choose to slow traffic to Netflix which competes with AT&T’s Direct TV. If you’re a Netflix subscriber, this would be a bad thing and if AT&T is your only option for Internet Service, it’s not like you can vote with your dollars. You’re just stuck. Suddenly the Internet could go from a relatively level playing field to a pay-to-play model. The more you pay, the better the experience your customers will have at your website. Worse, if you don’t pay enough, your traffic could be slower. That’s a really nice website you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. That sure sounds like racketeering to me.

No evidence has been presented showing that Net Neutrality regulation is expensive to enforce. No evidence is presented showing competition or innovation being stifled as a result of Net Neutrality regulations. Arguments have been made that existing antitrust legislation and media pressure will keep the ISPs from becoming bad actors. There’s no evidence to support such a claim. However, after promising for years that it would not violate Net Neutrality and specifically paid prioritization (paid fast lanes), this past July Comcast backpedalled and is no longer making that promise.

Comcast is actually a great example of what happens when there’s no competition. Comcast has a terrible reputation for customer service. I know many people who have Comcast as their ISP because they have no other choice. For me, that’s a deal breaker. I depend too much on the Internet to be at the mercy of such a company. Given the choice, I’d prefer not to live in a place where Comcast was the only option. But looking at the map below, not very many Americans have any choice. The map, provided by the FCC, shows the areas where there are 2 or more carriers (blue), 1 carrier (green), the white is none.

It’s pretty clear that overturning Net Neutrality is not at all about competition and innovation. It’s about the fact that the large ISPs donate millions to various politicians reelection campaigns and now they expect to get what they paid for. If that doesn’t make clear the need for campaign finance reform, I don’t know what would. The FCC is going to vote on December 14th. You can make your voice heard on this subject by stating your opinion to the FCC via their website. Enter 17-108 into the Proceeding(s) field. Enter your full name into the Name(s) of Filer(s) field. You’ll need to provide your address as well. In the Brief Comments field I suggest you enter “I support Title 2 oversight of ISPs.”  This takes only a few minutes so it’s well worth your time. The more people they hear from, the harder it will be to vote in favor of the repeal.

Then President Obama appointed Ajit Pai to the FCC at the suggestion of Senator Mitch McConnell. That should have been a big red flag and I’m sure President Obama now deeply regrets that decision. Help make a difference and make your voice heard today.

For more see: We’ve Done This Before: A Net Neutrality Solution