I, for one, appreciate the balance in this article. I went from somewhat of a supporter of NN to a pretty staunch opponent. Contrary to popular belief, NN has nothing to do with ISP competition or likely even prices. It has to do with data cap waivers as described and faster data for certain high use services like Netflix.
It’s also worth noting that NN wasn’t even on the books until 2015. Everything was fine without it. One has to wonder why Big Tech and Obama wanted it (the latter tells me it’s bad on its own).
Net Neutrality is not just about speeds. It is also about content: Your ISP can prevent you from seeing any content that they disagree with. You could be limited to right wing propaganda sites like FauxNews, Breitbart and InfoWars ... (excuse me while I barf....)
Those who have wrapped themselves in the cloak of Free Market Ideology claim that free markets would prevent that from happening. Yet, the fact is: That is nonsense. There is NOTHING now to prevent that from happening.
Like our electric grid, airwaves and cables are part of the national infrastructure and no one organization (or group of colluded organizations) should control it. If you have more faith in Comcast or Verizon than in our democracy to do what is best for the American people, then there is simply no hope for you...
With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.
This is not a bad idea, at all. It might even be a brilliant move. Moreover, there is no reason then that Apple can’t provide that backbone to everyone else, including Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. (Look at how successful AWS has become for Amazon).
Until you realize that T-Mobile is a German company...lol
I, for one, appreciate the balance in this article. I went from somewhat of a supporter of NN to a pretty staunch opponent. Contrary to popular belief, NN has nothing to do with ISP competition or likely even prices. It has to do with data cap waivers as described and faster data for certain high use services like Netflix.
It’s also worth noting that NN wasn’t even on the books until 2015. Everything was fine without it. One has to wonder why Big Tech and Obama wanted it (the latter tells me it’s bad on its own).
Net Neutrality is not just about speeds. It is also about content: Your ISP can prevent you from seeing any content that they disagree with. You could be limited to right wing propaganda sites like FauxNews, Breitbart and InfoWars ... (excuse me while I barf....)
Those who have wrapped themselves in the cloak of Free Market Ideology claim that free markets would prevent that from happening. Yet, the fact is: That is nonsense. There is NOTHING now to prevent that from happening.
Like our electric grid, airwaves and cables are part of the national infrastructure and no one organization (or group of colluded organizations) should control it. If you have more faith in Comcast or Verizon than in our democracy to do what is best for the American people, then there is simply no hope for you...
I have more faith in corporations than I do the government. Anyone who trusts the government to “protect freedom” is hopeless. I’d much rather risk corporations being held in check by the market and relevant existing law than guvevtge government more regulatory power.
You point out disaster scenarios that are unlikely to happen because of the free market. Yet you ignore even more ominous scenarios, ones without precedent. Imagine that under so-called “neutrality,” the FCC determines that Acme Internet Company is charging too much for their 50mbs plan compared to others in different geographical areas. Not everyone has equal access! So they mandate they charge 50% less and raise speeds. Acme goes bust. It’s not far fetched...it’s what happens when government does what it does.
GeorgeBMac said: Net Neutrality is not just about speeds. It is also about content: Your ISP can prevent you from seeing any content that they disagree with.
I would say it is primarily about content, and that things like speed, cost, etc. are just potentially along for the ride. The flip side, though, is that an out of control government could use regulation to similar ends. We absolutely need regulation to keep the corporations in check, but we need to actually be in control of that government to stop abuse of the regulations by the government.
nothing is going to change. As with issues prior to 2015, the market sorted it out.
The opposition to this change is the fear of what might happen.
I saw that article a while back, and the argument seemed to be that countries that have what we fear have even faster Internet than the USA (or N.A.). And, that may be true, as the USA (and N.A.) have about the worst internet around. It's hard NOT to beat what we have! We all paid thousands of dollars to have a better infrastructure we never got (and that's on top of inflated prices for the Internet plans we buy). The market hasn't sorted anything out, because there is little market going on.
But, this is all a bit of a red-herring to the real net neutrality debate. There are ZERO good arguments for not having net neutrality as a guiding principal. They may be good arguments against the FCC's Net Neutrality™... two different things.
The FCC is a political organization and has no business being involved in the internet. It would take years to fight improper use with the FCC.
Bingo. The FCC is in charge of regulating communications. And, wouldn't that mean the content? I don't want the FCC controlling the 'lawful' content on the Internet any more than I want Comcast doing so. So, while I support the principal of net neutrality, I'm not sure the FCC is the right tool for the job.
The end of net neutrality is a symptom of a far bigger and broader attack on all that is good, decent and worthy by a traitorous President and the Right Wing enabler Congress on the American citizens and every thing good this country has ever stood for! It is a disgrace.
Lol. I miss being 21.
I was 21 when Nixon was drummed out of office. If you think the present Authoritarian traitor is a joke or the Congress has our best interest in mind, I laugh out loud at your naïveté!
One would think you'd be old enough, then, to know what a real authoritarian is than, and not be so led by media FUD. And, Congress hasn't had our best interest in mind for a long, long time.
sdw2001 said: I have more faith in corporations than I do the government. Anyone who trusts the government to “protect freedom” is hopeless. I’d much rather risk corporations being held in check by the market and relevant existing law than guvevtge government more regulatory power.
You point out disaster scenarios that are unlikely to happen because of the free market. Yet you ignore even more ominous scenarios, ones without precedent. Imagine that under so-called “neutrality,” the FCC determines that Acme Internet Company is charging too much for their 50mbs plan compared to others in different geographical areas. Not everyone has equal access! So they mandate they charge 50% less and raise speeds. Acme goes bust. It’s not far fetched...it’s what happens when government does what it does.
It's worse than that though, at least in terms of possibilities. I'm actually a bit surprised the political 'left' is so eager to have what they see as a crazy, out of control, president, deciding what is 'lawful' content on the Internet. I don't want a political administration to have that much power. While I need to better understand the implications of how the Internet is classified, what I do know is that even as a net neutrality advocate, I was ***VERY*** uncomfortable with the 'lawful content' aspect of the proposed law.
But, w/o Net Neutrality™ the problem still exists. We're seeing it with the debate over 'fake news' and what shows up in Google searches or Facebook feeds. These companies have a TON of power over what we see or don't see, let alone throttling or blocking at a lower level. If there is not some law around this, we'll quickly start seeing collusion between government and these 'controllers of Internet content' if it isn't happening already (and I think it is in a bit less direct form).
Imagine if whatever administration is in the White House decides to cut a (legal) deal with a particular ISP, or Google, Facebook, etc. to put some throttling, blocking, or 'filter' in place in exchange for some tax breaks. To me, that's far more scary than packaged internet plans, as much at that would suck too.
Ultimately, the 'powers that be' recognize how powerful free exchange of information via the internet is, and they want to control that. Whether it be for financial gain or power, we're going to have to be vigilant to keep it in check. And BOTH government AND corporations are going to try... we have to strike a balance and have control of whatever government is putting the regulations in place. We currently don't have control of our government.
Like most things in American politics the worst-case scenarios predicted by opposing sides rarely come to pass and things end up falling somewhere in the middle. Airline deregulation didn't result in poorly maintained planes raining down from the sky onto unsuspecting citizens. But it did wipe out many smaller routes and markets and lead to consolidation, mergers, and universal crap level service and brutal seating conditions for economy class fliers. The hair-on-fire dire predictions about NAFTA didn't pan out and it became overall trade neutral. Our phones still work even after the slaughter and dismemberment of Ma Bell. The biggest problem I see through my own lens of naive realism is with the massive growth in power that America has ceded to the executive branch of government. Having the caretakers of so many of America's vital resources, like the FCC and the regulation of communication spectrum and bandwidth, put into the hands of executive branch political appointees is never going to be in the best interest of American citizens as a whole. Having so many inept, incompetent, and unqualified political appointees installed into these positions solely to advance the political self-interests and selfishness of the president and his/her supporters ends up politicizing critical infrastructure matters that should really be decided on the basis of technical, business, and customer merit rather than party lines. I doubt that voters caught up in the political gamesmanship and buffoonery of an election "event" consider the full set of ramifications that can result from their choice. in this case with Net Neutrality the voices and informed opinions of tens of thousands of people who live, breathe, and understand the real issues were cast aside for one man's totally uninformed and maligned opinion. Democracy, I think not.
Like most things in American politics the worst-case scenarios predicted by opposing sides rarely come to pass and things end up falling somewhere in the middle. Airline deregulation didn't result in poorly maintained planes raining down from the sky onto unsuspecting citizens. But it did wipe out many smaller routes and markets and lead to consolidation, mergers, and universal crap level service and brutal seating conditions for economy class fliers. The hair-on-fire dire predictions about NAFTA didn't pan out and it became overall trade neutral. Our phones still work even after the slaughter and dismemberment of Ma Bell. The biggest problem I see through my own lens of naive realism is with the massive growth in power that America has ceded to the executive branch of government. Having the caretakers of so many of America's vital resources, like the FCC and the regulation of communication spectrum and bandwidth, put into the hands of executive branch political appointees is never going to be in the best interest of American citizens as a whole. Having so many inept, incompetent, and unqualified political appointees installed into these positions solely to advance the political self-interests and selfishness of the president and his/her supporters ends up politicizing critical infrastructure matters that should really be decided on the basis of technical, business, and customer merit rather than party lines. I doubt that voters caught up in the political gamesmanship and buffoonery of an election "event" consider the full set of ramifications that can result from their choice. in this case with Net Neutrality the voices and informed opinions of tens of thousands of people who live, breathe, and understand the real issues were cast aside for one man's totally uninformed and maligned opinion. Democracy, I think not.
The bold text portion of that post was the best part.
Like most things in American politics the worst-case scenarios predicted by opposing sides rarely come to pass and things end up falling somewhere in the middle. Airline deregulation didn't result in poorly maintained planes raining down from the sky onto unsuspecting citizens...
I agree that extreme outcomes don't *necessarily* happen, and we have to be careful about logical slippery slope vs slippery slope fallacy, etc. But, if the ISPs don't want to do what we fear, why are they pushing against this so hard? They don't seem concerned about FCC overreach of 'unlawful' content. Their arguments seem to revolve around expansion/innovation, which they've proven they are incapable of, both before and after. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.
And, we do know they have worked hard on a number of occasions to throttle or control content to their favor until at least the threat of some kind of action (whether government or people with pitchforks) pushed them to back down. We know they pocketed hundreds of billions in taxpayer money with little results to show. And, most of their technological innovation and expansion has been in the form of blocking/controlling/throttling type of equipment instead of just expanding the darn 'pipes.'
Just like the government, they've proven they can't be trusted. While our worst doomsday fears might not come true, it's very likely we'll end up in that middle... which isn't a good place, either.
SpamSandwich said: Let's be clear about something. Strong rules and regulations are by definition NOT free markets.
That's a poor explanation of the topic. It's typical modern economics theory that is divorced from the social-science aspect that economics really is. It's like saying a free society is one in which there were no laws or police, and everyone just did as they pleased... and it would all just work itself out. No, it wouldn't. Regulations and laws are what create and enable freedom.
The trick is keeping the governing and lawmaking/enforcement powers in check and as free from corruption as possible. We've got a pretty good mechanism for that in the USA, but it isn't being used. So, the problem isn't little or no regulation, but proper and good regulation. Think of it like a good ref and set of rules in a sports game.
With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.
This is not a bad idea, at all. It might even be a brilliant move. Moreover, there is no reason then that Apple can’t provide that backbone to everyone else, including Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. (Look at how successful AWS has become for Amazon).
This is something Google too had considered, starting down that path 6 years ago or so, and perhaps it's still being contemplated. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133547-why-google-makes-the-perfect-isp All the big techs have the money to do it, but whether it makes sense for any of them business-wise I've no idea.
With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.
This is not a bad idea, at all. It might even be a brilliant move. Moreover, there is no reason then that Apple can’t provide that backbone to everyone else, including Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. (Look at how successful AWS has become for Amazon).
Until you realize that T-Mobile is a German company...lol
What “lol”?! What does the fact that DT is majority owner of T-Mobile US have to do with the points that were being made?
Forgive me for asking but I live in New Zealand so I don’t understand how America works but isn’t the FTC higher than the FCC? If so wouldn’t that be the best place to settle the issue because it has higher coverage?
In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.
Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.
I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.
The government doesn’t know how to get out of the way of innovation. There are all sorts of historical parallels that would shed light on this market. How about telephone regulations stifling innovation? Or electricity generation innovations stopped dead in their tracks by the government? Auto regulations stopping headlight innovation? I vote for hands off until proven hazardous to our health.
With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.
This is not a bad idea, at all. It might even be a brilliant move. Moreover, there is no reason then that Apple can’t provide that backbone to everyone else, including Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. (Look at how successful AWS has become for Amazon).
Until you realize that T-Mobile is a German company...lol
What “lol”?! What does the fact that DT is majority owner of T-Mobile US have to do with the points that were being made?
Care to elaborate?
Exactly. At least half the companies Apple acquires are foreign.
With that in mind, Apple should purchase T-Mobile for some $52 billion and fully upgrade its network for 5G service over the next two years. Then it could invite everyone in America to purchase a package of wireless, go-anywhere internet service plus unlimited phone calls and texts for perhaps $50 per month — including the aforementioned privacy and neutrality benefits.
This is not a bad idea, at all. It might even be a brilliant move. Moreover, there is no reason then that Apple can’t provide that backbone to everyone else, including Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. (Look at how successful AWS has become for Amazon).
Until you realize that T-Mobile is a German company...lol
What “lol”?! What does the fact that DT is majority owner of T-Mobile US have to do with the points that were being made?
Care to elaborate?
Exactly. At least half the companies Apple acquires are foreign.
DT had already agreed a couple of years ago to sell TM, to ATT. The DOJ shot it down.
Forgive me for asking but I live in New Zealand so I don’t understand how America works but isn’t the FTC higher than the FCC? If so wouldn’t that be the best place to settle the issue because it has higher coverage?
In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.
Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.
I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.
That's a good question, and at the heart of argument between the majority parties we have here.
The Democrats will tell you that the FTC doesn't have enough power to address all the problems that can arise from a lack of net neutrality, and the Republicans will tell you that they have more than they need. The reality is that the Democrats are more correct on this issue. The "technically correct" answer ends up being the messiest and most expensive to implement -- It involves both agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and/or expanded powers.
Right now the FCC enjoys all the power it needs, so long as ISPs fall under Title II, so that's a much cleaner and easier fix for the problem as a whole. It does come with some extra overhead, but still far less than would exist if the 'technically correct' fix were to be implemented.
I'd rather then didn't, actually. While I welcome the competition, they are too easily biased/corrupted as they both provide content. The easiest way to create a net neutrality environment for the Internet, is to have ISPs just be ISPs and then monitor any deals or relationships with content providers.
Forgive me for asking but I live in New Zealand so I don’t understand how America works but isn’t the FTC higher than the FCC? If so wouldn’t that be the best place to settle the issue because it has higher coverage?
In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.
Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.
I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.
Yes, this is the question most of the debate seems to be missing due to political posturing. While I don't know all the technicalities of both agencies, I think the argument would depend on how you view regulation. Should the government regulate the whole thing (like a utility) - including, in the case of the FCC (communications) - *WHAT* content is allowed or deemed 'unlawful'? Or, should the regulation just involve what would be deemed unfair practices by the FTC (trade).
My problem with the FCC's proposed regulations from the Obama administration is that 'lawful' content language. That opens too big a door for the FCC to handle the Internet like they do TV, radio, etc. I don't want the FCC (controlled by the Executive branch, i.e.: POTUS) determining what kind of communication can and can't cross the Internet. (And, I'm frankly, a bit surprised the 'left' so wants Trump in charge of that!)
My problem with the Republican route, is that net neutrality (principal) is a much bigger deal than just regulating abusive trade between corporations. We've already got a nearly monopolistic problem going on here (which they've failed to regulate historically), but even if they fixed that, I don't think competition will bring net neutrality.
IMO, both approaches are broken and the real issue and technical/regulatory complexity to actually implement it is being ignored by both sides. Real net neutrality is crucial, but it's also going to be very complex to actually pull off.
jSnively said: The Democrats will tell you that the FTC doesn't have enough power to address all the problems that can arise from a lack of net neutrality, and the Republicans will tell you that they have more than they need. The reality is that the Democrats are more correct on this issue. The "technically correct" answer ends up being the messiest and most expensive to implement -- It involves both agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and/or expanded powers.
Right now the FCC enjoys all the power it needs, so long as ISPs fall under Title II, so that's a much cleaner and easier fix for the problem as a whole. It does come with some extra overhead, but still far less than would exist if the 'technically correct' fix were to be implemented.
I think the Democrats are correct that the Republican plan won't apply a strong enough hand. But, as I've expressed above, I'm pretty leery of the FCC with veto power over Internet content.
Yes, it's technically a big mess as the 'Net really isn't all that neutral on a technical level. While there hopefully isn't much blocking/slowing going on, it's pretty easy (and common) to pay to play to go faster in terms of distributing your content.
Comments
You point out disaster scenarios that are unlikely to happen because of the free market. Yet you ignore even more ominous scenarios, ones without precedent. Imagine that under so-called “neutrality,” the FCC determines that Acme Internet Company is charging too much for their 50mbs plan compared to others in different geographical areas. Not everyone has equal access! So they mandate they charge 50% less and raise speeds. Acme goes bust. It’s not far fetched...it’s what happens when government does what it does.
I saw that article a while back, and the argument seemed to be that countries that have what we fear have even faster Internet than the USA (or N.A.). And, that may be true, as the USA (and N.A.) have about the worst internet around. It's hard NOT to beat what we have! We all paid thousands of dollars to have a better infrastructure we never got (and that's on top of inflated prices for the Internet plans we buy). The market hasn't sorted anything out, because there is little market going on.
But, this is all a bit of a red-herring to the real net neutrality debate. There are ZERO good arguments for not having net neutrality as a guiding principal. They may be good arguments against the FCC's Net Neutrality™... two different things.
Bingo. The FCC is in charge of regulating communications. And, wouldn't that mean the content? I don't want the FCC controlling the 'lawful' content on the Internet any more than I want Comcast doing so. So, while I support the principal of net neutrality, I'm not sure the FCC is the right tool for the job.
One would think you'd be old enough, then, to know what a real authoritarian is than, and not be so led by media FUD. And, Congress hasn't had our best interest in mind for a long, long time.
But, w/o Net Neutrality™ the problem still exists. We're seeing it with the debate over 'fake news' and what shows up in Google searches or Facebook feeds. These companies have a TON of power over what we see or don't see, let alone throttling or blocking at a lower level. If there is not some law around this, we'll quickly start seeing collusion between government and these 'controllers of Internet content' if it isn't happening already (and I think it is in a bit less direct form).
Imagine if whatever administration is in the White House decides to cut a (legal) deal with a particular ISP, or Google, Facebook, etc. to put some throttling, blocking, or 'filter' in place in exchange for some tax breaks. To me, that's far more scary than packaged internet plans, as much at that would suck too.
Ultimately, the 'powers that be' recognize how powerful free exchange of information via the internet is, and they want to control that. Whether it be for financial gain or power, we're going to have to be vigilant to keep it in check. And BOTH government AND corporations are going to try... we have to strike a balance and have control of whatever government is putting the regulations in place. We currently don't have control of our government.
Let's be clear about something. Strong rules and regulations are by definition NOT free markets.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp
It's so terrible that everything isn't free. /s
The Misplaced Fear of "Monopoly"
And, we do know they have worked hard on a number of occasions to throttle or control content to their favor until at least the threat of some kind of action (whether government or people with pitchforks) pushed them to back down. We know they pocketed hundreds of billions in taxpayer money with little results to show. And, most of their technological innovation and expansion has been in the form of blocking/controlling/throttling type of equipment instead of just expanding the darn 'pipes.'
Just like the government, they've proven they can't be trusted. While our worst doomsday fears might not come true, it's very likely we'll end up in that middle... which isn't a good place, either.
That's a poor explanation of the topic. It's typical modern economics theory that is divorced from the social-science aspect that economics really is.
It's like saying a free society is one in which there were no laws or police, and everyone just did as they pleased... and it would all just work itself out. No, it wouldn't.
Regulations and laws are what create and enable freedom.
The trick is keeping the governing and lawmaking/enforcement powers in check and as free from corruption as possible. We've got a pretty good mechanism for that in the USA, but it isn't being used. So, the problem isn't little or no regulation, but proper and good regulation. Think of it like a good ref and set of rules in a sports game.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133547-why-google-makes-the-perfect-isp
All the big techs have the money to do it, but whether it makes sense for any of them business-wise I've no idea.
Care to elaborate?
In New Zealand we had similar issue with Telecom who controlled the infrastructure and set prices too high for competitors. In the end the government stepped in and forced Telecom to open up to competitors properly. As a result we’ve got fibre to the door for free in available areas, unlimited text messages, high amount of voice calling time, although our data plans on cellular suck but on fibre and ADSL they’re pretty good.
Sometimes the government DOES need to get involved but America just seems so unwilling to allow it despite it being in their best interests. I just don’t understand that mentality to be honest.
I know the FCC made the worst decision for everyone but to me it seems the FTC is the better place to sort the issue out. But once again I’m looking from the outside in.
The Democrats will tell you that the FTC doesn't have enough power to address all the problems that can arise from a lack of net neutrality, and the Republicans will tell you that they have more than they need. The reality is that the Democrats are more correct on this issue. The "technically correct" answer ends up being the messiest and most expensive to implement -- It involves both agencies with overlapping jurisdiction and/or expanded powers.
Right now the FCC enjoys all the power it needs, so long as ISPs fall under Title II, so that's a much cleaner and easier fix for the problem as a whole. It does come with some extra overhead, but still far less than would exist if the 'technically correct' fix were to be implemented.
Yes, this is the question most of the debate seems to be missing due to political posturing. While I don't know all the technicalities of both agencies, I think the argument would depend on how you view regulation. Should the government regulate the whole thing (like a utility) - including, in the case of the FCC (communications) - *WHAT* content is allowed or deemed 'unlawful'? Or, should the regulation just involve what would be deemed unfair practices by the FTC (trade).
My problem with the FCC's proposed regulations from the Obama administration is that 'lawful' content language. That opens too big a door for the FCC to handle the Internet like they do TV, radio, etc. I don't want the FCC (controlled by the Executive branch, i.e.: POTUS) determining what kind of communication can and can't cross the Internet. (And, I'm frankly, a bit surprised the 'left' so wants Trump in charge of that!)
My problem with the Republican route, is that net neutrality (principal) is a much bigger deal than just regulating abusive trade between corporations. We've already got a nearly monopolistic problem going on here (which they've failed to regulate historically), but even if they fixed that, I don't think competition will bring net neutrality.
IMO, both approaches are broken and the real issue and technical/regulatory complexity to actually implement it is being ignored by both sides. Real net neutrality is crucial, but it's also going to be very complex to actually pull off.
I think the Democrats are correct that the Republican plan won't apply a strong enough hand. But, as I've expressed above, I'm pretty leery of the FCC with veto power over Internet content.
Yes, it's technically a big mess as the 'Net really isn't all that neutral on a technical level. While there hopefully isn't much blocking/slowing going on, it's pretty easy (and common) to pay to play to go faster in terms of distributing your content.