One of the longest, most technical and, as it turns out, most inconsequential public-policy debates of the 21st-century was about net neutrality. Now that a federal appeals court has effectively ended the debate by striking down the FCC’s net neutrality rules, it’s worth asking what we’ve learned.

If you have forgotten the sequence of events, here’s a quick recap: In 2015, during President Barack Obama’s presidency and after years of debate, the Federal Communications Commission issued something called the Open Internet Order, guaranteeing net neutrality, which is broadly defined as the principle that internet service providers treat all communications equally, offering both users and content providers consistent service and pricing.

Two years later, under President Donald Trump, the FCC rescinded the net neutrality requirement. It was then reinstated under President Joe Biden in 2024, until being struck down earlier this month.

Again, if you’ve forgotten all this — or, more likely, never knew it in the first place — it’s hardly a surprise. Those legal changes do not correlate with significant changes in anyone’s actual internet experience. Had I not been following these debates, I would not have noticed any changes at all, and I “live on the internet” for a significant portion of my day.

So what are the lessons here?

First, during the initial debates over net neutrality, the argument was made repeatedly that net neutrality was essential for freedom of speech and the freedom of the internet. Without net neutrality, according to this line of reasoning, a few small corporations would decide which content could get through the pipes, and they would charge more for content they found objectionable or unprofitable. There was even talk that people would have to pay for the internet one word at a time.

The actual reality has been somewhat different. Bandwidth has expanded, and Netflix transmissions do not interfere with Facebook, or vice versa. There is plenty of access to go around. That has been the case during periods with net neutrality and without.

So one lesson of the net neutrality debate comes from economics: Supply is elastic, at least when regulation allows it to be.

Some thinkers on the left favor what they call “the abundance agenda” as a way of resolving disputes over allocation and distribution. Legal rationing, or the fixing of equal prices, is not needed if private suppliers can create enough for everyone. The fact that the net neutrality debate has turned into a nothingburger should raise the status of the abundance agenda.

Another lesson is to beware of predictions that the sky is falling. The ACLU, for instance, said that net neutrality was urgently needed to close the digital divide. Comedian John Oliver warned that without net neutrality, the streaming industry might crash. Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor and internet expert, called the initial institution of net neutrality “a historic day in the history of the internet.” Farhad Manjoo, writing in the New York Times, predicted the end of net neutrality would hasten the death of the internet.

Sadly, internet commentators do not always have a firm grasp of economics. The internet of the 1990s developed under the sway of an anti-corporate, non-conformist spirit. I enjoyed that mood then, and sometimes I wish for a bit more of it now. Still, good vibes are no substitute for careful analysis. They tend to lead to a lot of knee-jerk predictions that are unlikely to pan out.

The main complaints about the internet today concern its harmful effects on minors, its possible links to psychological depression and the overuse of pornography. What links all these criticisms is an excess of access to the internet — the opposite of what proponents of net neutrality warned about. Markets are very, very good at expanding output, for better or worse.

One final lesson from the net neutrality debate has to do with free speech and the term itself. Many advocates continue to be keen to control and regulate the transmission of information across the internet, especially content they deem disinformation. They are essentially calling for a censor to limit the speech of some users. Protestations of “neutrality” rarely favor the actual concept; they may not elevate any speech, but they elevate the role of the censor.

Net neutrality is gone — again. I for one will not miss it.

____

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a professor of economics at George Mason University and host of the Marginal Revolution blog.

_____

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.