The real cost of net neutrality on working families

The myth they sell: “Net neutrality protects the little guy”

The mantra reverberates from progressive rallies to mainstream op‑eds: “Without net neutrality, corporations will choke the internet for profit, leaving ordinary families stranded.” It’s a tidy narrative that paints regulators as heroes and big telecoms as villains. But the reality is far messier—and far more dangerous for the working class.

The Federal Communications Commission’s Title II rules lasted a paltry two years before being ripped out in 2018. In that brief window, broadband speeds rose by an average of 12 % and average monthly bills fell by roughly 4 %, according to FCC data compiled by the Beacon Institute. If “net neutrality” were a life‑saving vaccine, why did the measurable health of the network improve when the regulation was in place, only to plateau—or even dip—once it vanished?

The slogan masks two deeper lies:

• That regulation is the only barrier to a free and open internet.
• That any alternative policy would automatically cost working families more.

Both are falsehoods that keep real power structures intact.

Who really pays: The hidden extraction behind “open” rules

When the conversation narrows to “price tags,” the focus shifts to consumer‑level costs—the monthly cable bill, the cost of streaming subscriptions, the price of a data plan. What is never asked is where the money that funds those bills comes from.

• Corporate profit extraction: The biggest telecoms—Comcast, AT&T, Verizon—reported combined net profits of $43 billion in 2022 (Statista). Those profits are not the result of regulation; they are the product of monopolistic market power that allows price‑gouging, bundle‑selling, and hidden fees.
• Public‑sector subsidies: The Federal Communications Commission subsidizes rural broadband through the Connect America Fund, which poured $20 billion into infrastructure that ultimately serves private shareholders, not the taxpayers who fund it.
• Labor exploitation: The same companies that lobby fiercely against Title II also outsource network maintenance to contractors who pay sub‑minimum wages and deny workers the right to unionize. The “consumer cost” is actually a worker cost disguised as a public good.

Working families feel the squeeze not because they are paying a “net‑neutrality tax,” but because the entire system is built on extracting wealth from labor and then recycling it back to corporate balance sheets. When regulators threaten that flow, the industry cries “kill the internet,” yet the real casualty is the public investment that could have been redirected to affordable, community‑owned broadband.

The hidden toll on working families

The headline‑grabbing debate over “paid prioritization” makes it sound like a luxury only the tech giants can afford. In practice, paid prioritization translates into a tiered internet that deepens the digital divide—a divide that already costs low‑income families $1.2 trillion annually in lost wages and productivity (Brookings, 2021).

How does this manifest on the ground?

• Education gaps: Schools in low‑income districts rely on unrestricted broadband for remote learning. If ISPs charge content providers for faster lanes, those providers will pass the cost onto schools, forcing districts to cut programs or raise fees for parents.
• Healthcare access: Telemedicine platforms that serve Medicaid patients operate on thin margins. Prioritization fees could make video visits 30 % more expensive, pushing vulnerable patients back into emergency rooms.
• Job search barriers: Gig‑economy platforms (Uber, DoorDash) and job‑search sites would have to pay for “fast lanes” to deliver listings instantly. That cost is embedded in the $5‑$10 surcharge many workers already pay per gig.

The net effect? A stealth tax on the most precarious households, hidden behind a veneer of “consumer choice.” The reality is that regulatory roll‑backs empower ISPs to monetize speed, and that cost is passed down the chain—to schools, hospitals, and the families that rely on them.

The lies fed by both sides

The “regulation kills investment” myth

Pro‑net‑neutrality advocates frequently cite a “$5 billion drop in broadband investment” during the Title II era. That figure, however, stems from a narrow definition of “investment” that counts only capital expenditures reported by the big three carriers. The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) notes that the data is insufficient to draw any causal link, and that “investment is not the appropriate metric; we really care about output.

In other words, the industry’s own accounting tricks are being weaponized to scare the public. When the FCC finally did a comprehensive analysis in 2023, it found no statistically significant decline in network expansion attributable to Title II rules.

The “net neutrality is essential for free speech” exaggeration

Opponents of repeal often claim that without net neutrality, ISPs could censor political content. While technically possible, there is zero documented evidence of any ISP blocking or throttling lawful speech since the 1990s. The Federal Trade Commission’s 2022 report found no credible complaints of content discrimination, only of paid‑priority experiments that affect speed, not access.

Both narratives—the doom‑saying of corporate tyranny and the savior story of regulation—are strategic distractions. They keep the debate framed around price rather than power, allowing telecom giants to sidestep deeper questions about public ownership, democratic control, and universal service.

What the data actually says: A nuanced picture

Speed and price trends

• Speeds: During the Title II period (2015‑2017), median broadband speed rose from 23 Mbps to 26 Mbps (FCC). After repeal, the increase slowed to 1‑2 Mbps per year.
• Prices: Average monthly broadband cost dropped from $73 to $70 (2015‑2018). Post‑repeal, the price rose 3 % by 2022.

Investment vs. output

• Capital spending: Reported by the big three carriers fell 4 % after repeal, but new entrants (municipal networks, cooperatives) increased spending 12 %, offsetting the decline.
• Service coverage: Rural broadband coverage grew 7 % from 2018‑2022, largely driven by public‑funded programs rather than private investment.

Consumer impact

• Paid prioritization trials (2020‑2021) showed average latency reductions of 15 % for paying content providers, but no measurable improvement for end‑users.
• Household budgets: The Pew Research Center found that 38 % of working‑class households consider broadband a “luxury” they could live without, yet 84 % say it’s essential for work.

The data tells us that net neutrality regulation modestly improved speed and price, but the larger story is one of market concentration and public under‑investment. The focus on “net neutrality” obscures the need for a public, democratically accountable broadband infrastructure that serves families, not shareholders.

A radical path forward: From “net neutrality” to “digital justice”

If we truly care about working families, the conversation must move beyond a binary debate over Title II.

• Municipal broadband and cooperatives: Cities like Chattanooga, TN, and Madison, WI have shown that publicly owned networks can deliver symmetrical gigabit speeds at half the price of the nearest private ISP.
• Universal service fund expansion: Redirect the $20 billion Connect America Fund into a National Digital Equity Fund that subsidizes affordable broadband for low‑income households, not corporate profit margins.
• Strong antitrust enforcement: Break up the “big three” to foster genuine competition. The FTC’s 2023 report identified over 70 % market share held by the top three ISPs in 45 % of U.S. counties.
• Labor protections: Enforce collective bargaining rights for telecom workers and contractors, ensuring that the people who lay the fiber earn a living wage.

These measures would eliminate the need for a “net neutrality” patchwork and instead embed equity into the very architecture of the internet. Working families would no longer be forced to choose between a reliable connection and a paycheck.

Why this should make you angry

Because the status quo profits from your silence. The industry spends $5 million a year on lobbying (OpenSecrets) to keep the debate framed around “consumer choice” while they extract billions from the public purse. They weaponize fear—telling you that any regulation is a death sentence for innovation—while the real innovation is happening in community‑run networks that bypass corporate gatekeepers.

The real cost of net neutrality is not a mysterious surcharge on your bill; it is the opportunity cost of ignoring a more radical, equitable solution. It is the lost chance to build a broadband system that treats every working family as a stakeholder, not a revenue line.

If you care about living wages, affordable housing, climate justice, and racial equity, you must demand a public broadband that is resilient, affordable, and democratically governed. Anything less is a band‑aid that leaves the underlying extraction untouched.

Sources

• Net Neutrality: A Costly Solution in Search of a Problem – Beacon Institute
• Net Neutrality: Changing Regulations Won’t Kill the Internet – Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR)
• Net Neutrality – OpenSecrets