They banned things before harm could be proven, like the approach adopted by Chile, the Netherlands and Slovenia. Layton found that there was more digital application level innovation under neutrality regimes that allowed more experimentation.
Specific examples that explain the pros and cons of both "hard" and "soft" neutrality in specific cases would be nice. The article seems to allude to a whole bunch of things but doesn't really say anything.
"You get more locally made innovation under soft rules. Do many people use any Dutch apps? Traffic to apps made in the Netherlands has fallen, while in Denmark it has risen." She noted that Netflix had made Holland its European HQ and Netfix was involved in the policy-making that pre-emptively banned the zero-rating of rival HBO Go.
That sounds like the kind of crony capitalism that Trump would want to be seen stamping on.
Zero-rating strikes me as crony capitalism. Wouldn't granting a zero-rating to HBO Go give it an unfair advantage?
They [net neutrality advocates] don't believe consumers can make their own choices.
I don't think that most can, I mean, I know that I can't.
I live in a country with some of the worst cellular data prices in the world. There are two cellular networks available in my area, one of which already attempted to zero-rate their netflix-a-like service (which was knocked down, due to net neutrality regulations). So, assuming the particular cellular company was on the level, sending netflix-a-like data over the cellular network costs effectively nothing while sending Netflix data costs a fortune.
The above seems to suggest that the source of the scarcity that leads to exorbitant cellular data prices is not the cellular network, but the cellular network's internet connection. Assuming that the free market provides the best services at the lowest prices, why hasn't another company managed to marry the seemingly freely available cellular bandwidth with the somewhat reasonably-priced and high-speed internet service that's available to wired customers?
Skimming the linked paper it seems that the argument for zero-rated services is that the free market should decide the shape of cellular "internet"* service. This seems to assume that there is a competitive market and that those who want unfiltered internet access at a reasonable and constant price per unit data used will be able to receive it by virtue of said market. The problem is that in many areas, particularly in sparsely-populated areas, there simply is no competitive market and virtually no hope for one to come into existence.
Having had fairly extensive experience with the cellular companies available in my area I am 100% certain that they use their duopoly in the cellular market to attempt to create and enforce monopolies in other areas.
I want nothing to do with software or data that's in any way specific to an ISP, a cellular provider or their partners. I have encountered ISP-specific email, web hosting, antivirus, router firmware, video service, etc in the past, they are almost universally of horrible quality. Cellular service companies and ISPs already have far too much power to influence or even force their clients to use inferior services. All I want from a service provider is to be able to purchase the transmission of a certain amount of data at a certain and reasonable price to and from an Internet service of my choosing.
It turns out soft rules work better because you have the power of the carrot and stick,
I assume that "you" refers to the government? I have almost no faith in my government when it comes to enforcing anything but hard-and-fast rules, I have even less in the US government.
* "internet" is in quotes because the linked paper states that many people do not internet access at all and would instead prefer to just have access to specific services as provided by their cellular carriers.