Let us see how it all plays out. I expect there will be violations of some sort. Innovations too. We can catalogue them here.

Market forces: either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."

In an unrestrained market (nuthin' more than you and me and him and her transacting) you provide better stuff to make money. If you make with the shoddy, you shaft yourself.

Unfortunately we don't have an unrestrained (Austrian) market: we got (Keynesian) state capitalism.

As things stand: net neutrality/no net neutrality amounts to the same thing.

George Jr created tax cuts in 2001. When did it do damage? Well after 2005. Damage, created by recently destroying net neutrality, will take years to be quantified by economics. But we know this. The first destruction of net neutrality almost 20 years ago means the many internet providers were eliminated; most only have two. A duopoly. No way around that reality. Now that duopoly, that already has excessive profits, can start collecting money from even more sectors of the economy.

The destruction of net neutrality means no more innovative internet companies. Duopolies can keep increasing charges.

Show me anyone who can have 100 Mbits for $20 per month. Not in America where attacks on net neutrality over a decade ago have resulted in America no longer in the top five nations for internet access. We already see damage due to damage to net neutrality well over a decade ago. It will only get worse since those rule changes only entrench duopolies.

Market forces happen instantly. The government reaction happens months lAter.
xoxoxoBruce

Zero-rating preferred content providers did, though.

In rural America this does not matter one bit because...

Internet speed test
015102050100+
0.30
Megabits per second
Testing upload...

0.44

Mbps download

0.30

Mbps upload
Latency: 185 ms
Server: New York, NY

Your Internet speed is very slow

Your Internet download speed is very slow. Web browsing should work, but videos could load slowly.

It's two months since the rules were dropped - how long we gotta wait for instantly?

Obviously not true. In the 1990s, we stopped buying crap Fords. So Nasser was replaced by William Clay Ford. William Clay started fixing problems in 2000. In 2007, Ford had never lost more money - because of what Nasser did. In 2008 and 2010, the work started by William Clay in 2000 resulted in massive profits. Where is this instant response? Never happens.

Kennedy created tax cuts in the early 1960s. So a recession resulted in the mid 1960s.

Obama administration in 2008 started fixing economic disasters created by George Jr (ie tax cuts, massive government debts) after 2000. As a result, four and ten years later (which includes now), we reaped one of a most robust economy.

Anyone can learn from history. Nixon spent money we did not have on Vietnam. When did that create a recession? Mid 1970s. Ford refused to fix this problem. Carter did at the end of the 1970s )ie 20% interest rates). Economic recovery then occured in mid 1980s.

Market forces only occur instantly when one is indoctrinated by myths and lies from business school graduates. History suggests that changes today appear in economic report four and ten years later.

GE was stifling innovation 20 years ago in most divisions. Economic reports (GE's spread sheets) are now reporting the resulting destruction. It takes that long for the money to finally report what happened.

Michael Powell's 2002 attack on net neutrality meant on the largest internet provider could survive. The last of free market competitors dies around 2010. That is when internet that should have been $20 per month for 100 Mb instead became $50+ per month for 20 Mb.

New FCC rules will only entrench the duopoly. Economic numbers should start reporting the resulting damage in four or more years.

Whereas it takes at least four years for economic growth to be reported, sometimes gross economic mismanagement can start appearing earlier - in a year.

With the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover made things worse by putting up restrictions (like Trump is doing) and tightening the money supply. As a result, massive job losses were in 1933.

Those are not markets forces, they are reactions to market forces. :rolleyes:

market forces are not instantaneous
 

Fundamentally, market forces are 'supply' and 'demand' (more accurately: 'suppliers' and 'demanders' [in other words: you, me, him and her {transactors}]).

Even reactionary, stampeding, transactors don't operate instantly or as a unit.

Market forces cause a change. Change requires innovation - new products. New products typically take at four years (or longer) to reach that market.

Many mistake money games with innovation. Innovation takes many years to respond to a market force. Competitive organizations saw it coming and were doing the work many years previous.

Destruction to net neutrality in 2002 took many years to destroy free market competition. More destruction to net neutrality will appear in prices and less choices many years from now. So much history repeatedly demonstrates it.

Market forces can be changed instantly by legislation, war, or cataclysmic events.

So the day after Pearl Harbor, the US produced 1,000 planes and eight new battleships? Even plans alone took months to start.

Why was a P-51 so dominate in WWII? Because it was designed long before Pearl Harbor and did not appear until 1943. It takes years for markets to change.

Damage created by subverting net neutrality will become apparent years from now. It is how markets, economies, and change works.

Thank you for proving my point, market forces can change instantly.

The change in net neutrality rules was proposed May 2017. 15 months ago. In Internet software time, that is long enough to design the plane, build a fleet of them, load them with fuel and sit them on the end of the runways.