The FCC only needs &quot;teeth to do its job&quot; because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the &quot;teeth&quot; that prevents net neutrality.<p>I&#x27;d argue that, to some extent, we&#x27;re already seeing this many of T-Mobile&#x27;s more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it&#x27;s also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it).<p>As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile&#x27;s moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they&#x27;re actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they&#x27;re &quot; just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue&quot;.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;6&#x2F;18&#x2F;5822996&#x2F;t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theverge.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;6&#x2F;18&#x2F;5822996&#x2F;t-mobile-music-fre...</a>