> is there such a thing as neutral on this? you're either for or against net neutrality. the only neutral people are those people who are not involved/don't care.

You could say that about anything -- anyone who cares about something has an opinion on it.

What matters isn't a lack of interest, it's objectivity, which is what you apply to each side's argument to figure out who is wrong.

And notice that really all of the arguments against network neutrality take the form "if you don't let ISPs leverage their wire monopoly to monopolize over-the-top services too then they won't upgrade the wires."

And we know how to prevent that from happening. Keep network neutrality, and authorize a bond issue to fund municipal fiber in any location where the incumbent doesn't offer high speed service within a fixed amount of time.

That makes the truth or falsity of their argument irrelevant -- if it's false then they'll make the upgrades anyway, if it's true then we'll build municipal networks, and in either case the result is fast neutral networks.

Their way is to destroy over-the-top competition and then in many cases they still won't upgrade.