I don't think all support of NN is extremism; some of it is. (there is also extremist anti-NN, and less extreme anti-NN)

There are some interesting ways to increase competition, including: 1) New access methods (WISPs, etc.) 2) Letting providers pick types of customers (multi-tenant buildings, for instance) 3) Dropping universal coverage requirements at some level of granularity -- maybe a provider only serves new neighborhoods, or some smaller lot size neighborhoods, or richer neighborhoods more likely to buy service. 4) Shared trenching/pole access, possibly in the form of bulk-running infrastructure a few times per year? 5) Shared physical infrastructure in some areas -- maybe local or single-purpose utility owned, like fiber in the ground going to neighborhood locations with Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory colo for provider equipment, or optical cross-connects?)

"What do you mean by extremism? I view net neutrality as the requirement to treat all bits equally regardless of source, which is kind of a binary one."

It should be possible for me to build some kind of public network, somewhere, for some purpose ... and dictate bits/traffic any way I see fit.

Now maybe I can't do that with CATV because common carrier.

And maybe I can't do that with public spectrum because public resources.

But there should be some way I can do that. Net neutrality extremism suggests that there should not be any way I can do that.

Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access" because at that point you're providing access to your public network, not access to the Internet as a whole.

The issue is ISPs, who by definition are supposed to provide Internet access. Throttling and filtering for profit are not compatible with the Internet as we know it.

"Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access""

No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.

Again, we know lots of ways you can't do that because of common carrier laws and public rights of way ... and even human decency ... but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.

And then throttle your speeds to xyz.com in favor of abc.com.

Or whatever.

> "Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access""

> No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public.

Again, you couldn't advertise it as "internet access" because you're not giving people equal access to the internet.

> but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing.

The problem is if you're the only carrier in an area, or if the majority of carriers make this sort of decision. "You can just pick someone else" doesn't work if someone doesn't have another option.

Do the net neutrality laws say anything about "Internet access"?

There shouldn't, unless you're wiling to be responsible for all the bits that pass through your network. So if one of your subscribers transfers some CP on your network, you need to automatically to go prison for life for that. Is that OK with you? Sounds good to me.

My default heuristic is "anytime someone uses "think of the children" as an argument for protection, they have chosen one of the slipperiest of slopes to stand upon."

I doubt I'm the only one.

I recommend picking a better argument than CP to defend net neutrality.

How about any criminal activity of any kind? Do you plan to be held liable for spammers/scammers using your network? Why was your vetting process for new users so poor? Why are you controlling unsolicited SIP telephony traffic?

You either follow net neutrality or you can try and get along without common carrier protections.

Exactly. You can't have it both ways: you want total control over the traffic on your network, you get total liability for it too. You want to be a blind carrier, immune from liability? You can't have any control over the content.

We figured this out with the telephone company many decades ago, and the principle hasn't changed.

This particular set of options doesn't reflect the immunity in §230 of the CDA, which both immunizes intermediaries and authorizes them to remove content they find objectionable. (While that doesn't mean that intermediaries can't be required to be neutral by other legislation or regulations, the particular either/or principle you describe hasn't been the law in the U.S. for a couple of decades.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

47 USC §230(c)(1) provides that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" and then (c)(2) immediately says that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of [...] any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected [...]".

Edit: to be precise, the content immunity in §230 isn't a generic common-carrier immunity; if you read the introductory text, it's a very Internet-specific immunity for "interactive computer services" such as Internet services!

I do agree with you, but just like how there is a difference between building pipes for a water park and building pipes for a water utility, there needs to be a line.

I don't know the exact answer to where that line is, but I truly believe it needs to be much more strict than it is right now.