- Services would be tightly constrained by regulation. You should see all ISPs offering the same set of services in all locations, with the same bandwidths and guarantees.
- Services would be tightly constrained on price: the price for 100Mb/s bidirectional service in Philadelphia should be the same as in Pittsburgh or Punxatawny.
- Nobody would care who their ISP was, because the regulated service is about the same everywhere.
- All the ISPs would have mandated interconnection exchanges where they would be forced to settle traffic with each other. When they get to defined packet loss rates with any other provider, both sides need to improve their connection.
- Prices would change every few years, when the public utility commission approved a rate hike. The ISPs would ask for 8% and get 4% and complain that they were going to go out of business. Same as last time.
- ISPs would be very boring stocks, growing slowly and issuing a regular dividend.
- The big news this year would be that IPv6 routing was going to change from an optional extra-fee service to a built-in on everyone's bill.
Basically, look up the way that the Baby Bells acted between 1982 and 1996.
Net neutrality has many benefits for customers.
Net neutrality has no detriments for customers.
Net neutrality is what we are talking about here.
When we conflate "all regulation" with "one regulation", we disregard any meaningful conversation about the "one regulation" with a mess of argument over "all regulation".
Please, help us stop doing that.
If you want to talk about any of the other regulations, I would love to have a conversation about them. Just be specific, please.