Internet service is one of those areas where you can only free up one market by limiting another. You create an even playing ground for internet companies and users by heavily regulating ISPs.

I'm not a fan of either side to be honest - I think efforts should be made to make it easier to enter the ISP market so that competition and consumer choice forces competition between ISPs to provide the best service.

What market is being limited in a natural monopoly? “Market” is commonly used with the implication that multiple sellers exist and the buyer can choose any or none, all of which is unlike the ISP situation for millions of people.

What I think makes the most sense is going back to what we had with DSL: require the owner of the cable to the house to provide access at cost, allowing competition for the higher level services.

ISPs aren't a natural monopoly - trunk cables are. I can see a good case for having those be federally owned and managed if they aren't at the moment - I can't really speak to the US situation at that level because I'm from the UK and most cables are owned by BT who lease access to other ISPs.

Net neutrality isn't free market. I am not saying it's bad -- but I am saying that a private ISP being forced to do something isn't free market at all.

Net neutrality is a solution to the wrong problem. The real problem is lack of real ISP competition in many areas. If there were actually a free market with ISPs, then consumers could pick the service that delivers data in a way that is pleasing to them.

Please read up on the difference between a free person and a free market. A market is free when all participants (both buyers and sellers) have equal power. Large businesses and corporations skew that balance because of their size, so regulation is a necessity to ensure that free market.