So attack the real problem (more options aka free market) instead of asking for more rules.

i guess you could quantify that as the real problem if you like, it's a much harder problem however.

the incumbents are currently successfully shutting out big competition from putting in their own infrastructure (google has been successfully blocked from areas by lawsuits, along with municipal ISPs).

edit: and even if competition was unfettered, it would still take many years and a lot of investment to provide real alternatives

giving a shit about what the "right" way to deal with these assholes is probably not that productive.

Na. Giving a shit is the only thing that actually changes stuff.

And it's not harder since NN is dead. It's gone and by 2020 people will understand the opposition to axing it's short existence was pointless. We should focus on what you appear to agree matters more; more competition.

Three years + voting + a number of more years for execution is a long time to wait to possibly get back to an open internet (with real competition for web services as you seem to like).

Open? Like the ~25 years before 'NN'? I was there. Competition works. NN is just a typical BS branding for "More Rules". It's step 0 in the standard manual on mission creep.

What people like you[1] are missing is that Internet providers all benefit massively from regulation that PREVENTS competitors from threatening them. NN rules are just a counterweight to all that mess.

There is no way in hell that we are going to see real competition between ISPs in Amarica this year, next year, or five years from now.

We all want it, but it’s not going to happen (obvious, even to a casual observer).

So tell you what: let’s get competition first, and then talk about eliminating net neutrality rules. Because doing the latter certainly won’t accomplish the former.

Your argument is exactly like “We don’t need laws regulating guns, we just need people to stop shooting people with them.” True and helpful, as long as we live in a fantasy world instead of this actual one.

[1] That is, people who keep trotting out this “competition is better than regulation” trope, in the context of net neutrality, where it has relevance only in fantasy scenarios (e.g. a superhero named MarketMan appears to blast everybody with his Competition Ray, and somehow open up an industry that is more protected from competition by regulation than almost any other that exists).

> Open? Like the ~25 years before 'NN'? I was there. Competition works.

The 25 years when internet was accessed over telephone wire which was regulated as a utility?

Do you even know why NN came to be?

> NN is just a typical BS branding for "More Rules". It's step 0 in the standard manual on mission creep.

In this evil governmental overreach conspiracy, who do you think benefits from these "More Rules"? What's their motive?

Well I'm arguing against it so of course I have no idea. Please elaborate. Maybe also expand on the difference between oldschool "utility" dialup and pre-NN broadband (as if the upstream ISP couldn't legally traffic shape "utility" dialup).

I'm all ears on how mission creep with regards to regulation is not a "conspiracy". Maybe you understand that power expansion is a law of nature and hence does not require overt "evil" conspiracy, if so, we agree.

Definitely don't mention competition.

ultimately the issue is laws in favor of the incumbents, while more competition would absolutely be a better solution long term if laws aren't being made to ensure net neutrality laws are definitely not going to be made to allow more competition.