Agreed, I was merely outlining the opposite side argument in a very concise way so that it's immediately obvious how much broken it is.
> It does not hamper free market competition, it protects human beings from monopolies and cartels and sets up the legal framework within which the free market is allowed to operate.
This is precisely my opinion, as stated in my second paragraph.
That is so clearly not the case with this specific regulation, that your conclusion is total nonsense.
Net Neutrality is a term describing a necessary quality for the internet to have in order to be a free market.
Net Neutrality regulation is necessary because ISPs do not have competition to prevent them from breaking that.
Net Neutrality regulation requires ISPs to keep a few records, costing them a tiny amount, which is totally reasonable, and will not hamper the free market in any way.
Just to be clear, the first sentence is not my argument, and not my point of view at all: I was merely stating in a very clear way the (flawed) chain of reasoning people in favour of killing net neutrality put forward, which makes it all the more obvious how much nonsensical it is.
If you (re)read my second paragraph you will notice that it exactly states your last three sentences, and that we definitely agree.
To me Net Neutrality is a needed regulation that forces telco ops to compete on telco stuff. In that framework it's a free market competition and it does bring prices down as well as allows additional players to enter the game on ground unbiased by deep pocketed content production, which is a venue in direct conflict of interest with the telco (i.e be a pipe) side of things.