> and has no say in the matter apart from finding a new ISP

And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™. In fact NetNeutrality™ put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitors.

> In fact NetNeutrality put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitor

Could you please show how Net Neutrality was an expensive regulatory process. And then also show how it priced out small ISPs? Lastly, how is Net Neutrality as a concept a trademark?

Without above it comes over as an opinion, not fact.

Look at TechCruch's[0] weak argument against this (#4). They even have have to admit that it "potentially" does hinder competition, but claim temporary exemptions negate this. They use a single small ISP from SF (which has more resources than any other town in the world) as an example of it not being an issue.

You may not agree with either conclusion, but you must admit that it is the most weakly dismissed argument against added regulations.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-ag...

How does it price out small competitors, no additional work needs to be performed to adhere to net neutrality guidelines afaik, as net neutrality is the default state after laying lines as I understand it.

> And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™.

The post you're replying to didn't suggest it does. Please don't do that thing people do where they pick out some random bit of a post to reply to as a hook to make an unrelated argument for the side they prefer.