> Yes I'm sure it's all due to competition and not the EU's 2015 law that explicitly requires net neutrality (Net Neutrality Regulation 2015).

Why do these have to be in contention?

Regulations are a critical factor in ensuring competition in markets. Without regulations monopolies quickly come to power because your power and influence is not linearly (or sublinearly) correlated to your size (even excluding lobbying power). A free market is a ,,well'' regulated market. A laissez-faire market is only free in passing.

> Why do these have to be in contention?

I never claimed. I simply pointed out that claiming something illegal is not being done by corporations due to increased competition is inherently a BS argument. It's not being done because it's illegal irrespective of the competitive landscape.

A free market is not a lawless market but instead free within regulations. However, the amount of regulation should not make it impossible for competitors to join the market either. With the amount of subsidies in the US for ISPs, I think the services they render might be event called a public service, more than a utility.

We don't disagree. I just thought it was obvious enough that an over regulated market isn't free that it need not be stated explicitly. Especially since this is the general belief.

Sorry for not clarifying. I do agree with your initial statement and wanted to add something to it, not criticize it.

Okay, I was not quite sure if you were criticizing, rebuting, or what. Thanks for clarifying.

One is an explicit policy stating expectations and the other is a speculative hypothesis that the same policy will naturally happen through some form of economic osmosis if only we leave things unmolested enough for an unspecified duration.

I for one, would rather not rely on the assumption of magic.

We know what we want and it's achievable directly. Let's not Rube Goldberg it.

Yeah, but the loophole is also illegal. (so it’s not a loophole?)