I would be ok with arguments against net neutrality except: 1. There is no competition in any given market for the most part. ISPs are defacto monopolies in mo

I would be ok with arguments against net neutrality except: 1. There is no competition in any given market for the most part. ISPs are defacto monopolies in most places. When the same politicians arguing against net neutrality are trying to pass laws prohibiting municipal broadband, it makes no sense. 2. ISPs have benefited from, and depend on, resources and favors granted to them by the public. They run cable on public land, have benefited from right-of-way laws, and have received financial assistance. The internet itself is fundamentally a publicly developed resource. It's ludicrous to argue that they aren't legally obligated to the public interest at some basic level. Want to get rid of net neutrality? Fine. But then I should be able to charge you unlimited amounts for running your cables over my land. So should the city. 3. Legally, it makes no sense for ISPs to argue that they can discriminate packets for one purpose but not another. So if they can discriminate between packets, they should be legally responsible for all traffic on their network. Child porn happening on your network? You're legally responsible because you didn't actively filter it, just as if child porn creation was happening in my house, I'd be responsible. I don't really understand why all these things aren't being argued. How did we get to some idea that ISPs just invented the internet and built it completely on their own land, using their own resources, with no assistance, and are somehow simultaneously totally unresponsible for anything that occurs on their networks, and that it would be unfair for the government to offer competing services? If ISPs want to gid rid of net neutrality, they should be held accountable for the true consequences.