I don't think California specifically would be better off, for the reasons you describe. It was mostly intended to raise the question: "If nobody around the com

I don't think California specifically would be better off, for the reasons you describe. It was mostly intended to raise the question: "If nobody around the companies and people advocating for Net Neutrality actually wants it, why should a higher power intervene on their behalf?" The headline seems to give the impression that it's only federal Republicans blocking them, which if true would make you think they would prefer to have more local control. I haven't heard any net neutrality advocates give a good argument for that yet. I could imagine "It's easier to have one standard than 50, for each state", but we don't seem to currently have too many disparate Net Neutrality laws that need to be unified. Or "Even unenlightened rural areas deserve open internet" - but that's not convincing if the big tech cities don't even have it yet. I suppose there's, "It's easier to organize a nationwide campaign than to organize hundreds of local ones", but that makes it a matter of logistics not principle. Is that all there is to it? Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws?