I am against NN but even from my point of view the innovation argument is 50% duplicitous. I don't expect big monopoly ISPs to implement these changes with con

I am against NN but even from my point of view the innovation argument is 50% duplicitous. I don't expect big monopoly ISPs to implement these changes with content providers in a way that doesn't disrupt end users' access. But I still don't think we should have universally outlaw this for all ISPs for all time, present and future, including nice little ones answerable to the people of a city or region. The other duplicity is that this is not an ``innovation''. Please Mr. Lobbist. Governments have been taxing economic transactions at both endpoints (buyer and seller) for millenia and the evil tax man has always triaged the taxed at some level where it is no longer economical to collect. If elected democrats (when NN was introduced) really wanted to help the consumer they would have done something to break up the monopoly ISPs, not this moral signaling rule says Google et. al. are less monopolistic than you so were going to pick their side. If republicans actually favored free markets they would follow up ending NN by doing the same. > Sometimes the government has to intervene in a market (like anti-trust laws) in order to create a fair market for companies to compete. And that's OK and every free-market conservative should recognize that fact and agree that it's a good idea if they just think about it for a while. No thinking required in this case, opposing government sponsored monopolies is obvious and shrinking those that must exist to the smallest possible size is too. Conservative federalism. Some conservatives have favorable views of private monopolies though (stating this as a fact, not a personal opinion) and presumably they have thought about it.