I have a serious problem with the naming convention of “net neutrality.” It’s extremely confusing because it sounds like “net neutrality” is some abstract objec

I have a serious problem with the naming convention of “net neutrality.” It’s extremely confusing because it sounds like “net neutrality” is some abstract object up for debate. But in actuality, what’s up for debate is “anti net neutrality”. The status-quo is net neutrality. If Congress/FCC were to do nothing, we would still have net neutrality. In that sense, it’s confusing for non-technical, mainstream consumers to hear about the debate on “net neutrality” as if it’s a question of whether or not we should implement net neutrality. It’s already implemented simply by the absence of regulation. This confusion, and all the convoluted technical discussion that goes along with it, leaves most people with little ability to discern who’s arguing for what. Lobbyists and government regulators prey on this confusion. Their behavior is symptomatic of a much larger problem in US politics. Unfortunately the internet is now a hot target for the externalities of this political system. The best move, as others have said, would be to do nothing. There is no need for regulation; the market is working.