ISPs actually serve two distinct functions that we should separate to get the best mixture of public private. Net neutrality laws are only necessary because we

ISPs actually serve two distinct functions that we should separate to get the best mixture of public private. Net neutrality laws are only necessary because we conflate these two functions, but there's no reason that both functions need to be served by the same company. If we mandated separate ownership for last-mile infrastructure and heavily regulate that to ensure open access to all ISPs, then we can have a market with healthy competition and let consumers decide whether they care about neutral networks. Ideally, that last mile infrastructure would be owned by communities/municipalities who'd contract out maintenance and pay for it with open access fees added to ISP bills. Then any ISP could connect to the municipal network and serve any customer without ever having to install anything at the customer location. Free market competition works well in an environment where its hard to build a durable advantage and customers can easily switch to competitors with a more compelling offering. Separating the part of an ISP that gives a durable advantage from the part that doesn't would allow us to lean on the free market to handle the rest.