For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to enforce it (ie choose another isp). But that would show that the isp landscape isn't

For this requirement to have any meaning, Montana would need to be able to enforce it (ie choose another isp). But that would show that the isp landscape isn't owned by monopolies. This would actually seriously undermine many arguments as to why net neutrality needs laws to protect it over what the market can do. I wonder is if we will start to find out that maybe the isp market isn't as closed as we thought - wireless tech, more entrants, new tech - and those saying we need NN laws because the market isn't healthy enough will pivot to a more normative claim regardless of completion. I am somebody who could easily be brought on board with specifically crafted NN laws, but see much of the title ii at all costs advocacy a little of the mark.