> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. That's a common misconception. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_

> The point is that net neutrality doesn’t even exist presently. That's a common misconception. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Early_history_1980_%E2%80%93_early_2000s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_S... > What do you mean? I mean that if demand grows for broadband, they should match their service offerings to reach it. But because the US ISP industry is basically an oligopoly, it's hard to do so and way WAY profitable to keep their state on the market (by lobbying against municipal internet for example) and just start treating and charging traffic differently. It's funny that there is a large percentage of people glorifying the free market at the same time are against 'overreaching regulations' which don't do anything other than protecting an oligopoly. > Yours or his? His. And see above. > How is this relevant? It is. Because imagine that Comcast would be able to legally censor websites. Or AT&T would be able to cut access to Wikileaks or some websites promoting dissent [OOPS]. Ok, let's say they wouldn't go that far. But just basically cut access to competing services. But oh, they wouldn't do that because the Net Neutrality regulations are overreaching and against competition [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. But history has shown who is actually against competition. [OOPS]http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20201788/ns/technology_and_science-internet/t/att-censors-pearl-jam-then-says-oops/ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20201788/ns/technology_and_science... [1]https://www.wired.com/2005/05/voice-over-ips-unlikely-hero/ https://www.wired.com/2005/05/voice-over-ips-unlikely-hero/ [2]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-com... [3]http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/ http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone... [4]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-search-redirection https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea... [5]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.44077d1c090e https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fine... [6]https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality https://www.freepress.net/news/press-releases/att-blocking-i... [7]http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_go... You're using a new account so I need to admit that I'm biased to think that you have a different agenda so I'm pretty sure what I wrote above will never change your belief but I'm open to hearing arguments from other side.