Yet another false argument against net neutrality. The problem that net neutrality seeks to address is certainly well understood, it already exists in many plac

Yet another false argument against net neutrality. The problem that net neutrality seeks to address is certainly well understood, it already exists in many places around the world and the only reason it does not quite exist yet in the US is because we had net neutrality rules active until recently. It will take a while for cable and telecom companies to take advantage of the lack of net neutrality, but I am sure they are already considering it. The only thing keeping them back nowadays, is the obvious weakness of the current administration and the uncertainty as to what the next administration will bring. So the reason the "problem does not exist" is because the problem behavior has been banned until recently and may be banned again soon. You may as well say "why ban slavery, it is clearly a problem that does not exist in the US, therefore the thirteenth amendment is useless." Your later argument is a clever misdirection. "Let us all instead of arguing for this problematic net neutrality argue for something else that sounds better on the face of it, but is unlikely to ever happen." Sure I would prefer it if there was more competition at the local level, most people that are not connected to the telecom industry would. But that would be so incredibly expensive that it is unlikely to ever happen. Best case scenario it may happen in 20 years if we are lucky. And if you smother our internet industry in a monopoly for 20 years, it is unlikely to ever recover. But hey, if we get real competition for local internet access, I am very much willing to give up net neutrality. But meanwhile, for those 20 or more years, while we are waiting for that competition to emerge, we must have net neutrality.