> Business owners in the should be forced to serve the entire public in a non-discriminatory manner because they depend on taxpayer-maintained public infrastruc

> Business owners in the should be forced to serve the entire public in a non-discriminatory manner because they depend on taxpayer-maintained public infrastructure which also serves the public in a non-discriminatory manner (roads, zoning ordinances) for business inputs and for money-spending customers to get to them. > Since the Internet is not a public utility and is privately paid for by ISP subscribers, they can control who uses their service. If the internet was a public utility and roads were funded by congestion pricing, would that make any difference as to how twitter should or shouldn't be regulated? This isn't even an unrealistic hypothetical, there are places where the government runs free wifi hotspots, such as Bavaria and Berlin, in Britain Corbyn even promised free broadband, and there are of course places that use road congestion pricing, such as Singapore, though I can't think of any place that has both. > Someone who accesses the Twitter site doesn't pay a dime, therefore they are not a customer. - Net neutrality outlaws making a limited version of the internet that includes only certain sites available for free. - In Marsh v. Alabama, the supreme court decided that a company town couldn't prevent people from distributing religious materials on sidewalks they owned. These people were not the company's customers either.