> Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. If this is the counterargument to the idea that we have a ca

> Now, most have 2 or more wired options (cable and DSL), and 3 or more cellular-wireless options. If this is the counterargument to the idea that we have a captured market and should regulate it like one, then it's essentially a concession: wireless is a non-starter because of inherent limits, and saying "oh, there's always one alternative" isn't exactly describing a vibrant competitive market in the land of tethered connections. But the thing is, that's pretty much a red herring. The net neutrality debate isn't about competition among carriers at all. It's about competition between people offering services over the network, and most specifically whether those offering/receiving those services have to pay by source/destination. It's arguable that the new rules address more than that, but if the carriers didn't want us to land here, maybe they shouldn't have fired the first shot by threatening the neutral model.