[cmurf]

Net neutrality involves less regulation and thus less barrier to entry. That government requires IsPs to collect data on usage, and store it for several months is a huge burden and cost to any would be small competitors.

The loss of net neutrality just increases walled gardens. And there will be a patch work of exceptions instead of broad neutrality.

[aleeds]

I am all for net neutrality, but net neutrality is definitely regulation. It's the government saying that one entity cannot pay another for a service/good, classic regulation.

[vmarsy]

Which entity isn't paying exactly? Content providers have to pay an ISP to be connected to the Internet in the first place. That price is diffused through the whole network of ISPs through their pricing schemes in between each other. It eventually reach the consumer-facing ISP such as AT&T and Comcast.

Instead of like you who pays for something like 100mbps download and 10 upload, big content provider probably have a commercial contract more like 100mbps upload and download for each of their data centers.

[cmurf]

I'm not suggesting net neutrality is not regulation. I'm suggesting it's simpler regulation than letting companies sort it out, which always end up with many competing top end interests getting all sorts of exceptions applied by scalpel and duct tape.