[TheSageMage]

Is the argument here that if "net neutrality" goes away, carriers will provide service to "poor, rural area" because they are able to serve their content better than the generally available content on the internet? Not arguing for it, just trying to understand the argument for a less "equal" internet.

Also, I thought this was how it already worked, but it was just called home cable? Don't most homes in the US got a decent hookup to their home for "cable", that usually includes an internet package?

[quadrangle]

I think the argument is this: "The best possible service for customers always necessarily comes from unregulated free-market competition. Therefore, we should remove all regulations, even if they are removed one-by-one with potential imbalances occurring in the regulatory ecosystem. Removal of any regulation is at least closer to true free market. So, we'll start with removing the regulations that my lobbyist friends identify as the ones they most want removed. It's a step in the right direction. Since fewer regulations equals more market freedom, whatever happens will necessarily be an improvement overall compared with whatever would have happened with the regulation in place."

In short: "free markets are the best because whatever result we get from whatever we choose to call free markets is, by definition, the best result."

[thomastjeffery]

The argument is not an argument at all, but an appeal to ideology.

Ironically, the ideology that is appealed to is the best argument for net neutrality.

[dragonwriter]

> The argument is not an argument at all, but an appeal to ideology.

All arguments for policy (or action more generally) are, at root, appeals to ideology. You can't get "should do" results anywhere else.

[quadrangle]

Appeal to ideology is a subset of argument types, not a non-argument. The definition of "argument" doesn't include being good, convincing, or logical.