[nunyabuizness]

> net neutrality is a case where regulation is stopping really bad things from happening

I'm fairly anti-regulation and I from what I understand, net neutrality is a (federal) regulatory solution to a problem created by explicitly by (state + local) regulation.

I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

[literallycancer]

You don't have regulation forcing companies to share infrastructure with competitors in the US? Like the electrical grid or water pipes?

Building things from scratch to compete with an established competitor at that scale is nearly impossible, you'd never see any new players entering the market if they had to build a new grid.

Why is net neutrality different?

>I honestly don't understand why people think that net neutrality is a better solution than a (currently non-existant) federal policy to remove state and local regulations that created ISP oligopolies which limited internet freedom in the first place.

You'd have to break up the oligopolies first, right?

[Natanael_L]

Unless you can guarantee everybody will have access to multiple ISP:s (effectively impossible unless the backbone owners for your area offers open access to their network), net neutrality is pretty much necessary to guarantee that people can communicate freely.