[michaelt]

> The ISPs create two (or mor) versions of their packages that they can offer/operate in different states - this would be quite expensive

Why should it be expensive?

In State A, which doesn't have NN laws, you throttle Netflix until they pay you to stop doing so. In State B, which has NN laws, you don't.

It's just a matter of router configuration, isn't it? It wouldn't be totally free, but I'd imagine it could pay for itself.

[vorpalhex]

ISPs tend to be rotten from the inside out. You know when you call them and it's a mess to get any help, and you inevitably get stuck explaining your basic problem 3+ times to someone who thinks wifi is magic? Yeah, it's not any better when you're an employee of those companies.

[magashna]

Only a few months ago did Verizon misconfigure their BGP causing a big outage. Now imagine they need to have different routing for different states. It seems like they're too incompetent to manage to best standards now, so how could we trust them to do any better? We should've considered them dumb pipes from the beginning.

[ComputerGuru]

Remember that time.. a few minutes ago when Verizon configured BGP correctly and nothing happened? And yesterday and the day before and the day before that, too? No? I didn’t think so.

[geofft]

If an ISP is indeed too incompetent to manage two configurations, nothing is stopping them from deploying the State B config everywhere, as if there were nationwide net neutrality.

[afiori]

This just mean that they will likely make mistakes. They can obviously configure their BGP just fine most of the times.