[michaelmrose]

It's not clear that network neutrality wouldn't be much more of an issue if government and citizens hadn't shown some degree of will to protect it in name or nature since the inception of the internet. The counterargument sounds a bit like a diabetic dismissing the importance of insulin.

> I’d much prefer an ISP customer bill of rights

This relies on a wholly imaginary choice between net neutrality and the the rights you would prefer. It's not dissimilar to the argument that is made in response to gun violence for instance. For instance "I'd much prefer we focused on the root cause of mental health than potentially infringing on the rights of honest gun owners."

In fact mental health is an important issue but there is no particular reason to believe that a government with a budget in the trillions can't do you know TWO THINGS.

[JumpCrisscross]

> relies on a wholly imaginary choice between net neutrality and the the rights you would prefer

This isn’t how politics works. Crowding out an issue with a filibuster is a valid political tactic. Net neutrality seems, to me, like that when it comes to ISP regulation.

[michaelmrose]

This is how politics works. We have a maximum of 535 law makers with out 18,000 staffers. The reason there is constant discussion about net neutrality is because it is real and actual. There is no connection whatsoever abandoning the actuality of net neutrality and the fanciful notions you imagine would be virtuous. There is no reason to imagine your ideas are ever liable to be made real even if useful.

Abandoning the actual for the fanciful nets us only a loss of both.