[akramachamarei]

Yes, we should really be concerned about the government repressing internet users on its network. Surely you've noticed the hubbub about age verification recently. Maybe not Marquette, but in other places I certainly would expect the government to try to, for example ban porn under the guise of "protecting kids", or policing "hate speech" under the guise of preventing "incitements to violence". Now, you may not like porn, you may think you don't engage in hate speech, but as in the Niemöller quote, we shouldn't wait for the next disfavoured group to be us. We are I think, thankfully, very far from that, but I don't even want to take steps in that direction.

Maybe this is just a hypothetical future harm. I'm not sure the benefits are any more concrete. After all, if Fios throttles your Netflix, you can (usually) pick another competitor. Would a municipal broadband provider permit competition? Seems unlikely to me, unless the state is willing to forgo the taxes from citizens who go with a private ISP, which I don't think they'd tolerate.

And what if all the ISPs were throttling, i.e. you really had no alternative? I think it's worth asking what economic forces are incentivizing that, and why we think municipal ISPs wouldn't be subject to them? And if they are, who is paying to compensate?

> The truth here is that big companies are more complicit to government intervention than small ones are.

Seems backwards to me. Small company, small litigation warchest. It's "yessir" or we evaporate you. Why do you think it's the other way around?