And it's not harder since NN is dead. It's gone and by 2020 people will understand the opposition to axing it's short existence was pointless. We should focus on what you appear to agree matters more; more competition.
There is no way in hell that we are going to see real competition between ISPs in Amarica this year, next year, or five years from now.
We all want it, but it’s not going to happen (obvious, even to a casual observer).
So tell you what: let’s get competition first, and then talk about eliminating net neutrality rules. Because doing the latter certainly won’t accomplish the former.
Your argument is exactly like “We don’t need laws regulating guns, we just need people to stop shooting people with them.” True and helpful, as long as we live in a fantasy world instead of this actual one.
[1] That is, people who keep trotting out this “competition is better than regulation” trope, in the context of net neutrality, where it has relevance only in fantasy scenarios (e.g. a superhero named MarketMan appears to blast everybody with his Competition Ray, and somehow open up an industry that is more protected from competition by regulation than almost any other that exists).
The 25 years when internet was accessed over telephone wire which was regulated as a utility?
Do you even know why NN came to be?
> NN is just a typical BS branding for "More Rules". It's step 0 in the standard manual on mission creep.
In this evil governmental overreach conspiracy, who do you think benefits from these "More Rules"? What's their motive?
I'm all ears on how mission creep with regards to regulation is not a "conspiracy". Maybe you understand that power expansion is a law of nature and hence does not require overt "evil" conspiracy, if so, we agree.
Definitely don't mention competition.