Redeemer,I read the articles you identified. On the issue of changes needed in order to increase competition we agree. But the here and now (specifically tomorrow) does not change the fact that ISPs have regional monopolies, have greater market incentives to capitalize on their gatekeeper roles by maximizing their ROI through network traffic "management", and would not be so hell bent on reversing net neutrality if they had no intention of implementing new pricing models that are based on manipulating network traffic.

That last part is an important observation. Ajit Pai and the ISPs are proclaiming as loudly as they can that (1) there is no history of ISPs abusing their role (which is false, remember that Title II reclassification came about because Comcast unilaterally blocked all BitTorrent traffic, challenging the then regulatory regime being used by the FCC to put net neutrality in place) and (2) that they will not be manipulating internet traffic between their networks, the Internet, and the consumer. In effect they are saying that it won't change anything. If so, then why the extreme efforts to reverse the policy in the face of overwhelming public opposition?

One has to look at the likely motivations of the actors in order to assess the veracity of their assertions and positions. It's like when one weighs climate science or the tobacco lobby. The ISPs without question are the only industy sector that will immediately reap the overwhelming benefits from getting rid of net neutrality; those benefits are maximizing revenue and profit generation from their network. And how do they do that? There are not that many viable options except for monetizing network traffic.

So my position is that until there is truly a competitive ISP market where consumers have choice and market competition incentivises a type of net neutrality without the need for government enforcement, the ISPs cannot be trusted to not abuse their monopolies, becasue if they truly don't intend to monetize network traffic, they would not be so hell bent on pursuing such an unpopular reform.

Ultimately, on the immediate need for net neutrality to stay in place we will have to agree to disagree. My frustration is that if my position were to prevail it would not increase the likelihood that the nightmare scenario I used earlier of Comast charging $15 to access Netflix coming about, whereas your positon does.