Thank you for being understanding about my tone at times. This is an issue that I sometimes get frustrated over, especially when the arguments being made are either counter factual or fundamentally misstate or misunderstand the issues. I too want to thank you for articulating a position beyond the "light touch" argument that Ajit Pai constantly relies on. With regards to your rebuttal, however, you are wrong. First, your discussion about inherent rights and internet traffic does nothing to inform the argument. How is that declaration relevant to the debate? You also go back to the counter factual argument that there is choice in the broadband market. I was particular in my initial comments that if in the future the ISP market was more diverse and choice was an option we should revisit the net neutrality question, but as long as the regional monopolies were the dominant market condition then net neutrality and governement enforcement is necessary.

I am very aware of the issues pertaining to local regulation of the right of ways. It is a major problem and needs to be addressed. Again, however, it has nothing to do with how internet traffic is treated. What is the connection you are making? It has everything to do with those pesky monoplies. But who lobbied for those regulations and who is working overtime to make sure they are strictly enforced? The ISPs!!!! They are using them as a sword to attack hopeful competitors such as Google Fiber. ATT has crews shadowing Google crews as they install fiber so that they can call in the local government to stop Google from installing its fiber dues to minor and inconsequential "violations" of those regulation. But again none of this bears directly on the question of whether net neutrality should be revoked in a few days.

I am curious, why do you have faith that the ISPs won't abuse their monopolies? Or do you believe they should be able to treat internet traffic differently? If so, how is that in the public interest?