Wow...and your first piece was critical of us net neutrality supporters as using vague generalities. The firs 2/3rds of your second piece is completely nonsensical. As a philospophical argument on the threats of government regulation it is highly entertaining. It doesn't, however, have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality doesn't let the governement set prices, choose winners or losers, or any of the shiny objects you use to distract from the real issues. Net neutrality once again for the slow witted among us is a regulation that says all internet traffic must be treated equally. It ensures that the winners and losers are picked by the free market of everyone on the internet, not the companies that bring it to our routers. Your discussion about monopolies is important and I don't have many issues and agree with much of it. But it doesn't describe the facts as they exist. There also is nothing about net neutrality that helps or hurts the regional monopolies so it is kind of a shiny object argument. It doesn't help. Now the last 3rd of your argument we can have a discussion on. Since net neutrality has no impact on the increasing of ISPs they should develop organically. If in 5- 10 years the current regional monopolies are busted by the advent of 5G or the others you mention at the end of your argument, and we have multiple ISPs to choose from, then I am all of reopening the discussion on whether net neutrality if needed.