Equal access for all, or an excuse to control and tax?

I've got my opinion. What's yours?

Manfred

I think it's another control move and money maker for an already too large government. Government needs to back down and stop intruding.

Ooh, can't resist a hot topic!

I'm not an economist, a computer engineer, or a businesswoman. I don't like to voice opinions on topics that I actually have little knowledge about and where all of my insight comes from tertiary-sourced internet articles and social media posts.

But from what I've seen, the abolishment of net neutrality is a very bad move in our current state. It's already bad enough that the United States has only two broadband service providers; Comcast and AT&T. Other countries, such as the UK, have dozens. It wouldn't matter if a single ISP decided to thwart its service to those without a premium plan, the consumers would simply move to a better service provider.

The fact that our Internet here in the US is in a monopolistic state is what worries me the most. I've seen talks that Comcast and AT&T might even have a merge. The entry level into this market is much too high in the US. If net neutrality goes down, then competition better go up. The ISPs regulate our Internet, and the consumers regulate the ISPs. That's how laissez-faire works, right?

@Monster,
I don't like excess government imposition either. But isn't there something that needs to be done here? Question is, what?

@Luna,
Capitalism works when competition is fierce, and your point about monopolies is so true. The ultimate protection is that consumers have the power to spend elsewhere. In a monopoly, they can't.

Can't we address the monopoly issue with the courts? There are already policy and laws in place to ensure free competition. In infrastructure industries where it would be costly and nationally inefficient to duplicate infrastructure (land lines, commercial airlines, electrical power, etc. And cable), the government typically regulates some regional monopolies. When cable TV and internet became blurred, somehow they left only two major broadbands in play. Maybe they thought that other technologies (I have DSL) would keep competition free.

So... couldn't the government just do what they usually do with keeping monopolies from forming, as an alternative to regulating the service itself?

Manfred