> Clauses like this have been particularly hard on Small ISPs,<p>ah yes, the mythical mom and pop ISPs that are serving so much of the country. "Won't somebody please thing of the ~~children~~ small businesses"!<p>> Such a deregulation would force companies that have exceeded their ability to function effectively due to their size, but are still being protected from competition by regulations to fail<p>or it would lead them to act even more abusively, running rampant until it ends in disaster as we have seen time after time. It's not like Comcast is some failure as a company either.<p>You need better justification than "regulation is sometimes bad" and blanket bucketing of regulation. The airlines example is fine, removing some regulation made sense there. Removing regulations that hurt the ability to build new lines and allow for monopolies also makes sense. I'm less convinced it makes sense to remove regulations requiring airlines to show customers the actual prices, including surcharges and baggage fees and anything else. I'm less convinced that it makes sense to get rid of net neutrality regulations.<p>> allowing ISPs to create tiers of preferential service would afford users more control over the Internet, not less.<p>they already can, and it's not a net neutrality issue. You can charge me for more transfer, or for more speed. that's fine. I pay 20 bucks more a month for a faster plan right now, have been for years. This type of argument misrepresents the issue.
>Clauses like this have been particularly hard on Small ISPs, and were one of the main reasons for the FCC’s re-evaluation of net neutrality.<p>Here's the problem with that argument. Allowing small ISPs to compete might have be prudent 20 years ago, but it certainly isn't now. Small ISPs no longer exist. At this stage of the industry, the net neutrality regulation seems much more appropriate.