There is a reasonable argument for not wanting the FCC involved in setting technical policy for how a carrier runs its own network. It is at best disingenuous to claim "net neutrality regulation" is the only way to save the Internet.<p>Yes, I want the initial effects of net neutrality (mainly cheap access to comcast by CDNs and major hosting providers)<p>If someone builds a non-monopoly network, perhaps via multi-dwelling metro ethernet or fixed wireless, I <i>want</i> that network to be able to implement whatever QoS they want. If that means 155M links to buildings with 500 subscribers and some kind of local CDN node for video content which is "free" and QoS on other traffic, that's a win for consumers.<p>The correct place for requiring neutrality is when local governments negotiate with carriers for any monopoly rights. In exchange for a geographic monopoly on laying infrastructure, it would be reasonable to demand reasonable-and-non-discriminatory access to the network.<p>From a practical perspective, local governments are probably too technically and generally incapable of negotiating with big companies like Comcast, but that's a problem we're already facing. Model contracts would probably help with that, or state regulators.