I think it has pros and cons but in the end, I'm slightly opposed to net neutrality and I'll share my reasons. I think the internet is more complicated than water and electricity and writing regulations that actually regulate just the bad stuff away and keep the good stuff is overly optimistic to me. Regulation tends to freeze an industry in place. I'm not convinced that the internet today is the final word on what it should look like in 20 years. I also find most of the anti-net neutrality arguments to be pretty fictional and depend on companies having such a safe monopoly that there will be no recourse for just cutting out companies if they don't pay up. With the possibility of cell phones, cable, DSL, microwave, satelite, or even mesh networks, I just don't see a complete monopoly where they could just cut off Google searching for example. You add in VPN services, and worst case is you are talking about inconveniences, not a stranglehold. In my experience, even a mediocre market is usually better than what congress usually passes. So, yeah, maybe some perfect regulatory framework exists, but I doubt we know what it is, and even if we did, I doubt that is the one they would actually pass. I'm aware there is some natural monopoly elements to internet, but I would rather focus on increasing competition by getting rid of exclusive geographical agreements or even municipal broadband rather than net neutrality.
Lol. Yes, BGP/CDNs/QoS and constant deployment of new protocols like TLS 1.3 or QUIC is incredibly simple. If you don't know how something works, that doesn't mean it's simple.
