I think you might have a good argument about startup ISPs not being able to compete due to regulation, but is the net neutrality regulation on its own really a big obstacle to that? How much regulation are we talking about (I heard something about 300+ pages)?

Now that so much infrastructure is built though, isn't that more the problem for startup ISPs? How many times can you dig up the streets and put more cables in? I can get the argument that the infrastructure is now more like a public utility.

I agree with the general view that governments regulating things tends to stifle innovation and competition, but I'm not sure if this argument applies in this case. In fact I think the opposite argument that a level playing field for traffic is more likely to allow competition in the website arena at least.

I am not sure what side of the debate I'm on yet, I am simply trying to understand the issues at the moment. Whatever happens the govt. must not be allowed to censor the internet, but I don't see how the net neutrality rules could enable the govt. to do that.

I don't see how the question of Google, Facebook, Twitter currently monopolizing their areas is relevant to net neutrality. What seems very odd to me is that they support net neutrality when surely having access to faster network speeds would help them as established big players with big turnover. Surely it would help them consolidate their position even further? In light of their own tendencies towards blocking competitors they surely can't be trying to occupy the moral high ground? I am much confused by this whole debate so far.