system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Net neutrality isn't a problem, lack of competition between internet service providers is.

Think about if we superimposed the idea of net neutrality onto other industries. Imagine if we required supermarkets to sell all brands of foods. That seems ludicrous, but Whole Foods is, in effect, restricting consumers' access to certain types of foods by not selling products with artificial preservatives. 

In order to get their products on store shelves, food companies have to pay big fees to supermarkets in order to get their products on shelves. It costs extra to get their products in prime location like on the end of aisles or at eye level. Isn't this exactly like a ISP charging a content provider for faster speeds? 

Nobody complains about Whole Foods not selling Lays potato chips because you could just go to Walmart and buy some. You don't like the food at Walmart? Go to Target. Whole Foods is too expensive? Find your local farmer's market.

I feel like the reason net neutrality is such a hot button topic is that, in the United States, there's very little competition between Internet Service Providers. Unless you live in a major metropolitan area, most people only have one or two choices in terms of internet providers.

This is partially because the nature of internet makes it prone to forming natural monopolies. It's extremely expensive to lay down the infrastructure needed to provide internet service. But there's also an issue with collusion among ISPs and government interference. 

EDIT: I think I should expand upon what I mean by government interference. Yes, laying down the infrastucture is expensive, but the real barrier to entry is artificial, created by local governments. ISPs have to negotiate with local governments for the ability to lay down cables and utilities poles. The issue is that local governments can essentially give one ISP a local monopoly in exchange for kick backs using this system.

If there is robust competition between ISPs, net neutrality comes a non-issue. Consumers should be able to pay for internet service that matches their needs. I think it's totally reasonable that gamers would be willing to pay for faster service while they game while a person who only uses the internet to read the news or chat with friends wouldn't pay as much. It's the same principle as choosing between supermarkets. Some people are willing to pay extra to buy from Whole Foods, others aren't.

So change my view, the federal government should be encouraging competition among ISPs, not dictating how private companies do business.
gpt
Telecoms is a natural monopoly, like roads or other national infrastructure projects. It is not helpful, and inherently less efficient, to try to force such industries to have competition.

The reason we need Net Neutrality regulation is that we insist on having our telecoms run by private profit-driven business instead of having the government fund this infrastructure publicly. Monopolies have obvious issues when run for-profit, so either the government needs to run it or heavily regulate it.