the problem of small ISPs is high costs of entering the market

Disagree.

the infrastructure is very expensive, but competition could lessen those costs

There really isn't any competition though.

The infrastructure is impossible.

In a lot of places you see service from a single ISP.

also selective throttling is good in a variety of applications

I'm in one of those areas.

Next town over, it's another ISP but their spheres of influence don't intersect.

There's no choice.

I pay about 80 bucks to get bent over by my ISP

There's no competition.

5 mbps up, 10 down

I used to be on gigabit.

free market can create competition

And if you lose service for the better part of a week and they take their time dragging ass, there's nothing you can get outside of maybe a tiny bump in how much you pay that month.

Well that's just it. The shit from before net neutrality wasn't much better.

not an argument

Even Google, troubled company it may be

In fact if the constant stream of reports are anything to go by, ISPs have been lying about pretty much everything that was supposed to be beneficial for decades.

We were supposed to have 1:1 up/down speeds by 2000.

has had their bids shut down in some prospective markets

due to lobbying.

In order to set up infrastructure

You generally have to have a city's permission.

Lobbying by who? It didn't happen to be due to direct influence by comcast or at&t's lawyers did it?

I have a whole google doc of evidence against net neutrality

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/att-sues-nashville-in-bid-to-stall-google-fiber/

https://www.reporternewspapers.net/2015/12/17/google-fiber-hits-brookhaven-roadblock-with-zoning-denial/

Ah, I see where you're coming from.

Question though.

By your definition, what is net neutrality.

Pretty sure it's the same as yours.

Except my point is not going at it from a legislative standpoint.

Legislation creates roadblocks.

that lawsuit was because google was permitted to physically tamper with AT & Ts equipment which was technically illegal

You know this brings to mind a point.

How much crap's been tied to the net neutrality bill by this point?

The fact that the lawsuit stalls a potential competitor doesn't factor in at all?

"The Ordinance thus purports to permit a third party (the Attacher) to temporarily
seize AT&T’s property, and to alter or relocate AT&T’s property, without AT&T’s consent and
with little notice" -from the lawsuit

Because my understanding of it is still "no fast lanes, all data must be treated equally."