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."

Ties into the whole title 2 thing and how major ISPs were cutting people off of certain types of data arbitrarily.

Consider, for a moment, that their 'property' happens to be the cables, where they sit on the line.

are you talking to me @RyeNorth

Yeah.

okay, are you arguing with me orrrrrrr

Vaguely.

`Can we just have a discussion without it being an argument lol`

I don't get what you're trying to say

the lawsuit was filed because a competitor was allowed to tamper with their property without consent

What I'm saying is, the infrastructure as it exists are the power, telephone, and cable lines within a city.

To what degree were they tampering?

possibly seizing and relocating it

Are they referring to the lines?

which could have an affect on AT&Ts services

not the lines I think but certain modules

Because I don't think they could've possibly been relocating their stations or anything like that.

and also the poles themselves are AT&T property

Are they really? Huh.

I'd figure a neutral party would have to be in charge of those, like the city.