I'm a little upset by the bias Oliver showed this week in his Net Neutrality segment that just ended. I completed my law school thesis on Net Neutrality this week. I originally chose the topic because I was so in support of Net Neutrality and wanted to learn more about the topic. After reading more about the legal basis of Net Neutrality, the more I turned against the FCC 2015 Open Internet Order, and am now in favor of Antitrust enforcers at the DoJ and FTC utilizing the Antitrust laws we already have on the books to keep the internet open and free. The 3 bright line rules of Net Neutrality are no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. Blocking and throttling are both vicious antitrust violations of refusal to deal, monopoly, essential facilities, and for major ISP that also own content providers, vertical integration claims. Net neutrality is actually an inter-agency jurisdictional fight over who has the power to regulate the internet. If you leave it to the DOJ and FTC, there will be very expensive precedent setting antitrust litigation coming down the pipe. Litigation is expensive, but it may be a better route than a utility regulatory scheme. I say this only because, after legal research, it turns out that the 2015 Open Internet Order allows the FCC to set fees, unbundle interconnected networks, define licensing territories, and set rates along with provision requirements. Many people believe this will keep the internet open and free, and it would. But, at a cost. The FCC, for the past two years, has defined "Advanced Optimal Technology", using Section 706(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to dictate that a broadband ISP needs to provide 25 MB/S upload, 3 mb/s download. This, along with territorializing network operation licensing, means that we will have a regulated internet that is open and free, but the FCC will give territories of networks to the various providers, and they will be the sole provider in that licensed geographical territory. The utility regulations, much like a water or power utility, make one supplier, or a regulated monopoly, in an area. And setting the floor at 25 MB/S-3MB/S, this means all that each of the companies will have to provide in their legally obtained, yet regulated network territories, is that number. There's no more competition under a regulatory scheme for the big ISPs to provide more than 25mb/s-3mb/s, so they won't, and haven't been. A stated fear, that we're seeing coming to fruition, is a development of wireless networks used for "tethering" hot spots. This allow you to turn a smartphone into a wifi hotspot for your computer. If we leave competition open, the corporations will keep trenching lines and building wired infrastructure that expands with technological development. We don't currently know what speeds we'll need in the future. We were on a path to get 1 GB/S speeds. This has slowed because the broadband ISPs now know all they have to meet is the Advanced Optimal Technology baseline - 25mb/s. Soon, wireless mobile data networks will provide faster speeds than that. 5G rollout in 2020 could eclipse the currently mandated 25mb/s. If we allow competition to die on wired internet, we will all be tethering with slightly faster mobile data network internet. We must not regulate the ISPs due to the fact that competition is actually working to get gigabyte fiber cabling put down across America. I know it's been slow, and money has been wasted. The key thing to remember about utilities and regulation surrounding them, is that typically, the government must show the good or service exists in a natural forming monopoly. Broadband and mobile data network ISPs are not a natural forming monopoly. We have sufficient antitrust laws to protect most of the concerns of the bright lines rules set forth by the 2015 Open Internet Order. Litigation/precedent setting in the court systems will be expensive and costly, but having Google or Netflix sue Comcast/Verizon/AT&T for antitrust concerns will settle the matter for good, and keep the infrastructure competition going. Furthermore, the statistics show that competition has been increasing in the national broadband infrastructure market. Public option municipal development has popped up, as have federal grants for statewide development to last-mile end users. Many cities are also using state law controlled private-public partnership agreements. I don't think people have really thought this through. I don't think you want one provider who is given a government-regulated monopoly in your area, who provides the minimum mb/s as set by a few FCC chairmen as adequate. We don't want complacency in broadband infrastructure development, and if you don't push a Comcast or Verizon to build GB internet, they won't. If the FCC defines, as they have the last two years, the mb/s requirement standard to work toward at a low number, you won't have the infrastructure for the future in the time that you need it.