> If net neutrality fails, would it makes sense aggressively pursue a legal effort to break up "big cable"?
It already makes sense.
If there were a competitive free market, then there would be a rational argument against net neutrality rules, but that simply isn't the case unless you live in North Dakota.
It's ironic that Ajit Pai acts like he can back up his argument against net neutrality with nothing but a short-sighted libertarian stance, yet he is so clearly helping support the current oligopoly, rather than fighting for a competitive free market.
It already makes sense.
If there were a competitive free market, then there would be a rational argument against net neutrality rules, but that simply isn't the case unless you live in North Dakota.
It's ironic that Ajit Pai acts like he can back up his argument against net neutrality with nothing but a short-sighted libertarian stance, yet he is so clearly helping support the current oligopoly, rather than fighting for a competitive free market.