"Democrats in the New York state Assembly say any broadband provider picked to replace Charter Communications in the state should be required to observe net neutrality. . .Good luck finding a provider willing to do this without an outlandish NYS-style taxpayer or ratepayer subsidy to finance defiance of the laws of economics. Net Neutrality may sound good, but it is really the opposite.
"The lawmakers say whichever company replaces Charter should be prohibited from altering web speeds or traffic to favor certain sites or apps."
Requiring "Net Neutrality" unnecessarily extends government control, worsening service, raising rates for most people, and inhibiting expansion and innovation.
"Unnecessary" because new technologies (eg., 4G LTE) are introducing competition into the marketplace, giving customers options of doing business with another internet provider if they feel their current provider is being unfair to them.
"Worsening service" and "raising rates" because non-affiliated content makers (eg. TV channels, movie industry, news sources, etc. ) will siphon income that the internet provider needs to maintain its network. Remember that Spectrum/Time Warner Cable/ and Harron Communications (locally) began with delivering content (TV), not internet, and their wired networks' well-being depended upon the income received for content.
"Inhibiting expansion and innovation" because a provider will not make the needed investment if an investment will benefit competitors more than itself.
It's like the old "Fairness Doctrine" of 40-50 years ago which required that broadcasters give "equal time" to opposing viewpoints. The result was that many broadcasters simply stopped disseminating any viewpoints at all in order to avoid the government's paper work. Instead of providing the public with alternative viewpoints on an issue, the public would up receiving less information.
With apologies to Mies van der Rohe, "Less (governmental control) is More (public benefit)"