Net neutrality has been the status quo on the internet for 30 years without regulatory intervention.  Whether or not there&#x27;s a <i>credible</i> threat to that status quo is something that&#x27;s very arguable: there are potentially more forces working <i>against</i> the ISPs&#x27; ability to engage in content-based discrimination than working in favor of it.  The organizations with the most de facto power on the internet seem to be the ones which stand the most to lose from any breach of net neutrality: the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the world seem quite a bit more influential than the Comcasts and the Verizons.  On the other hand, agency capture is a very real phenomenon, and the Comcasts and Verizons certainly do have disproportionate influence over the FCC: it&#x27;s entirely possible that the thing most likely to undermine net neutrality in the near future is making its preservation the responsibility of the FCC.<p>The solution to the problem is to support organizations and institutions that have real substantive incentives to protect net neutrality -- not merely an inherently co-optable political mandate -- and to work in parallel to diminish the actual capacity of ISPs to actually abridge e.g. by promoting widespread end-to-end encryption of everything, etc.<p>The mindset of &quot;we&#x27;ve got to address this potential problem by giving monopolistic coercive power to this single centralized institution&quot; has just got to go away.