I don't know, man. You cherry-pick some examples of government inefficiency, but our society benefits greatly from all the rules that the government enforces in order to benefit citizens (e.g. the FDA approving new food products).
I'm not one of those people who thinks we don't need any regulations. I think they need to be a last-resort when everything else has been tried.
Everything else has not been tried here.
I mean, 5G and the SpaceX satellite internet plan are right around the corner.
Woah, your corner must be awesome.
Problem is you can always always cry that not everything has been tried and perpetually put off regulation until we try this or that or this again (it might work because things are slightly different now). It's also easy to argue that existing regulations were put in place by morons who had no reason to regulate anything, and ignore all the history and precedent how civilians, businesses and even government entities can't be trusted to operate above board without a gun to their head.
Even if you're naive enough you can see the utopia with limited regulation where everyone acts responsibly and for the greatest goof, plenty of people don't really want to be subjected to the reality of that perpetual experiment. We've had generations, centuries even where people had an opportunity to do the right thing sans regulation and the minute it costs more than $0 those ideals go out the window, if they ever existed.
And certainly seems like some of the nicest places to live are fairly heavily regulated in many aspects. And places that have very little regulation tend to be hellholes of pollution and varying degrees of human suffering and environmental damage.
So where is utopia of meager regulation that can be used as a shining example?
I can already hear your objections..."But there's some regulation in all of those!"
Yes, but it's much less than in other fields. The fact that the government is so pervasive that it's very hard to find an example of a truly free market is not an argument against a free market.
From what I see with these corporations, they are quite happy creating "regulations" of their own that benefit them and do not benefit their competitors. So I'm not getting this reaction, personally, which seems reflexively anti-government because bureaucracy. In a regulatory vacuum, eventually, someone's eventually going to step in with their own "regulations". And these rules will most likely benefit themselves... not the public.
I'm mainly okay with net neutrality because high speed broadband is a quasi monopoly in the United States. If this changes (which includes eliminating any regulations that stifle competition among US high speed Internet), net neutrality is probably not necessary.