Given that this “promotion” of net neutrality is so weak, it is perhaps not surprising that many readers seem to have read it as opposing net neutrality. Indeed, I read most of it wondering if some typo had left out a “not” somewhere.
King seems to be aware that government regulation is routinely lousy [The routine reasons for this being general government incompetence and the fact the rules are routinely written and enforced by those the law is supposed to restrain.], but he tries to rely on the “natural monopoly” argument. Time has taught us that natural monopoly is charged a lot more often than it actually exists, and King even admits that any monopoly in this case is unnatural, caused by Washington, not the market. Having those who caused the problem try to solve it is a real effective way to make things worse.
King argues that since Washington has created a monopoly, the government must regulate it, until somebody finds a better way. However, one of the first things those benefited by the regulation will do is to make sure nobody is allowed to find a better way [and end their free ride].
Far better to end the regulation we have, not add more.