The hardcore NN tent, at least on HN, isn't particularly hardcore, and especially not about NN. They are more hardcore (and, for that matter, more reasonable)

The hardcore NN tent, at least on HN, isn't particularly hardcore, and especially not about NN. They are more hardcore (and, for that matter, more reasonable) about wanting to cripple (or in some cases "regulate") big communications providers who use their monopolies in the long-distance bus topology space to push their own media agenda. And NN happens to be a politically viable tool for that. But if you put it to a vote, a more anarchic internet (characterized by, inter alia, 1. wholly distributed naming and cert mechanisms, 2. final-mile mesh networking, 3. few or no blanket bans on low-power radio transmission, 4. the removal of politically-enshrined content bias from the application layer (ie, copyright law and software patents)) will, I think, win such a poll. The overwhelming majority here prefer that vision as a long-term plan, compared to barely-leashed telecoms restrained by a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "net neutrality." And so, the solution referred here, since it is pragmatic and reasonable, meets a sort of "for now" test of decency, whilst not being inconsistent with a soft, "best we can do" system of net neutrality for Comcast and Time Warner.