2 ms·

Part of the problem 'net neutrality' faces is its name. The average US citizen has no idea what 'net neutrality' means when they hear it, and can't be bothered

Part of the problem 'net neutrality' faces is its name. The average US citizen has no idea what 'net neutrality' means when they hear it, and can't be bothered to learn about it. If it had been branded 'internet freedom' then we wouldn't even be having this discussion because it would be toxic for politicians to mess with something called 'internet freedom.' Source: Sat through way too many focus groups testing communications concepts in my life...

oxide 10y ago
Calling this concept anything but "internet freedom" once it crossed from "concept" to "mainstream political debate" is a little bit like shooting your horse in the hoof before it leaves the gate. Sticking to "net neutrality" seemingly resulted in ISP's treating the phrase like courts treat jury nullification and the FCC making this an across-the-isle issue about corporate investment and infrastructure costs rather than regional monopolies, tiered access, slow lanes, etc. I'm not naive enough to blame this on the name alone, but I'm also curious to see how net neutrality might fair when pushed onto ISP's and mobile carriers alike as "internet freedom."
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Part of the problem 'net neutrality' faces is its name. "Net Neutrality" isn't even the name the name the pro-neutrality group at the FCC used: that was Open Internet. Which, honestly, would be a better name for advocates to use, as well, though "net neutrality" is perhaps more precise. It would get a lot more attention with headlines of "FCC chairman plans fast track repeal of Open Internet."