4 ms·

Who, when asked, wouldn't support "Net Neutrality?" It sounds like something everyone should be for.."hey, Net Neutrality hell yeah and we shouldn't club baby

by cubano 9y ago

Who, when asked, wouldn't support "Net Neutrality?" It sounds like something everyone should be for.."hey, Net Neutrality hell yeah and we shouldn't club baby seals either!" As always, its the policies that really matter...having a catchy must-be-for-it-for-virtue-signaling moniker hardly explains what going on in the back rooms where the legislation is being written. It's like the "Affordable Care Act"...who doesn't want affordable-fucking-care? We are all currently learning, however, that this "care" is hardly that and "affordable" is nowhere in sight.

tinalumfoil 9y ago
> Most Americans do not trust the U.S. government to protect access to the Internet Net neutrality is regulated by the FCC, a government agency under Donald Trump. By this article's own admission people have very little faith in the government. There's an interesting sentiment on HN that more regulation is the correct response to distrusting the government but I'd imagine lessening executive power is the more common response.
- Tyrannosaur 9y ago
  Very true, but despite the distrust of the government, Americans tend to have even more distrust of Comcast
toast0 9y ago
> Who, when asked, wouldn't support "Net Neutrality?" Me; not sure that counts though. Although, I support local loop unbundling, which has similar goals.
- cubano 9y ago
  Local loop unbundling is a very much needed thing and I've been for since Bob Metcalfe used to push for it back in the 90's, but the name hardly virtue-signals like "Net Neutrality" does. I don't really see how the two are at all similar though.
  - toast0 9y ago
    They're both attempts to prevent incumbent carriers from doing bad things. In Net Neutrality, you list the bad things and attempt to prohibit them. In local loop bundling, you make it possible for someone else to provide better service, so there's a competition incentive so the incumbents are less likely to do bad things. Of course, it's trivial to circumvent either. In net neutrality, you can't deprioritize traffic to someone you don't like, but you can underbuy transit, and setup restrictive peering agreements that only your friends happen to be able to meet. In local loop unbundling, you can sell your retail products for significantly less than the wholesale price (like Pacific Bell did), and make it harder to move services when customers are on an unbundled loop, thus providing an economic and convenience incentive to go with the incumbent. Even still, in this poorly regulationed unbundled loop case, it's economically feasible to get better residential service; in a poorly enforced net neutrality world, you won't necessarily have any real options if you don't want to pay crazy money to connect to dark fiber.
int_19h 9y ago
> It's like the "Affordable Care Act"...who doesn't want affordable-fucking-care? We are all currently learning, however, that this "care" is hardly that and "affordable" is nowhere in sight The polls show the opposite of what you're claiming, though. If they ask people whether they support ACA by name, the result is lower than when they ask whether they support specific provisions and programs that together add up to ACA.
- cubano 9y ago
  Probably because "ACA" triggers the words "Obamacare" in most peoples minds, right?
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Probably because ACA/Obamacare has been specifically targeted by political ads and in the media by name. So many people don't really know what it does, but they do know that it's bad for some reason or the other.
colemickens 9y ago
>that this "care" is hardly that and "affordable" is nowhere in sight. What do you mean by this?
princeb 9y ago
i wonder if it's something like people saying "I support net neutrality", but then will be attracted to a plan that promises "free spotify" or "free netflix". that's probably irrelevant anyway. most people have principles but will act pragmatically.

by cubano 9y ago

tinalumfoil 9y ago

> Most Americans do not trust the U.S. government to protect access to the Internet Net neutrality is regulated by the FCC, a government agency under Donald Trump. By this article's own admission people have very little faith in the government. There's an interesting sentiment on HN that more regulation is the correct response to distrusting the government but I'd imagine lessening executive power is the more common response.

Tyrannosaur 9y ago
Very true, but despite the distrust of the government, Americans tend to have even more distrust of Comcast

toast0 9y ago

> Who, when asked, wouldn't support "Net Neutrality?" Me; not sure that counts though. Although, I support local loop unbundling, which has similar goals.

cubano 9y ago
Local loop unbundling is a very much needed thing and I've been for since Bob Metcalfe used to push for it back in the 90's, but the name hardly virtue-signals like "Net Neutrality" does. I don't really see how the two are at all similar though.
- toast0 9y ago
  They're both attempts to prevent incumbent carriers from doing bad things. In Net Neutrality, you list the bad things and attempt to prohibit them. In local loop bundling, you make it possible for someone else to provide better service, so there's a competition incentive so the incumbents are less likely to do bad things. Of course, it's trivial to circumvent either. In net neutrality, you can't deprioritize traffic to someone you don't like, but you can underbuy transit, and setup restrictive peering agreements that only your friends happen to be able to meet. In local loop unbundling, you can sell your retail products for significantly less than the wholesale price (like Pacific Bell did), and make it harder to move services when customers are on an unbundled loop, thus providing an economic and convenience incentive to go with the incumbent. Even still, in this poorly regulationed unbundled loop case, it's economically feasible to get better residential service; in a poorly enforced net neutrality world, you won't necessarily have any real options if you don't want to pay crazy money to connect to dark fiber.

int_19h 9y ago

> It's like the "Affordable Care Act"...who doesn't want affordable-fucking-care? We are all currently learning, however, that this "care" is hardly that and "affordable" is nowhere in sight The polls show the opposite of what you're claiming, though. If they ask people whether they support ACA by name, the result is lower than when they ask whether they support specific provisions and programs that together add up to ACA.

cubano 9y ago
Probably because "ACA" triggers the words "Obamacare" in most peoples minds, right?
- int_19h 9y ago
  Probably because ACA/Obamacare has been specifically targeted by political ads and in the media by name. So many people don't really know what it does, but they do know that it's bad for some reason or the other.

colemickens 9y ago

>that this "care" is hardly that and "affordable" is nowhere in sight. What do you mean by this?

princeb 9y ago

i wonder if it's something like people saying "I support net neutrality", but then will be attracted to a plan that promises "free spotify" or "free netflix". that's probably irrelevant anyway. most people have principles but will act pragmatically.