4 ms·

Why do the Republicans hate Net neutrality so much?

wmf 8y ago
Because Republicans are "pro-business" and favor "small government" while net neutrality is "anti-business" and "large government".
- zigzaggy 8y ago
  Funny that you put all these “issues” in quotes. Gave me a smile. :) Because as we know: Government spending is growing at an unprecedented rate under current POTUS, and corporate welfare is alive and well.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  That doesn't really ring true. If they were actually in favor of those things then they would also be eliminating build-out requirements and other regulations so that it would be easier to start a small ISP with e.g. 500 customers in one section of town, without having to raise enough capital to cover an entire region or being sued into bankruptcy by the incumbents under existing laws. This is less ideology and more corruption.
  - president 8y ago
    People against net-neutrality either: 1. Don't know what net-neutrality really is 2. Are against it because their "team" is against it. 3. Or are getting paid to oppose it
    - Agustus 8y ago
      Negative. People who support net neutrality do not know what net neutrality really is. Net neutrality is a push by the big corporations to avoid having to pay for the pipeline they use. Google, Netflix, and the like that use huge amounts of bandwidth. You are witnessing rent seeking 101, the corporations on one side are trying to get regulations to help themselves.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        Companies that use large amounts of bandwidth pay for all of it. They pay the full cost of bringing that traffic to a peering exchange. Comcast isn't going to pick it up for free from Google Headquarters. Carrying the traffic from the peering exchange to the end customer is what the end customer is paying the ISP for. Charging for that again is double dipping, using the leverage created by the last mile monopoly to charge for what has already been paid for.
      - president 8y ago
        Are you saying that ISPs aren't being paid fairly today?
    - Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
      Net neutrality is a requirement to give no special treatment to any kind of network traffic. Am I right on #1? I must say that my impression of the issue is totally opposite, because to me the idea of net neutrality makes no technical sense whatsoever. There's a multitude of reasons one might want to shape the traffic.
korethr 8y ago
The Republican party typically has been the party which favors the interests of businesses; governmental regulation of various industries (expensive and needless interference from their perspective) is anathema to them. Well, a law forbidding any of the various things protested under the banner of Net Neutrality does amount of the terrible bugaboo of Regulation. Therefore, It Must Be Stopped. This is a bit of an oversimplification and the principles behind it are a bit more nuanced than presented here (regulatory capture is a thing and it can suck), but it's a good first approximation.
- paulgb 8y ago
  >> This is a bit of an oversimplification If anyone is interested in getting into the weeds, this conversation gave me a more nuanced view on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKD-lBrZ_Gg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKD-lBrZ_Gg
seabird 8y ago
It's bad for business. You do have to remember that a lot of movers n' shakers (Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Broadcom, IBM, and a slew of other companies that have a product other than advertising/user data and need hardware and support to keep expanding to stay afloat) see net neutrality as a large threat, so politicians that are opposed to it are in good company in terms of corporate donors.
- onepremise 8y ago
  It's bad for large cap corporations looking to establish monopolies. It's great for small businesses.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

wmf 8y ago

Because Republicans are "pro-business" and favor "small government" while net neutrality is "anti-business" and "large government".

zigzaggy 8y ago
Funny that you put all these “issues” in quotes. Gave me a smile. :) Because as we know: Government spending is growing at an unprecedented rate under current POTUS, and corporate welfare is alive and well.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
That doesn't really ring true. If they were actually in favor of those things then they would also be eliminating build-out requirements and other regulations so that it would be easier to start a small ISP with e.g. 500 customers in one section of town, without having to raise enough capital to cover an entire region or being sued into bankruptcy by the incumbents under existing laws. This is less ideology and more corruption.
- president 8y ago
  People against net-neutrality either: 1. Don't know what net-neutrality really is 2. Are against it because their "team" is against it. 3. Or are getting paid to oppose it
  - Agustus 8y ago
    Negative. People who support net neutrality do not know what net neutrality really is. Net neutrality is a push by the big corporations to avoid having to pay for the pipeline they use. Google, Netflix, and the like that use huge amounts of bandwidth. You are witnessing rent seeking 101, the corporations on one side are trying to get regulations to help themselves.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      Companies that use large amounts of bandwidth pay for all of it. They pay the full cost of bringing that traffic to a peering exchange. Comcast isn't going to pick it up for free from Google Headquarters. Carrying the traffic from the peering exchange to the end customer is what the end customer is paying the ISP for. Charging for that again is double dipping, using the leverage created by the last mile monopoly to charge for what has already been paid for.
    - president 8y ago
      Are you saying that ISPs aren't being paid fairly today?
  - Mikhail_Edoshin 8y ago
    Net neutrality is a requirement to give no special treatment to any kind of network traffic. Am I right on #1? I must say that my impression of the issue is totally opposite, because to me the idea of net neutrality makes no technical sense whatsoever. There's a multitude of reasons one might want to shape the traffic.

korethr 8y ago

The Republican party typically has been the party which favors the interests of businesses; governmental regulation of various industries (expensive and needless interference from their perspective) is anathema to them. Well, a law forbidding any of the various things protested under the banner of Net Neutrality does amount of the terrible bugaboo of Regulation. Therefore, It Must Be Stopped. This is a bit of an oversimplification and the principles behind it are a bit more nuanced than presented here (regulatory capture is a thing and it can suck), but it's a good first approximation.

paulgb 8y ago
>> This is a bit of an oversimplification If anyone is interested in getting into the weeds, this conversation gave me a more nuanced view on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKD-lBrZ_Gg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKD-lBrZ_Gg

seabird 8y ago

It's bad for business. You do have to remember that a lot of movers n' shakers (Cisco, Juniper, Alcatel, Ericsson, Qualcomm, Broadcom, IBM, and a slew of other companies that have a product other than advertising/user data and need hardware and support to keep expanding to stay afloat) see net neutrality as a large threat, so politicians that are opposed to it are in good company in terms of corporate donors.

onepremise 8y ago
It's bad for large cap corporations looking to establish monopolies. It's great for small businesses.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]