4 ms·

Fair question. IMO this is the government trying to appease the public after they refused to maintain net neutrality, despite overwhelming public support for th

Fair question. IMO this is the government trying to appease the public after they refused to maintain net neutrality, despite overwhelming public support for the policy. I've edited my comment to make that clear.

twblalock 7y ago
I have not heard anyone complain in person about the government killing net neutrality. The general public is not harboring resentment about it.
- dantheman 7y ago
  Yeah, I mean net neutrality lasted all of one year -- there wasn't a problem and there still isn't a problem. Perhaps one day net neutrality will be an issue but it's not one now. The issue that local governments granted monopolies to cable companies and telcos -- that's the true problem.
  - studentrob 7y ago
    > there wasn't a problem Throttling traffic to certain websites [1] is not a problem? The reason net neutrality policy came into being is ISPs were beginning to violate it [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-int... [2] https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/expla...
    - scarface74 7y ago
      The article authors didn’t understand peering agreements that have always been a thing. If one network receives more data than it sends there have always been price negotiations.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Yeah, I mean net neutrality lasted all of one year The FCC policy orientation lasted much longer than that, though the last of the various regimes by which the FCC pursued it only lasted about that long. Of course, the policy orientation was about maintaining a status quo on the internet which was only starting to crack when the first approaches were taken as commercial ISPs started breaking the way the internet has previously worked either to constrain costs or pursue various synergies with their other businesses; the basic state of neutrality on the internet was older than the FCC policy orientation toward actively maintaining it.
- studentrob 7y ago
  You must be joking. It was front page here and r/technology for months before net neutrality was repealed. There is no question that public support for net neutrality is broad and bipartisan. The only question that remains is which 2020 candidates will stand up to say they support net neutrality.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    I think their point is that outside of some online communities (i.e. most people in the public sphere) there isn't interest or even awareness to net neutrality.
    - studentrob 7y ago
      Oh I see now. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree it's not a top 5 issue now, but I believe this is our generation's first amendment torch. We can carry it, or let it go out. To that end, I tend to ignore anyone who suggests "this isn't important" or has the defeatist view that "nobody else understands this" because it is our job to share it with them.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    > general public > front page of r/technology If you think the average person follows r/technology, you may live in a bubble.
    - studentrob 7y ago
      Point is people who understand NN support it. I did not mean to imply non-techies get it, only that when they do, they largely support it.
      - antidesitter 7y ago
        > Point is people who understand NN support it. Absolutely wrong. Among people who understand NN and oppose it are people like Bob Kahn, Marc Andreessen, David Farber, David Clark, Louis Pouzin, and Jeff Pulver, not to mention numerous economists.

twblalock 7y ago

I have not heard anyone complain in person about the government killing net neutrality. The general public is not harboring resentment about it.

dantheman 7y ago
Yeah, I mean net neutrality lasted all of one year -- there wasn't a problem and there still isn't a problem. Perhaps one day net neutrality will be an issue but it's not one now. The issue that local governments granted monopolies to cable companies and telcos -- that's the true problem.
- studentrob 7y ago
  > there wasn't a problem Throttling traffic to certain websites [1] is not a problem? The reason net neutrality policy came into being is ISPs were beginning to violate it [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-int... [2] https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/expla...
  - scarface74 7y ago
    The article authors didn’t understand peering agreements that have always been a thing. If one network receives more data than it sends there have always been price negotiations.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Yeah, I mean net neutrality lasted all of one year The FCC policy orientation lasted much longer than that, though the last of the various regimes by which the FCC pursued it only lasted about that long. Of course, the policy orientation was about maintaining a status quo on the internet which was only starting to crack when the first approaches were taken as commercial ISPs started breaking the way the internet has previously worked either to constrain costs or pursue various synergies with their other businesses; the basic state of neutrality on the internet was older than the FCC policy orientation toward actively maintaining it.
studentrob 7y ago
You must be joking. It was front page here and r/technology for months before net neutrality was repealed. There is no question that public support for net neutrality is broad and bipartisan. The only question that remains is which 2020 candidates will stand up to say they support net neutrality.
- bduerst 7y ago
  I think their point is that outside of some online communities (i.e. most people in the public sphere) there isn't interest or even awareness to net neutrality.
  - studentrob 7y ago
    Oh I see now. Thanks for pointing that out. I agree it's not a top 5 issue now, but I believe this is our generation's first amendment torch. We can carry it, or let it go out. To that end, I tend to ignore anyone who suggests "this isn't important" or has the defeatist view that "nobody else understands this" because it is our job to share it with them.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  > general public > front page of r/technology If you think the average person follows r/technology, you may live in a bubble.
  - studentrob 7y ago
    Point is people who understand NN support it. I did not mean to imply non-techies get it, only that when they do, they largely support it.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      > Point is people who understand NN support it. Absolutely wrong. Among people who understand NN and oppose it are people like Bob Kahn, Marc Andreessen, David Farber, David Clark, Louis Pouzin, and Jeff Pulver, not to mention numerous economists.