4 ms·

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 It was front page here and r/technology for months before net neutrality was repealed.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 neu

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 It was front page here and r/technology for months before net neutrality was repealed.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.
    - studentrob 7y ago
      Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007, and it's about legislation, not policy, so it could have meant something different at that time. It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. Regional broadband monopolies can strong arm content providers for higher prices by zero-rating services that become "part of the [insert telecom name here] network". Regional broadband monopolies suck.
      - antidesitter 7y ago
        > Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007 You must not have searched very thoroughly. Here’s the first article that came up when I searched “David Farber net neutrality”: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-saving-the-open-internet/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-savi... > it could have meant something different at that time Nope. It meant basically the same thing it does today. > It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. The firms and investors backing NN also stand to benefit from it, so this ad hominem is moot.
        studentrob 7y ago
        > You must not have searched very thoroughly. You're being fairly condescending while assuming I should read the biographies of 7 people based on your brief comment. I'll make this my last comment. Here is a video titled to make you believe Bob Kahn is against network neutrality [1]. Net neutrality does not come up until the question & answer period. Bob states that the word is just a slogan and that you need to look at what is intended by policy. His response is long, nuanced, and he points out several times that he is against policy that would fracture the internet. And again, that was in 2007. In 2019, we have a better idea of what net neutrality policy looks like, and we know that ISPs abuse it because they are regional monopolies. Countries that do not have regional monopolies do not seem to have such issues of abuse. So, there are two options to foster sufficient competition. Bring back net neutrality, or eliminate regional broadband monopolies. [1] https://youtu.be/ZnP5ZgfnN58?t=6228 https://youtu.be/ZnP5ZgfnN58?t=6228

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.
  - studentrob 7y ago
    Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007, and it's about legislation, not policy, so it could have meant something different at that time. It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. Regional broadband monopolies can strong arm content providers for higher prices by zero-rating services that become "part of the [insert telecom name here] network". Regional broadband monopolies suck.
    - antidesitter 7y ago
      > Have the net founders in that list discussed the topic recently? I only see results from 2007 You must not have searched very thoroughly. Here’s the first article that came up when I searched “David Farber net neutrality”: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-saving-the-open-internet/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-savi... > it could have meant something different at that time Nope. It meant basically the same thing it does today. > It is unsurprising that investors like Andreessen are opposed to net neutrality: they stand to get richer without it. The firms and investors backing NN also stand to benefit from it, so this ad hominem is moot.
      - studentrob 7y ago
        > You must not have searched very thoroughly. You're being fairly condescending while assuming I should read the biographies of 7 people based on your brief comment. I'll make this my last comment. Here is a video titled to make you believe Bob Kahn is against network neutrality [1]. Net neutrality does not come up until the question & answer period. Bob states that the word is just a slogan and that you need to look at what is intended by policy. His response is long, nuanced, and he points out several times that he is against policy that would fracture the internet. And again, that was in 2007. In 2019, we have a better idea of what net neutrality policy looks like, and we know that ISPs abuse it because they are regional monopolies. Countries that do not have regional monopolies do not seem to have such issues of abuse. So, there are two options to foster sufficient competition. Bring back net neutrality, or eliminate regional broadband monopolies. [1] https://youtu.be/ZnP5ZgfnN58?t=6228 https://youtu.be/ZnP5ZgfnN58?t=6228