like climate change, it's all about the bad things that could/will happen, little/no present pain, so hard to get voters to care
not to that degree, but your general sentiment is correct, need more negative real world impact to move voters (and rightly so)
Long but insightful article by a writer on The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15715030/what-is-net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-bill-rules-repealed
Why does the Internet need to be touched at all? It's been working well. Allowing ISPs to have any saying in accessing content seems like the definition of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
you have it reversed. The internet was fine. then the FCC touched it and now broadband investment is down. 'not touching it' is what Republicans want. Stop ****ing with the internet and if this fabled bogeyman ever happens then let antitrust laws handle it just like FTC commissioner Olhausen proposed.
Net neutrality have always been there, since the start of the internet, in case you did not realize it.
the FCC tried to pass net neutrality twice and was shot down by the courts both times claiming they didn't have authority, so the FCC gave themselves authority with Title 2 and therefore the third time they pushed for net neutrality, it passed the courts. It never occurred to liberals to just vote on it in Congress. the FTC (specifically commissioner Olhausen) warned that TItle 2 was an awful idea that was unneeded and would hurt broadband investment and they were right on both accounts. Also just the concept of neutrality makes little sense. you have limited bandwidth, data has to be prioritized some how. No matter how that is, it wont be neutral.
People are clueless, I know people who are benefiting from net neutrality, but they have no idea what it is or what it is all about. These are small business owners whose business traffic would be slowed down if net neutrality does not exist, but they vote for the GOP, which for the most part are against net neutrality, once again proving people voting against self interest to put GOP in power.
The problem with that remedy/protection is that antitrust is too expensive and takes too long... the large ISPs can hire the best lawyers and stall the process via discovery, motions and appeals for years. By then the large ISP has driven the startup out of business. There is no pressure on the larger ISP to compromise.
this has never happened before, but if it did it could be great for them. They could end up paying less if they need less bandwidth. mom and pop operations selling stuff from their house would probably love the option from their ISP to pay less for lower priority. Again if you wanted to stop this, mechanisms already exist. Title 2 was not needed. Also how do all these small businesses benefit from worse broadband infrastructure since broadband investment is down? by this logic antitrust laws are useless. the point of them is preventative. And all it takes is one case to establish a precedent.
then a reduction in broadband investment should be terrifying to them. Only other time that's happened is in 2008 during the recession.
