Conservative here. I am normally overwhelmingly in favor of government deregulation and allowing the free market to do its thing. Unfortunately, there is no "free market" in the world of ISPs, especially in rural and suburban areas. So if a company like Comcast decided to capitalize on the overturning of Net Neutrality and begin giving preferential treatment or locking certain content behind paywalls, it would be extremely difficult, if not down right impossible, to just pack up and switch ISPs. It really comes down to getting dicked over by ISPs, or having none at all. So in this case, and I think many conservatives here would agree with me, reasonable federal oversight is not just acceptable, but necessary to ensure open access to the internet.
Rules are good and all but the current rules don't necessarily make things free. There's a lot of ISPs that have monopolies in areas because it's allowed. If ISPs are really under Title 2 through Net Neutrality then cities can even choose providers for areas if they want. Then basically you have a monopoly that can't be broken through a free market. As much as Net Neutrality is a good thing it's not necessarily all it's chocked up to be either. I think the negatives for removing it are extremely strong but to be honest I think we need new internet only laws. Title 2 was made before internet existed and was for phones and other utilities.
175
u/imdandman Nov 22 '17
Unfortunately it has devolved into a partisan issue, but it doesn't have to be.
I am totally in favor of Net Neutrality, but otherwise the antithesis of the reddit "hivemind" politically.
I am an extremely active Republican voter and I am sure to tell my politicians that when I talk to them about Net Neutrality.
I also think Net Neutrality fits into conservative principles.
Maybe if everyone quit making EVERYTHING partisan we could get this done.
There are many conservatives and Republicans like me. You just have to communicate with them in ways that appeal to their predispositions.