will Net Neutrality be an issue in the 2020 elections

[Virginiá]

I think there is often some unnecessary hype and doom-and-glooming in this debate, but what I worried about most was long-term effects in the way the internet developed. The actions that net neutrality sought to ban are those that I believe are detrimental to the internet and in many cases serve no purpose other than to engorge the bank accounts of ISPs. So I don't think a year is enough time to evaluate the issue, particularly when ISPs are battling state-level attempts at regulation and are probably wary of making waves in the industry by doing exactly what proponents of NN predicted they would do.

So nothing has changed for me.

Also:

https://hothardware.com/news/research-study-isps-throttling-streaming-services-post-net-neutrality


fwiw, I'm just going to state flat out there is basically no way to change my mind on this. Not any way I can think of. Even if the companies don't want to do what net neutrality regulations seek to prevent, I'd still want the regulations just in case that changes in the future.

Also I don't think this will be a big issue in 2020. It's something people generally support but don't get fired up over (outside of a small but very vocal base). Probably all the Democrats will support it, so no surprise there.

[Del Tachi]

Democrats just wish that ISPs and the government would team up against them, it plays into their martyr complex

[courts]

i think fosta is a bigger deal

[brucejoel99]

I think it'll be an issue (much moreso in the Democratic primary than in the general election), but it won't be a defining issue (in either the primary or general), for precisely the reasons that Virginiá intimated more than a year ago now. In the general election, I think it'll be brought up by the Democrats about as often as Merrick Garland was brought up by the Democrats in the 2016 general election campaign: surprisingly too little.

That being said, I think that if the Democrats take back the White House in 2020, then a Democratic-led FCC will reinstate the rules, though they're gonna have to go through the same rule-making process as last time. But b/c the inevitable ping-ponging between having rules & not having rules isn't gonna be good for anybody, I also think that we could very well see a permanent fix enacted by the 117th Congress as well.

[dead0man]

well, it's been another 3 years.  It wasn't a big deal in the election or even the Dem primaries.  Biden hasn't done anything with it yet, neither has congress.  The internet is cheaper and faster, the world did not end.  Are you ready to rethink now or do you need another 4 years?


This went from The Most Important Issue Of Our Time^TM to 100% forgotten.

[Mr. Reactionary]

well, it's been another 3 years.  It wasn't a big deal in the election or even the Dem primaries.  Biden hasn't done anything with it yet, neither has congress.  The internet is cheaper and faster, the world did not end.  Are you ready to rethink now or do you need another 4 years?


This went from The Most Important Issue Of Our Time^TM to 100% forgotten.

Not surprising since the Dems now are all about the owners of private networks censoring and controlling the content on their privately owned networks. When the big tech oligopolies conspired together to deplatform parler off of server rentals over legal content they didnt like much of the left cheered and defended the decision as muh privately owned infrastructure. Its odd that privately owned infrastructure can deplatform legal speech it doesnt like but cannot charge different rates to transmit legal speech it doesnt like.

[dead0man]

well, it's been another couple years and Biden finally got his FCC chair in and she's ready to save the day and bring back Net Neutrality.  Finally, our long national nightmare is over.  Clearly this was as important to Biden as it was to redavs (not at all).  Do you even remember what it was about?  The answer is "no" because you didn't know what it was about even when you were wetting yourself over the idea of it going away.

[Aurelius2]

The whole kerfuffle around "Net Neutrality" was always, from the very beginning, a very obvious attempt by Netflix & co to weasel their way out of paying their fair share toward the infrastructure to support the *enormous* increase in internet traffic their streaming services caused. Turning it into a PR shltfest against the Big Bad telecoms in the court of public opinion was quite a creative and bold strategy, I will admit.

In general (70-80% of the time - there are notable exceptions), if the Electronic Frontier Foundation stridently supports something, it should be opposed.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

"Nothing changed" nope, why do you think there are more unskippable ads on everything? Why is the paper of record paywalled?

[Aurelius2]

"Nothing changed" nope, why do you think there are more unskippable ads on everything? Why is the paper of record paywalled?

The New York times is paywalled because journalism costs lots of money to produce. Print newspapers are full of ads, and always have been, yet that didn't stop them from charging to buy a copy. This is nothing new. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[Vosem]

"Nothing changed" nope, why do you think there are more unskippable ads on everything? Why is the paper of record paywalled?

They are counting on people not knowing how to clear their cookies and never doing a Google search. The Enemy of the People is not paywalled for me.

[PSOL]

Thank goodness we have a president like Biden in charge during this tumultuous time.