I'm sure the majority of people don't know or care to know what net neutrality even is. The rest of the people think getting rid of it is a bad idea or are directly related to the decision making process (lobbyists, lawmakers).
Just to be the devil's advocate, could there be any positives that come from getting rid of it? Obviously there would be plenty of negatives but ignore those for a minute. Admittedly I'm no expert on the topic, but could it spur along faster developments in technology/infrastructure?
Why would it?
The reason that the Verizons, AT&Ts, and Comcasts want to put an end to Net Neutrality is because they don't want to be "dumb pipes", meaning, they just deliver other organizations' content. They want to serve their own. Over their own pipes.
When you're trying to watch Stranger Things, or Game of Thrones, and Verizon is your provider, do you think they're going to allow that traffic to move as fast as a "Redbox Reborn" service?
Verizon wireless has been throttling data speeds--especially for users on Netflix and YouTube--on their unlimited plans ever since Pai announced he would be overturning NN if he was approved for the position. They didn't even wait for the law to change--or even for him to get through confirmation.
Who exactly is for net nuetrality besides these giant corporations and politicians that will profit from it?
I assume you meant "against" and I haven't seen anyone outside of the corporations and this administration say they're against it.
Ajit Pai is a freaking queynte, with the most punchable face this side of Ted Cruz.
I did see one interesting, if slightly scary, suggestion as to why the NN repeal might turn out to be OK in the end, which is that while it's purely legislation it remains open to repeal and challenge at any time depending on who in the administration is being paid what by Verizon, whereas if this goes through concept of access to equal speeds could be challenged in the Supreme Court and if (big if) SCOTUS agrees that NN is right, it will become a Constitutional right that takes it permanently off the table for legislators.
I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how accurate that is, and even if it's right the fear would be that a loss at SCOTUS would have the opposite effect.
If the SC were to vote on it, yeah, their ruling would stand fairly permanently. But that's a whole different problem. What if does go to the Supreme Court? It would first have to meander through the lower courts. By the time it got there, Trump may have replaced another justice and tipped the balance.
