I don't have a preference who gets paid what in this situation as both are multi-billion dollar companies. Netflix serves as a middleman in a big machine as does Comcast. I have to care about my direct interests instead of spending energy on a crusade on behalf of a big tech company with the liability of the cost & making sure that the legislation does have any unintended consequences. Knowing politicians & lobbyists, there are always unintended consequences to any piece of legislation.
From what I'm seeing, the argument for NN is moot, heavy-handed, & rife with unintended consequences; Unless you can provide information about how somebody like me is adversely affected by something that only NN legislation would solve, why should somebody like me support NN when there are many alternatives that would be better for me? With NN, Comcast, Verizon, etc. are only going to capture the regulators to crack down on their competition (e.g. independent ISPs).
Focusing on providing better competition for underserved markets, included distributed networks & community wifi, would probably be more effective at keeping the quality of ISP market high. Improving distributed tech & removing (or rendering obsolete) legislation that limit competition to 1-2 ISPs in a region would also truly be beneficial. I also care about distributed systems. Is there something that regulation would do that the free market would not?
I'm a wee bit tired of NN being an oxygen-sucking rallying cry wedge issue that does not solve the root issues that affect me personally, but instead could be another regulatory tool to crack down on independent providers & distributed platforms.
NN is another of a long list of schemes to crack down on independent providers to capture yet another set of markets by the govt, lawyers, technocrats, etc. I wouldn't put it past Comcast to act as the heel in this charade.
