Well, evidence suggests that the 'battle' may be difficult, but that the 'war' is on the side of NN people. It seems that the Reps. have been given the keys to the house and promptly shoved them up their nose and into their ears. Making the argument that the Reps. have any idea what they are doing is nonsense (even by 'normal' standards of the US Gov.). Though the Reps. are 'in control' they are evidently nincompoops. Yes, they have done some 'damaging' things, but their main policy goals and bills are coming out like wet farts.
I don't even understand how this became a bi-partisan issue. Everyone I know, republican and democrat, are for NN. The only people that are against NN are convinced it was introduced by Obama in order to "socialize the internet"
Do you know anyone who bought a T-Mobile plan that allows them to "binge on" unlimited Netflix while charging a per-gigabyte rate for other data? That's zero-rating, which is against net neutrality.
The scary images of tiered Internet packages from Portugal and Indonesia that are being passed around are also about zero-rating. They are really no different from mobile plans we have in the US, except that their advertising happens to be more brutally honest.
People like net neutrality as an abstract principle when it's described to them, but many people will gladly personally give it up to watch a TV series.
To be clear, I think this is a bad thing. I think zero-rating is anti-competitive. But there are people who love it. That's what it means to be against net neutrality.
First, I don't think you understand what the term "false equivalence" means.
But leaving that aside, I didn't say all Republicans are against Net Neutrality. I'm sure some are in favor of it, just like you can find the odd pro-choice or gay Republican. But the Republican Party as a whole is against NN, and has been very vocal about wanting to get rid of it. Republicans said "If we get elected we're going to get rid of Net Neutrality," and then they got elected. So, you know, no surprise here.
